Warfare 1944 is the better game. It's more strategic. I've noticed a couple issues with it (see end of post) but mostly it's good.
Best units-- Long range/Artillery: Mortar Team. These guys have an upgrade, they don't need extra resources for their trouble, and, most importantly, they stay alive far longer than the sniper, because the mortar team stays right in the back, firing away for the entire game session. You'll need one mortar for the entire game; by contrast you'll need a few snipers (if you can afford them), and multiple artillery/air support strikes (if you can afford them) to maybe, MAYBE help you out. With a mortar team, you can focus instead on the people that keep you alive--your infantry. 2. Infantry: with grenades, the difference between assault and other infantry tends to fall away to an extent. Both are effective. 3. Defence: Machine guns are the obvious choice. 4. Surprisingly annoying offence: Bazooka teams. But (a) it's too hard to get too many; (b) they have a low defence and die relatively easy. 5. Officers--undecided on their utility. I never buy artillery upgrades but they up infantry damage, which is fairly useful. That's been good once or twice, but mostly I stay away from picking them. Perhaps this is an error.
Bugs/Balance issues:
1. Bug 1:grenades may be thrown at zero resources, for free. 2. Bug 2: Occasionally multiple units take cover in the same bunker. I do not know what causes this or why it happens. 3. Bug 3: Occasionally units bypass cover without instructions to do so, when the cover is empty of units. 4. Observation: Panzershrecks, Bazooks and Tanks target one another appropriately now. 5. Artillery/Air Support based strategies are costly and give poor returns in comparison to mortar teams or the purchase of actual units. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, they can only be called with the presence of the expensive officer unit. Secondly, they cost resources themselves. Thirdly, they provide limited and very uncertain returns. Fourthly, and top of all that, they require upgrade points to become available. By contrast a mortar team provides a constant barrage (of uncertain value), for a very long time (because they stay in the back and mostly survive that way). They are clearly the preferable choice. I am not sure how to fix this. One possible method is to permit one officer 1 air strike (and 1 artillery strike) gratis on purchase of the officer (and the appropriate upgrade paths).
I love both too and would play the different versions to suit my mood on the day. If I feel more up to it, I'd go for 1944 because it's more challenging in terms of coming up with a strategy etc. On a day when I feel more sluggish, I would go back to 1917 just to get some AI blown up! Hehehe...
1917 was a bit easy. 1944 was a bit challenging. Both were good. But, 1917 had the same background and it didn't change. 1944 was a little better because the background changed. Instead of trenches, you can use different cover in 1944.
hard to say for me I like them both but 1917 was easy while 1944 had more of a challenge. If I had to pick between the two I would say 1944. 1917 was trench warfare...running from hole to hole was getting boring for me
1944 is way better because in 1917 it was your best guys against there best guys but in 1944 you have 3 lines and it is much more challenging if you find 1944 hard post a comment that says my brainz hurt when i play 1944
i agree completely with Fyrefox's reply on the first page. ConArtist did very well on both games, and they are both amazing. 1944 is more challenging, and more strategy which i like.
1917 is simpler, and doesnt require as much strategy but is very fun nonetheless.
as i said i agree with Fyrefox, i love them both equally.
