Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Some issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Some issues Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 7:26:57 PM   
jscott991


Posts: 529
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

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??


This!

I pointed out that this game short changed AH in another thread and was hammered. I'm glad to be proven right.

The line between simulation and abstraction is always difficult for games, but I'm quite pleased to find out that I judged this game correctly. I'm disappointed, though, in the forum responses to some posts I made. It seems all my concerns (the power of Serbia, the weakness of Austria, the abstraction of units) were quite valid.

Thanks for posting!

(in reply to micha1100)
Post #: 31
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 7:27:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 20269
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991


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??


This!

I pointed out that this game short changed AH in another thread and was hammered. I'm glad to be proven right.

The line between simulation and abstraction is always difficult for games, but I'm quite pleased to find out that I judged this game correctly. I'm disappointed, though, in the forum responses to some posts I made. It seems all my concerns (the power of Serbia, the weakness of Austria, the abstraction of units) were quite valid.

Thanks for posting!

warspite1

Please see Naval thread.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/20/2012 8:56:12 PM >


_____________________________

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




(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 32
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 9:20:10 PM   
Lord Zimoa


Posts: 719
Joined: 10/10/2008
Status: offline
@jscott991

Have you tried the game, played it... I don`t think so.

Now what is your opinion again about a game you don`t own, played, seen or looked at again?

I don`t mind a good discussion and share opinions with people who at least played the game and don`t like certain aspects, ask critical questions, have feature requests or simply don`t like it after playing it. But judging and condemning a game without even playing it, this is beyond my common amount of healthy sense.

No problem you don`t like a game, you never even played, just a mind set I cannot grab as to me that is simple pre-judicial and no argument or explanation from us as a developer will help here.

A useless discussion, sorry.




< Message edited by Lord Zimoa -- 12/20/2012 9:29:55 PM >


_____________________________



www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
www.panzer-corps.com
www.commander-games.com


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 33
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 9:53:21 PM   
ParaB

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

I'm disappointed, though, in the forum responses to some posts I made. It seems all my concerns (the power of Serbia, the weakness of Austria, the abstraction of units) were quite valid.

Thanks for posting!



I've replied to one of your posts in another thread concerning the "uberness" of Serbia and Russia. You seem to be making up arguments out of nothing but thin air, sorry.

In the few games I've played the Austrian army was anything but weak. They defeated the Serbian army, easily held the Russian army in place and together with the German army 1st stalled the Italian offensive then pushed them back. I doubt the gameplay would actually change much if the AH got 2 or 3 additional armies for the NE front. It would most probably make the gameplay less thrilling though. I can't state enough how well the developers have implemented the play balance and would hate to see major gameplay changes just for sake of "historical accuracy". It' still a game after all. If I want a 100% historical experience I read a book.

It's OK if the game's not for you, different folks have different tastes, but your argumentation about what's wrong with a game you haven't even played just looks kinda silly.



(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 34
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 10:32:15 PM   
jscott991


Posts: 529
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline
It makes no sense to buy a game that goes out of its way to not be the game you wanted.

I had read in numerous places that the game didn't represent Austria correctly. I came here and asked about it and was told that was false. If I had been told that "yes, we weakened Austria to make the game play better because that's what people enjoy" then I would understand this vitriol hurled back at me. But that isn't what was posted.

TGW does not put any Austrian units on the Russian front in order to improve gameplay. Zimboa said it was to prevent Germany from beating up Russia too fast. There were TONS of Austrian troops on the Russian front. Almost their whole army was deployed there. How can you abstract that out of the game and then get upset when players shy away from purchasing the game because it is too historically abstract?

If you don't want to hear criticisms from potential customers, that's fine. It's bizarre, but it's fine. Your choice. But I don't see why I should buy a game just so I can boot it up and find out that the level of abstraction and pro-Entente bias is just what an informed consumer could have learned from reading the forum and a few reviews.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 12/20/2012 10:33:07 PM >

(in reply to ParaB)
Post #: 35
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 10:38:01 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 20269
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

It makes no sense to buy a game that goes out of its way to not be the game you wanted.

I had read in numerous places that the game didn't represent Austria correctly. I came here and asked about it and was told that was false. If I had been told that "yes, we weakened Austria to make the game play better because that's what people enjoy" then I would understand this vitriol hurled back at me. But that isn't what was posted.

