Some issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War



Message

micha1100 -> Some issues (12/18/2012 5:44:48 PM)

After reading some promising reviews I had bought the game some time ago to have something to do during the holidays, but now that I got around to start playing my first 1914 campaign (CP) I immediately ran into some issues that to a certain extent dampened my motivation to immerse myself in the game:

1. What happened to Austria-Hungary's army?
The game starts with some AH units near Serbia but just one lonely garrison unit in the north.
Historically, at the start of the war AH had deployed two armies at the Serbian theatre and three armies (and shortly afterwards a fourth) towards Russia. The latter armies started an (ill-fated) offensive against Russia at the end of August 1914. Where are those armies??

2. Why do Belgium and Britain join the war automatically?
Historically, if the Germans had not violated Belgian neutrality Belgium would not have joined the war and neither would have Britain, at least not at that time. Actually, with the advantages of hindsight and the knowledge of how difficult it was to attack entrenched units and how brittle the Russian giant was the best chance for Germany to win the war probably would have been to keep in the west only the minimum number of troops necessary to hold the fort against the French and use the rest offensively in the East which in all likelyhood would have led to a relatively early collapse of Russia. And with Russia retreating and France making no headway against Germany the Italians and Romanians would never have joined the Entente (possibly even entered the war on the side of the CP). All speculation, of course, but the way the game works now we have no way to explore that interesting route.

3. Why is Russia late to the party?
Historically, Germany declared war on Russia on 1st August, with AH following on the 6th. Yet in the game Russia enters the war only on turn 5 (20th August). In reality, Russian troops had already invaded East Prussia at that time.

4. Why can units move farther when they fight?
Ground units can move a certain number of hexes. If the hex they end up in is not adjacent to an enemy unit then that's it, the unit cannot move farther. But if there is an enemy present then our unit can attack it and, if the enemy vacates the hex, even move into that hex. To me this makes no sense at all. A unit should lose the option to attack if it ha sspend, say, more than half of its movement points .

5. Why don't air units evade ground attackers?
To my utter disbelief, my fighter unit, potentially able to intercept air attacks four hexes away, let itself be slaughtered by two Russian infantry units. I understand that air units are not only the airplanes itself, still it seems highly unrealistic that they just stay in place and let themselves be wiped out when enemy ground units approach. I think they should automatically relocate to safety when enemy units come adjacent to them, with a significant readiness loss and perhaps also a certain strength loss.

Those are some things I noticed very early in my playing experience. Am I missing anything concerning these issues or ar there explanations why things need to be so?



Mike Parker -> RE: Some issues (12/18/2012 6:25:09 PM)

Well for my 2 cents

1. I agree... it seems a scramble for AH to defend in Galacia because they start with almost nothing there!

2. I think Germany enters the war DOW on Belgium because otherwise the main line of play would be a very ahistoric Eastern Front first.

3. Could be fixed if AH started with appropriate forces in Galacia

4. I imagine that advance after combat was added... it would be better to allow any ground unit that can move and attack to instead of attacking to move an additional hex in lieu of making an attack.

5. I think you answered it yourself... an air unit represents much more than the aircraft, I do not have a problem with saying "Well if your unit got munched by 2 infantry units you should have moved them on your turn"



JJKettunen -> RE: Some issues (12/18/2012 6:27:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

1. What happened to Austria-Hungary's army?
The game starts with some AH units near Serbia but just one lonely garrison unit in the north.
Historically, at the start of the war AH had deployed two armies at the Serbian theatre and three armies (and shortly afterwards a fourth) towards Russia. The latter armies started an (ill-fated) offensive against Russia at the end of August 1914. Where are those armies??


You build them. Maybe you should also ask why there are hexes and counters, when they were not used in real life. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
2. Why do Belgium and Britain join the war automatically?
Historically, if the Germans had not violated Belgian neutrality Belgium would not have joined the war and neither would have Britain, at least not at that time. Actually, with the advantages of hindsight and the knowledge of how difficult it was to attack entrenched units and how brittle the Russian giant was the best chance for Germany to win the war probably would have been to keep in the west only the minimum number of troops necessary to hold the fort against the French and use the rest offensively in the East which in all likelyhood would have led to a relatively early collapse of Russia. And with Russia retreating and France making no headway against Germany the Italians and Romanians would never have joined the Entente (possibly even entered the war on the side of the CP). All speculation, of course, but the way the game works now we have no way to explore that interesting route.


