K, i know there were other warfare 1944 posts but they were made before it was released and did not focus on this.
So im asking this question. Ive seen a lot of people complain about it but i dont understand why these people are doing so. Sure there are bugs but con is just about to get another version of it out soon. This will be great and even better
I think 1944 went bad for some people because it is more strategic. It is more harder and some gamers like to just unleash their armies simply and see the destruction.
Personally, i think it was great and may be better than 1917.
I personally liked both games, finished them both to the end.
Yea fair enough they need a bit of tweeking but doesnt every game..? Another installment would be good to see and its sad to hear that it may not happen.
Still, it was a good upgrade with more of a strategic feel about it.
I liked 1944 better than 1917 just seemed more strategic rather than just trying to get my men to get a lucky breakthrough although it was probably more true to WW1 i thought the harder difficulty was good
After you get flank, send all of your troops in the middle and bottom rows and the enemy will do the same. Then, just save up a ton of resources and blast the top row with riflemen and assault teams, spaced out so every team flanks. Then, their morale will go to 0 and you'll win too easily -_-
its pretty good but i enjoyed warfare 1917 more i liekd how u could get more than just a single squad in a piece of cover and how tanks were good while in warfare 1944 tanks iether decimate or blow up almost instantaneously
Strategy games are my favourite types of games and usually the more strategic they are then the better for me. But in this case quite a lot went wrong besides that. First, personally I don't like 3 line games like that and I would have prefered it to stay 1 lane. Also all of the battles are one sided on campaign. Playing as the americans is all you seem to do is make as many troops as possible and have a huge charge at the beginning. Otherwise you stand no chance later on. Overall it was still a good game but it let me down because it wasn't as good as warfare: 1917.
I liked Warfare 1944 much better than the first one. I was able to be more strategic, instead of just throwing money into the war. The only thing I didn't like is that only one group of soldiers could hide behind something at once, because I thought it would be fun to save up a ton of soldiers then blast the other side all at once.
To put some rumors and such to rest, there will be a third warfare. And this is why 1944 will be the last modern history Warfare game.sigh - Con This means the next one will not be modern. On his website Con said this:
I can tell you two things.
1) It won't be in chronological order with the previous two.
2) It probably won't have any firearms in it.
So people should be expecting one in prehistoric or the like. Also, nothing went wrong with Warfare 1944. It just got harder.
I liked it but thought that it was actually easier than 1917 because, I have tried and tried but still can't beat the last level of 1917 it took me about 90 mins to be 1944...
