I like the look of this game (well, not the graphics per se, but you know what I mean) but I'd like to have a clear understanding of what it has that RTW doesn't have. I've played through a few RTW campaigns and enjoyed them immensely, though sometimes the lack of depth in the campaign section (as opposed to the battles) did strike me, and they do seem to be a bit same-y.
Post by cuirasspolisher on Oct 6, 2018 14:52:34 GMT -5
The most important thing SAI has to offer that RTW doesn't is operational planning. Instead of battles being randomly generated, you choose which ships to deploy each turn and command them from the moment they leave port. This gives you freedom to devise and execute detailed plans: you might engage the enemy's battlecruisers with your own, lure them into a submarine ambush, and pounce on them with your battle fleet. If you find yourself in a hopeless situation, it's always your fault, not the RNG's. You also have control over aspects of fleet management RTW abstracts, including setting repair priority, training individual ships, and organizing your fleet. However, SAI ignores ship design and grand strategy and doesn't model global operations. I'd say the game is worth buying (and the campaign extension is free with the base game).
Post by julianbarker on Oct 29, 2018 14:24:06 GMT -5
If you have ever looked at a map of the North Sea and looked through the OOBs for the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet for Jutland and ever thought 'I would love to be able to play out all of WW1 in the North Sea' then SAI plus the campaign add on is exactly what you wished for.
SAI would be even more palatable if there were more campaigns, even fantasy ones. For example, a Mediterranean campaign in which Italy is sided with the Triple Alliance. Furthermore, if the ability to handle the tactical phase of SAI was incorporated into the Thunder at Sea campaigns (or something like that) based on the 2WW the attractiveness of the game would be much greater.