I'm sure there are many other interesting routes, which are not included in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
3. Why is Russia late to the party?
Historically, Germany declared war on Russia on 1st August, with AH following on the 6th. Yet in the game Russia enters the war only on turn 5 (20th August). In reality, Russian troops had already invaded East Prussia at that time.


Perhaps the exact dates are not important from gaming point of view?

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
4. Why can units move farther when they fight?
Ground units can move a certain number of hexes. If the hex they end up in is not adjacent to an enemy unit then that's it, the unit cannot move farther. But if there is an enemy present then our unit can attack it and, if the enemy vacates the hex, even move into that hex. To me this makes no sense at all. A unit should lose the option to attack if it ha sspend, say, more than half of its movement points .


What is the problem here? It is so how the game engine works, and you play according to it. IGO-UGO -system with hexes is an abstraction of reality anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
5. Why don't air units evade ground attackers?
To my utter disbelief, my fighter unit, potentially able to intercept air attacks four hexes away, let itself be slaughtered by two Russian infantry units. I understand that air units are not only the airplanes itself, still it seems highly unrealistic that they just stay in place and let themselves be wiped out when enemy ground units approach. I think they should automatically relocate to safety when enemy units come adjacent to them, with a significant readiness loss and perhaps also a certain strength loss.


Why should air units evade ground attackers? Because they do so in some other game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
Those are some things I noticed very early in my playing experience. Am I missing anything concerning these issues or ar there explanations why things need to be so?


I think you are missing the point.



Myrddraal -> RE: Some issues (12/18/2012 6:41:26 PM)

Keep it friendly please folks, these are valid questions! [:)]

About the Russian entry - the first weeks of WWI involved a flurry of declarations of war and advances. It's not like WWII where the different fronts opened in a relatively spaced out manner. All this would be overwhelming for a new player. To try to solve this, we made the first few turns represent just one week (whereas later in the game, two weeks pass with each turn) but even with this, the game started very quickly.

So to answer your question, Russia's delayed entry is to try to make the game a bit more approachable.



JJKettunen -> RE: Some issues (12/18/2012 6:58:22 PM)

I'm not unfriendly, I'm just direct. [;)]



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/18/2012 9:40:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

1. ... Where are [AH's northern] armies??


You build them. Maybe you should also ask why there are hexes and counters, when they were not used in real life. [;)]


It's impossible to build those armies fast enough to replicate AH's initial offensive or at least provide significant defence.
If the game intends to simulate WWI (which I assume) it's very strange that it starts with a very ahistorical situation. AH was well aware that war with Serbia meant war with Russia. Even if it had decided against an offensive (which would probably have been prudent) it would never have left the Russian border undefended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
2. Why do Belgium and Britain join the war automatically?
... the way the game works now we have no way to explore that interesting route.


I'm sure there are many other interesting routes, which are not included in the game.


Possible, but that does not change (or invalidate) my opinion in any way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
3. Why is Russia late to the party?
Historically, Germany declared war on Russia on 1st August, with AH following on the 6th. Yet in the game Russia enters the war only on turn 5 (20th August)...


Perhaps the exact dates are not important from gaming point of view?


I think in a strategy game that recreates a real conflict dates are always important, and in this case the start of the Russian offensive is especially important as it puts the Germans under pressure. In reality the German High Command decided already at 25th August two send troops from the West to the East because the situation there seemed to develop unfavourably.
But if the Russian entry date was a design decision, as Myrddraal explains it, I of course accept that (although I personally don't quite agree with it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
4. Why can units move farther when they fight?
...


What is the problem here? It is so how the game engine works, and you play according to it. IGO-UGO -system with hexes is an abstraction of reality anyway.


