RE: The Naval War

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Naval War

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Naval War - 12/20/2012 10:45:40 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

You can't radically alter the disposition of forces at the start of the war and then brush off criticisms of the level of abstraction in a game as being out of thin air.

Not having Austrian armies on the eastern front (or not having an accurate number, even an abstracted accurate number) is hugely ahistorical. Not having Russia start in the war is very much like a WWII game leaving out France in 1939. It doesn't make any sense. Austria's armies were heavily engaged in the eastern front right from the start. It's the main reason (the only reason) that Serbia lasted past the initial Austrian push in 1914 (which took Belgrade before falling back after more forces were shifted to fight Russia).

In another thread, Zimoa explained why Belgium was set at a certain level, along with how decisions were made on Russian and Serbian strength. Neither were reassuring to me. Maybe others prefer to have the historical deployments distorted to produce a certain "WWI feel" or whatever that means. How does that rebut any of the points that I've made. These are not concerns that are made up out of thin air.

Randomizer put this much more eloquently than I have. TGW wants to produce a certain type of gameplay and feel (Zimoa said this very well in the other thread). To get this, it plays fast and loose with the combatants, their armies, and their dispositions. It plays fast and loose in a way that no gamer would ever tolerate out of a WWII game. I don't know why WWI gamers should settle for less, or why it's so unreasonable to be frustrated by that.

As for the Schlieffen plan, we just disagree on where the bar should be set to reproduce the historical push. Whether's possible or not is less important than how likely it is. I've seen conflicting information on this point, often on a daily basis.

Edit: But if its so annoying to you to answer criticisms from someone who hasn't purchased the game, then ignore my questions or comments and focus on customers who have already bought it. That's a strange bar to set for people to voice their mind, but if that's your strategy, that's your choice.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 12/20/2012 10:49:16 PM >

(in reply to Myrddraal)

Post #: 31

RE: The Naval War - 12/20/2012 10:53:31 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

You can't radically alter the disposition of forces at the start of the war and then brush off criticisms of the level of abstraction in a game as being out of thin air.

Not having Austrian armies on the eastern front (or not having an accurate number, even an abstracted accurate number) is hugely ahistorical. Not having Russia start in the war is very much like a WWII game leaving out France in 1939. It doesn't make any sense. Austria's armies were heavily engaged in the eastern front right from the start. It's the main reason (the only reason) that Serbia lasted past the initial Austrian push in 1914 (which took Belgrade before falling back after more forces were shifted to fight Russia).

In another thread, Zimoa explained why Belgium was set at a certain level, along with how decisions were made on Russian and Serbian strength. Neither were reassuring to me. Maybe others prefer to have the historical deployments distorted to produce a certain "WWI feel" or whatever that means. How does that rebut any of the points that I've made. These are not concerns that are made up out of thin air.

Randomizer put this much more eloquently than I have. TGW wants to produce a certain type of gameplay and feel (Zimoa said this very well in the other thread). To get this, it plays fast and loose with the combatants, their armies, and their dispositions. It plays fast and loose in a way that no gamer would ever tolerate out of a WWII game. I don't know why WWI gamers should settle for less, or why it's so unreasonable to be frustrated by that.

As for the Schlieffen plan, we just disagree on where the bar should be set to reproduce the historical push. Whether's possible or not is less important than how likely it is. I've seen conflicting information on this point, often on a daily basis.

warspite1

That is nonsense. There are many games on the market - board and computer - where you can't achieve what was actually achievable in the real WWII.

World In Flames - the best.game.ever - is one example. You can't (at least not in the 5th Edition) do a Torch or as the Germans, a Weserubung. So? It's horses for courses. You want nth degree detail - well with CTGW you haven't got it, you won't get it, so why stick around repeating the same stuff over and over?? Where's me bleedin' Austrians? why are the Russians late for the war? Why can't I do a Schlieffen - even though I can but I'll ignore that because it doesn't suit my argument??

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 32

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 1:01:38 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Myrddraal wrote:

quote:

@Randomizer, I'd recommend reading the AARs. They're a much better way to form an independent opinion about the game than this thread.

Thank you for maintaining a spirit of decorum.

Have read all of the CTGW AAR's I can find, all of the Developer's Diaries during the public development phase and all the posts on this Forum and the Lordz Studios forum. Suffice to say that while I respect the design philosophy you have implemented I just disagree with much of your approach to modelling the characteristics of WW1.

To paraphrase Richard Berg, designer of the old SPI Cambrai board game To The Green Fields Beyond, 'CTGW is not the Great War, it is the Great War as you have chosen to represent it.' Enough people around here seem pleased by the results but some of us are free to disagree and vote with their wallets; letting you know why should not earn us vitriolic responses from the peanut gallery. That said, while I might be disappointed in CTGW, I still wish you sales success.

Regards...

(in reply to Myrddraal)

Post #: 33

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 1:13:09 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Myrddraal wrote:

quote:

@Randomizer, I'd recommend reading the AARs. They're a much better way to form an independent opinion about the game than this thread.

Thank you for maintaining a spirit of decorum.

Have read all of the CTGW AAR's I can find, all of the Developer's Diaries during the public development phase and all the posts on this Forum and the Lordz Studios forum. Suffice to say that while I respect the design philosophy you have implemented I just disagree with much of your approach to modelling the characteristics of WW1.

To paraphrase Richard Berg, designer of the old SPI Cambrai board game To The Green Fields Beyond, 'CTGW is not the Great War, it is the Great War as you have chosen to represent it.' Enough people around here seem pleased by the results but some of us are free to disagree and vote with their wallets; letting you know why should not earn us vitriolic responses from the peanut gallery. That said, while I might be disappointed in CTGW, I still wish you sales success.

