Falklands, Modern War, WW1

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Opinions, good, bad or both as well as order in which you like those three if you want, of Falkland, Modern War and WW1. I might be looking for something soon and wonder how others like the play of these three.

[Rabbit]

It is hard to rank those three titles because they are very different from one another and it really comes down to personal preference.

Falklands consists of smaller sized units. Small weaponry and the bravery of just a few individuals rule the day in this title. The neat thing about Falklands is that it was a very small war such that the SB title reproduces it much closer to a 1:1 scale vs. the other SB titles whose scenarios represent portions of famous battles. The thing I enjoyed most about Falklands is that it felt like I could play through the entire war and experience it in its full entirety, both in breadth and depth.

WW1 is completely the opposite of Falklands. It has very large scale units and pure human body count is what rules the day in this title. Personally I find the title depressing because it involves such large scale slaughter. However I also find it fascinating how the strategy plays very differently from the other SB titles and well reflects the strategies employed in WW1. And that's essentially what I enjoyed most about this title - that I gained a much greater appreciation and understanding about that conflict by playing the title.

And Modern War is yet very different from the above two titles. Weaponry and armor play a vastly greater role in this title. And it involves very different strategies than the above two titles. For instance, the poorly armed Taliban have plenty of tricks up their sleeves, with plenty of RPGs and IEDs. It is a fun title that poses a lot of unique challenges. And despite the overpowering nature of the weapons and armor, it is surprising how individual squads can still swing a battle.

So to summarize, each of the titles reflect their particular conflicts exceedingly well. My suggestion would be to pick the war or else the style of warfare that interests you the most.

[Micha]

All 3 are great , i love them !

[kolc]

I am a fan of all three and agree with all that has been said so far. I will say though that WW1 is unique as a SB game. Lets just say if you were new to the series, I would not recommend it as a first SB game. It can be daunting.

[Jeff Conner]

And if you are looking for vehicle combat, Falklands has very little as it was almost exclusively an infantry battle.

[Volcano Man]

Another question is whether you like campaigns? The WW1 title has the most campaigns in any title if I am not mistaken (because I personally love them - the feeling of trying to set a LAP high score, and the feeling of progression). ;)

If you don't care about campaigns, then obviously this is a non-factor. Just saying. As mentioned though, the bad thing about WW1 usually being the unit density and the level of carnage.

Personally, I like all three titles, being that they show off how one game engine/system can be totally different depending on time and conflict. SqB is certainly very robust.