What the problem is? It's already strange that units can still fight after spending all movement points, but that they effectively can move farther if they fight than if they do not simply makes no sense. I'm aware that this is how the game engine currently works but that does not mean it is correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100
5. Why don't air units evade ground attackers?
...


Why should air units evade ground attackers? Because they do so in some other game?


Yes, I guess my expectations come from other games, but those other games have a point there. Maybe in a tactical game with turns representing a few minutes or hours infantry can overrun an airfield and cause significant casualties but with turns of one or two weeks and the air units basically representing the flyers of a whole front they should not be vulnerable to ground attacks. We are not talking about blitzkrieg panzer raids, these were infantry armies moving at a very modest speed who would usually be dected early enough to give also the ground personnel of the air units ample time to evacuate.


So, Keke, you might be direct but what you wrote does not disprove my points.



Hanal -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 1:28:31 AM)

The original poster is quite accurate regarding Austria Hungary's lack of forces on the Eastern Front. At least 10 corps or there equivalent should be present.



Aurelian -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 2:42:51 AM)

Maybe someone will mod it?



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 8:05:02 AM)

quote:

The original poster is quite accurate regarding Austria Hungary's lack of forces on the Eastern Front. At least 10 corps or there equivalent should be present.


It would imbalance the whole campaign start and you would overwhelm Russia with ease and knock her out of the war very early, the thing you have to do is make sure you prepare AH in the first few turns before Russia will join in (check in diplomacy panel, how much time you have left). This also makes that AH, as a PP power house, cannot overwhelm and push Serbia out very fast as it will have to build up a strategic reserve to protect his borders with Russia and we believe it works very well in the game.

For a good strategic tactic, read SlickWilhelm`s AAR, his first steps against a privileged AI really holds some great tips and gameplay essentials:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=38749



JJKettunen -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 8:39:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

So, Keke, you might be direct but what you wrote does not disprove my points.



In short: don't let pseudo-realism ruin an excellent game.



Hanal -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 5:13:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

quote:

The original poster is quite accurate regarding Austria Hungary's lack of forces on the Eastern Front. At least 10 corps or there equivalent should be present.


It would imbalance the whole campaign start and you would overwhelm Russia with ease and knock her out of the war very early, the thing you have to do is make sure you prepare AH in the first few turns before Russia will join in (check in diplomacy panel, how much time you have left). This also makes that AH, as a PP power house, cannot overwhelm and push Serbia out very fast as it will have to build up a strategic reserve to protect his borders with Russia and we believe it works very well in the game.

For a good strategic tactic, read SlickWilhelm`s AAR, his first steps against a privileged AI really holds some great tips and gameplay essentials:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=38749



Well of course it would imbalance the game and overwhelm Russia if you decided to leave Russia's southern front empty too, as you did with the A-H army. Historically the Russian's had much succes on the Galacian front early in the war which caused A-H much concern.
It's funny how the three other games I have on WWI had no difficulty preserving the A-H and Russian armies on the southern front, but you had problems working this out because of imbalance gameplay issues....



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 5:46:28 PM)

We have no problems it is exactly as we wanted it to be and leave it to the player where he lies his focus on Serbia or The Russian front and how to find a balance between those two fronts according to his own liking, playing style or preferred strategy, so our scenario design choice as it gives the players some more choices on a strategic level, maybe not complete historical, but it makes it a more interesting game in our view.

You prefer something different. Can be easily done BTW in this game, by setting up other starting points and adding units across those borders, just a few Lua scripting rules, has nothing to do with imbalanced gameplay issues at all.



Myrddraal -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 5:51:01 PM)

Wow... merry Christmas everyone! Please keep you feedback and comments constructive and friendly... this could be a valid discussion, but it seems in danger of derailing.

We thought we'd done a pretty decent job of getting the balance of power about right in the Balkan and Russian fronts. The Serbs are well entrenched but very vulnerable to being outflanked, and the Russians have the punch to catch and unprepared AH player napping in Galacia and take Lemberg (although the long term benefits of such a tactic are doubtful).

