Today's recreated battles are played on computers, using software that can monitor activities from small, squad-based firefights to massive battles fought accross continents. This eliminates the need for players to constantly reference pages of rules, instead allowing them to actually play a game that's enjoyable. In my case, the history of World War II has always piqued my interest. In replaying battles such as the North Africa campaigns, the assault on the beaches at Normandy, France, or numerous other campaigns, lets me wonder if I could have changed the course of history.

Gary Grigsby's World at War is one such game I wanted to try out. Normally, when playing a war game which involves the entire world, it gets a bit messy and confusing if there are a lot of units positioned all over the map. I have a tendency to miss something critical, which can cause me to watch helplessly as what I thought was a solid defense or great offense is brutally destroyed by a ruthless computer.

Developed by 2by3 Games, and published by Matrix Games Inc, World at War brings to the moderately experienced or expert player a system that's easy to understand, but not easy to beat. Installation requirements don't require wallet drainage, and playing the tutorials will have you understanding the game interface in no time. The campaign scenarios can be played vanilla, or modified until you're personally micro-managing every aspect of combat, production, and research.

One thing that caught my attention was how World at War bore a certain resemblance to Risk and Axis & Allies, which are two fine board games that I have played in the past. I also made a few changes to the options, so production mode would be human controlled instead. With that done, I cranked up the first scenario and began my plan to conquer the world.

The game graphics weren't disappointing. Lots of splashy color is used to show neutral, allied, and enemy countries. Unit displays are recognizable, as were the different info screens. The background music was pleasant to listen to and not too distracting. I don't know what the typical player likes when it comes to music or sound, but I normally turn off the music as it's distracting, and uses resources better spent on actual game play.

Another thing about strategy games which I favor, and which holds true for World at War, is when everything can be done just by using the mouse, but keyboard control is still an option. My preference is mouse over keyboard commands. I hate wasting time memorizing what each key does, and since quite a few games will have different configurations it becomes a big headache pulling out charts, or popping down a game menu to find that little used command. Many a game I've played ended up banished to the book shelf when I thought it had more keyboard usage then mouse control.

Gameplay is in two stages: movement and production. All pieces have movement limitations when attacking enemy pieces, but strategic movement will be based on what territory you control. Navel units have a greater range of movement, but only control the region they're in. Supply is of importance, and is represented by supply trucks. Air units also can have extended movement, depending on the type of unit. With movement comes combat, which is resolved on the spot. What's really nice is a small popup that shows your odds of taking over a country. If you have a poor chance of succeeding, or feel the conquest isn't worth the losses, then there is a revert button that will undo the current move.

Production can be a set and forget, or you can get your hands dirty and control what you want to build. As with all production, there are time limits depending on what you're producing. These are set by the seasons and the years, so if you want to build that dream aircraft carrier then be prepared for a long wait. Strategic movement is handled a bit differently, in that you can move your units further as long as it's through allied or occupied territory. The computer will monitor, advise you when moving a unit that it will be strategic movement, and indicate this with arrows following the path you took.

There were few negative aspects to the game. Not having enough tutorial scenarios, especially when it came to production, was a bit disappointing. The battle scenes seemed more of an afterthought, and a bit amateurish. With no ability to command your forces during the battle, it was largely a wasted part of the game. I felt that some of the menu screens were more like eye candy, as their functions were mainly trivial.

Among things that may be of interest to some, are online play and a play by e-mail system which I did not try out. Why not? First because of my previous experiences with playing other live players. Secondly, I might look at the e-mail for a few days. It's just something that's not my area of interest when playing a war game.

For the wargamer who likes something a bit different, you'll find this game interesting with a sound replayability factor, especially when you want something that doesn't require micro managing. Also be aware that, if you're thinking about trying out this type of game for the first time, I would classify World at War as medium to difficult, depending on whether you let the computer handle all production or do it yourself. For me it's a keeper, and I'll have fun whether I do an all night marathon or just a few turns.