Regards...

warspite1

[refering to bold] Correct. However what does deserve certain people getting "Vitriol" is the misrepresentation of the truth. As the CP player, can you do a Schlieffen? Yes. jscott991 has been told that by people that have played the game and witnessed/done it for real, but he still chooses to spout the lie that it can't be done. Unsurprisingly that gets on peoples nerves just a tad.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 34

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 1:32:44 AM

Empire101

Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Myrddraal wrote:

quote:

@Randomizer, I'd recommend reading the AARs. They're a much better way to form an independent opinion about the game than this thread.

Thank you for maintaining a spirit of decorum.

Have read all of the CTGW AAR's I can find, all of the Developer's Diaries during the public development phase and all the posts on this Forum and the Lordz Studios forum. Suffice to say that while I respect the design philosophy you have implemented I just disagree with much of your approach to modelling the characteristics of WW1.

To paraphrase Richard Berg, designer of the old SPI Cambrai board game To The Green Fields Beyond, 'CTGW is not the Great War, it is the Great War as you have chosen to represent it.' Enough people around here seem pleased by the results but some of us are free to disagree and vote with their wallets; letting you know why should not earn us vitriolic responses from the peanut gallery. That said, while I might be disappointed in CTGW, I still wish you sales success.

Regards...

warspite1

[refering to bold] Correct. However what does deserve certain people getting "Vitriol" is the misrepresentation of the truth. As the CP player, can you do a Schlieffen? Yes. jscott991 has been told that by people that have played the game and witnessed/done it for real, but he still chooses to spout the lie that it can't be done. Unsurprisingly that gets on peoples nerves just a tad.

+1

Those who don't bother to support games like this and just pooh-pooh it are doing themselves a great disservice.
I have played several campaigns so far ( the most enjoyable against my old foe Warspite ), and the game is well balanced and enormous fun.
As for the nonsense about the AH not being represented on the Eastern Front properly....well all I can say is that wherever you got your info from, they were playing the game very badly.

AH is more than capable of making a significant impact in the East, in Serbia and Italy all at the same time IF you get your build strategy right and do the correct R&D.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 35

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 3:14:40 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

most enjoyable against my old foe Warspite ), and the game is well balanced and enormous fun.
As for the nonsense about the AH not being represented on the Eastern Front properly....well all I can say is that wherever you got your info from, they were playing the game very badly.

This info comes from the designer. They have said repeatedly that they purposely chose to not model Austria's deployments accurately (there are almost no AH startup forces on the Russian front) in order to help Russia perform better.

I'm sorry to get on everyone's nerves about the Schlieffen plan. People here say it can be done. People here say it can't be done. I know what I believe the "average" result should be, but I didn't mean that to become the centerpiece of discussion. The only thing I will say is that the Schlieffen plan is to WWI what the invasion of Poland is to WWII. It shouldn't be that hard to replicate its historic (distinguishable from its intended) performance.

Much more attention should be paid to the abstraction and the strange balancing decisions.

But I won't bother with this since these opinions are so objectionable.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 12/21/2012 3:40:43 AM >

(in reply to Empire101)

Post #: 36

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 9:13:48 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

most enjoyable against my old foe Warspite ), and the game is well balanced and enormous fun.
As for the nonsense about the AH not being represented on the Eastern Front properly....well all I can say is that wherever you got your info from, they were playing the game very badly.

This info comes from the designer. They have said repeatedly that they purposely chose to not model Austria's deployments accurately (there are almost no AH startup forces on the Russian front) in order to help Russia perform better.

I'm sorry to get on everyone's nerves about the Schlieffen plan. People here say it can be done. People here say it can't be done. I know what I believe the "average" result should be, but I didn't mean that to become the centerpiece of discussion. The only thing I will say is that the Schlieffen plan is to WWI what the invasion of Poland is to WWII. It shouldn't be that hard to replicate its historic (distinguishable from its intended) performance.

Much more attention should be paid to the abstraction and the strange balancing decisions.

But I won't bother with this since these opinions are so objectionable.

warspite1

Oh dear....

quote:

I'm sorry to get on everyone's nerves about the Schlieffen plan. People here say it can be done. People here say it can't be done. I know what I believe the "average" result should be, but I didn't mean that to become the centerpiece of discussion.

Er no, you DID mean it to become the centrepiece of the discussion, but unfortunately you have been proved wrong in your assumption and so now, rather than say - yes sorry, I got that wrong - you want to move away from that completely.

Mmmm.. that being the case, what shall we talk about today? I know - did I ever mention that the Austrians are missing and that the Russians enter the war late?

I ask once again, why, if the game does not meet your expectations, is not for you, and you will never buy it, are you hanging around? I could understand if the game was almost to your requirements and with some tinkering you could get comfortable - that would make sense. Giving feedback to help achieve your goal.

But as you yourself have said, that is not the case here and you will NEVER buy the game. That being so, just what is your motivation?? Have you really not got anything better to do in life?

Anyway, that's me done - I've got to nip down to Sainsburys so I can spend all day there telling the manager I am NEVER going to shop in his store and that I prefer Tesco. I can bore him with why I am not going to shop there, and when he tells me that at least one of those reasons is in fact false, I can carry on repeating the reason anyway (but conceeding that I never meant for THAT reason to become the centrepiece of the discussion)

Edit: English

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/21/2012 9:16:02 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 37

RE: The Naval War - 12/21/2012 9:27:57 AM

Myrddraal

Posts: 335
Joined: 11/13/2012
Status: offline

I get the feeling this thread is turning into a broken record, and not much is left to be said which is constructive, so I will close it for now. A very good forum admin once said: 'Topic is tired and needs a nap...'

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 38