If I've understood correctly, the issue you're raising is not about the balance of power, but the placement of the initial armies. It's a valid comment... our initial distribution isn't the most historically accurate if you take the starting positions on the day of the declaration of war. Having said that, the war plans of the Austro-Hungarians had intended a larger focus on Serbia, and we do have troops in railable positions so you can quickly mobilise in the same way as AH did.

This is perhaps something we could address in a patch... In the meantime, it would be very easy to mod if you're interested in moddingk.

Here's some whistle-stop answers to your other questions.

2. Why do Belgium and Britain join the war automatically?
This one was debated endlessly internally and during the beta period. When we went into beta, the decision to invade Belgium was left to the player, but the short answer is that in games where the player didn't invade Belgium was always ridiculously skewed. The CP player can easily hold back the French with a small, well entrenched force on a very very short front, and with the full German economy focused on Russia, the Russians always collapsed quickly. Note that the CP player is not obliged to focus on Belgium. You can still go for a 'Russia first' strategy, but to do this you will have to defend along the whole of the Western front.

In a previous thread discussing this, a poster summarised it neatly: a non-choice is no choice.

4. Why can units move farther when they fight?
The control system is simple, and that is intentional. The idea of the 'advance' move isn't intended as some kind of blitz tactic, it was introduced because otherwise situations developed on the tight frontlines where an enemy unit was destroyed but no friendly units could move to fill the breach. This is a very frustrating situation which is solved by this game mechanic. It does result in the perhaps odd situations in the opening moves of the game, but in the long run it is a good rule (imo).

5. Why don't air units evade ground attackers?
The fighter unit does not represent just the fighter. If you leave your airfields in such a position that the enemy can break through and capture them, you lose. Yes, the fighters themselves might be able to leg it, but they can't strap on all the supply depots and support structure and take it with them. You could easily argue that artillery would also be whisked away in the case of a breakthrough. Keeping your support units safe is part of the game, it isn't done automatically.

I hope that helps to explain our thinking a little. Hopefully, if you still disagree, it won't stop you enjoying the game! You say you've only played a few turns. It takes time (obviously) to get into any new game, especially if you've played similar games, the differences in rules can seem jarring. Give it a bit longer and hopefully you'll get used to / appreciate the mechanics of it.



ParaB -> RE: Some issues (12/19/2012 10:18:17 PM)

BTW I think you guys got the play balance down almost perfectly. It might not be a 100% realistic historical simulation of WW1 but it's one of the most entertaining strategy games I've played in years. And I've been playing these kind of games since Kampfgruppe on the C64... ;)



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 10:25:21 AM)

What I take from this discussion is: There were deliberate design decisions to misrepresent the historical situation to balance the game and because the game engine is not able to simulate the historical events correctly. The more I see about the game the less I'm surprised about that inability as many aspects of the war seem to be over-simplified for the sake of playability (I could go into further details here but I guess few people would be interested).

So what we have here is a game intended to be fun and balanced while being loosely connected to WWI. This is, in itself, perfectly okay (just like those unrealistic but fun basketball "simulations" where almost every possession ends in a monster dunk) but it is not what I looked for. For me, a strategy game simulating a real conflict should be as historical as possible. I understand that many people prefer playability to historical accuracy and I also understand the decision to accomodate this preference. But witht he game being as it is the product info of CtGW that expressly advertises "unprecedented realism and accuracy" (which materially influenced my decision to buy) is obviously false. I'm happy for all the people who enjoy the game but for myself I'm afraid that it does not meet my expectations and I have wasted my money.



wodin -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 10:39:37 AM)

micha it's been obvious to me after reading alot of posts here this isn't a serious WW1 simulation..more a fun strategy game loosely based on WW1. There is a game out that does cover WW1 in depth and is very good.

I see this game along the same lines as Panzer general in that it's more about fun than historical authenticity.

I'm not sure why people who bought it thought it would be more in depth than it is..just reading the AAR's was enough for me to say it wasn't for me. Not because it seems a bad game but because it was to light and not erm..WW1 enough for me.



JJKettunen -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 10:50:15 AM)

After being involved with a few of the games that try to be "as historical as possible" (which is a pipe dream in any case), being more simulators than games, I'm just glad that someone has priotirized playability over pseudo-realism. To say that the game is only loosely based on WW1 is snobistic nonsense.



warspite1 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 11:03:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

After being involved with a few of the games that try to be "as historical as possible" (which is a pipe dream in any case), being more simulators than games, I'm just glad that someone has priotirized playability over pseudo-realism. To say that the game is only loosely based on WW1 is snobistic nonsense.
warspite1

I wouldn't put it quite like that - is snobistic even a word? [;)] - but I fully agree with your sentiments. Particularly the pipe dream issue. You could have the most comprehensive, detailed OOB in the world, but as soon as something happens outside of actual history (caused by a lucky/unlucky dice throw or a player mistake) you potentially start a chain reaction that moves the game further and further away from actual events.

The Germans take Paris - oh no the game is borked. I want a game where the Germans never take Paris or its unrealistic... yeah, great game.....

Do you want a simulation or a game?



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 11:13:00 AM)

Just as a tip: if you like the scenarios that have units already on the front, more or less historical, start the 1915. 1916, 1917 or 1918 scenarios.



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 11:26:06 AM)

Keke - I know that it's impossible for a strategy game to perfectly simulate the historical conditions but in my opinion if a game deliberately alters the historical situation to a significant extent in order to achieve playability and balance it is not a serious conflict simulation. If that is snobistic then so be it.

Wodin - you are right, perhaps I should have gathered more information before I decided to buy. In the limited amount of reviews I had read I had not found any red flags and as I said, the advertised "unprecedented realism and accuracy" did significantly influence my decision. I'm not certain if buyers should be expected to extensively double-check claims made in the product info.



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 11:32:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

... You could have the most comprehensive, detailed OOB in the world, but as soon as something happens outside of actual history (caused by a lucky/unlucky dice throw or a player mistake) you potentially start a chain reaction that moves the game further and further away from actual events.

The Germans take Paris - oh no the game is borked. I want a game where the Germans never take Paris or its unrealistic... yeah, great game.....


I'm afraid you misunderstand me. Of course it must be possible to "change history". What I want is to be given the chance to do it in a "historical" way, that means in a way that would actually have been possible, but for this an accurate simulation is necessary. If, for example, I make a successful deep breakthrough that I realise is only possible because of oversimplified supply rules then I may have beaten the game but I have not achieved anything that would have been possible in the actual war so I cannot really feel to have "changed history", if you know what I mean.



JJKettunen -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 11:42:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Keke - I know that it's impossible for a strategy game to perfectly simulate the historical conditions but in my opinion if a game deliberately alters the historical situation to a significant extent in order to achieve playability and balance it is not a serious conflict simulation. If that is snobistic then so be it.


The historical situation is changed already with a hex-map, icons presenting units and igo-ugo turns. I assume you don't play such games then?



Myrddraal -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 1:19:58 PM)

quote:

There were deliberate design decisions to misrepresent the historical situation to balance the game and because the game engine is not able to simulate the historical events correctly.


I find this to be quite an unfair judgement. The only deliberate decision which deviates significantly from history is to delay the entry of Russia by a few weeks. You also raised a valid point about the starting positions of the A-H armies, it's a fair comment, and not deliberate.

As for the game not being able to simulate a historical outcome... we have a set of game rules which, despite relative simplicity, almost always lead to historical advances in the early war, stagnation along historical frontlines in the middle war, the economic deterioration of economies and manpower shortages, shell shortages, and assault technologies finally breaking the deadlock. We simulate the changes in the balances of power as the alliances change... I could go on.

Remember this is a grand strategy game. You have to accept a little abstraction on the tactical level (such as fighters representing airfields).

We do this without any artificial gamey rules to force historic situations. The game rules allow them to develop naturally.

There are things that the game could do better. We've had a lot of very useful feedback from players, in particular about the naval aspect of the game. But I do feel that the land war rules, as a whole, capture the overall experience of WWI well. This is not some 'lose relationship'.

You've obviously found some of the game rules counter intuitive, but don't write off the game based on a few turns of play!



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 1:42:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Keke - I know that it's impossible for a strategy game to perfectly simulate the historical conditions but in my opinion if a game deliberately alters the historical situation to a significant extent in order to achieve playability and balance it is not a serious conflict simulation. If that is snobistic then so be it.


The historical situation is changed already with a hex-map, icons presenting units and igo-ugo turns. I assume you don't play such games then?


So in your opinion if something cannot be perfect then it does not matter how good it actually is?
I want simulations to be as realistic as possible, and a game that purposely changes the historical conditions and therefore not even tries to be realistic is not what I look for. Even if you see it differently I think my position is not too hard to understand, is it?



Myrddraal -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 1:50:58 PM)

quote:

a game that purposely changes the historical conditions and therefore not even tries to be realistic


[&:] Are you skipping over my posts?



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 1:52:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

quote:

There were deliberate design decisions to misrepresent the historical situation to balance the game and because the game engine is not able to simulate the historical events correctly.


I find this to be quite an unfair judgement. The only deliberate decision which deviates significantly from history is to delay the entry of Russia by a few weeks. ...


No, the most obvious deviation is the nonexistence of about two thirds of the AH army. Lord Zimoa expressly stated that this was because otherwise Russia would easily be overwhelmed. In reality in August 1914 AH had three to four armies on the Russian border, but their offensive by no means overwhelmed Russia, on the contrary, the Russians quickly had the Austrians reeling back. So I stand by my opinion.



Myrddraal -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 1:58:25 PM)

I thought I had made it clear that it wasn't a deliberate misrepresentation, and that it's something we may be able to address in a patch. But never-mind, the key thing I'm asking you to do is to give the game a chance, and not write it off before you've played through a campaign. I really hope this conversation (and the slightly confrontational defence by fans of the game) hasn't put you off, and I'm pretty confident that if you play through the game, you'll find it to be a much better grand strategy representation of WWI than your initial impressions implied.



warspite1 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 2:08:14 PM)

micha1100 out of genuine interest how would you deal with the missing AH armies?

You want them in the game (as per historical) - Fine no problem with that - and I agree that would be the ideal (in the same way that I want the Royal Navy to have something approaching its real life strength).

But then if you WANT historical (and the game (for play balance) NEEDS historical, those armies must be pretty rubbish - either in terms of rating or strength - because otherwise you get the AH steam-rollering Russia.

So how do the makers of this game deal with that conundrum?



micha1100 -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 2:44:38 PM)

Warspite - very easy. Simply replicate the historical situation: AH armies at the Russian border but facing even stronger (numerically) Russian forces.

Btw AH's troops were, on average, decidedly inferior to the German, not least in terms of morale and fighting spirit, which had a large impact on the events on the Eastern front as they tended to break easily. I don't think this is adequately represented in the game. Neither is the fact that both Austria's and Russia's offensives usually led to disastrous supply situations. AH probably could not have steam-rolled Russia even if it had faced very little resistance simply because of logistics.



Gargoil -> RE: Some issues (12/20/2012 2:54:29 PM)

I have not posted much in this forum, mostly because I have never played a WWI game before. But I have been playing wargames since the 1960s. Boardgames like The Longest Day, War in Europe, Squad Leader, Wings (oops, that is WWI), World in Flames, etc. PC games like WitP and WitE, HOI, Europa Unv, Crusader Kings, for more recent games. Older PC games from SSI, SSG, etc as well.

I used that long preface to let you guys know that I have quite a bit of experience in wargaming and think I understand some aspects of design decisions.

No game is historically "accurate". Every aspect that changes it from "reality" to a "game" forces abstraction. In the end, if the game mechanics can closely represent the outcomes from starting parameters, yet still leave room for alternate results, you have achieved a valid game on a historical subject.

C:TGW has definately achieved this in a wonderfully delightful game which depicts the ground and economic aspects of WWI very well. Thank you very much. [&o]

(Now can we talk expansion of the Naval portion of the game? hehe [8|])



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.671875