TGW does not put any Austrian units on the Russian front in order to improve gameplay. Zimboa said it was to prevent Germany from beating up Russia too fast. There were TONS of Austrian troops on the Russian front. Almost their whole army was deployed there. How can you abstract that out of the game and then get upset when players shy away from purchasing the game because it is too historically abstract?

If you don't want to hear criticisms from potential customers, that's fine. It's bizarre, but it's fine. Your choice. But I don't see why I should buy a game just so I can boot it up and find out that the level of abstraction and pro-Entente bias is just what an informed consumer could have learned from reading the forum and a few reviews.
warspite1

Vitriol? Grow up.....

a) You've admitted you are NOT a potential customer; you've stated you will never buy the game
b) No one is asking you to buy it.

I repeat - given your stance (which you are perfectly entitled to) why do you stick around??

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/20/2012 10:45:43 PM >


_____________________________

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




(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 36
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 10:55:25 PM   
ParaB

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

...pro-Entente bias...


Oh christ... I give up...




(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 37
RE: Some issues - 12/20/2012 10:58:22 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 20269
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

...pro-Entente bias...


Oh christ... I give up...




warspite1

No he's right - I noticed the pro-Entente bias by the size of the Royal Navy's battlefleet....same as the Germans and the Austrians. Yep pro-Entente bias alright - he's right yet again.

_____________________________

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




(in reply to ParaB)
Post #: 38
RE: Some issues - 12/22/2012 6:33:42 PM   
micha1100

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 12/26/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal
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 do this without any artificial gamey rules to force historic situations.

[...]

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...


Okay, I took a breath and started a new campaign with the full intention of giving the game a chance, but my initial impression that this is not a game for me has turned into a certainty. I simply cannot enjoy it because of the extent of abstraction and over-simplification involved.

After reading Lord Zimoa's posts in the "Naval War" thread it is obvious that, contrary to what you wrote, there are several deliberate misrepresentations of the historical situation in the game, for example the size and positioning of the AH army, the size of the British navy, France's rail capability, value of the cities in Alsace and the Ruhr area and so on. If a game, when started with the historical conditions, is prone to lead to vastly ahistorical results (like AH steamrolling Russia or France penetrating deep into Germany early on) then something is obviously wrong with the game mechanics and I'm not sure if the fix for the problem should be to simply change the situation.
And I do believe that not representing the historical situation correctly in order to achieve the desired game play is fully equivalent to artificial gamey rules.

I do understand the wish to create a playable and balanced game but in my personal opinion you went way too far. In addition to what I already mentioned I for example noted the following obvious oversimplifications that I just cannot accept:

1. The issues with the naval aspect of the game have already been discussed in other threads. Naval war is a game of hide-and-seek. I think it is impossible to properly simulate the naval war in an IGO-UGO game with a turn length of two weeks and any attempt to do it anyway is bound to lead to strange situations (like the Hochseeflotte engaging on of Britain's cruisers in the North Sea and then calmly waiting for the Grand Fleet and submarines to arrive and take it out).

2. The British blockade was an important, perhaps even the most important, factor in the war that led to Germany's eventual defeat yet it is apparently not represented in the game at all. The game only knows production points and the countries all produce those so the severe effects of hunger and lack of resources that plagued Germany because of the loss of maritime trade simply don't exist in the game.
People often believe that the successful allied offensives in the last months of the war came because of the tanks. Of course tanks played an important role but just as important was that the spirit of the German army was eroding quickly due to the disastrous supply situation in Germany.

3. The fighting power of units depends solely on researched technologies and efficiency. Morale, which was an important factor for all armies, is totally neglected, as is experience, training, organisation, leadership etc.
And efficiency, while existing in the game, is also handled strangely. For example a unit does not lose any efficiency by marching. So even if a unit marches as far as it can through enemy territory it finishes the turn as fresh as if it had rested the whole time - really??

4. Why can units can attack after marching but not the other way around? The same with repairing - units cannot march after being repaired (which I find okay) but they can be repaired after marching, even after marching the maximum distance into enemy territory! This makes no sense.
Btw your reply
quote:

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).
does not convince me at all. the problem could be solved much more logically by simply disallowing units to attack if they don't have enough MPs left to enter the target hex (which is actually my point - if a unit could not move into a certain hex for lack of MPs, how can it attack that hex??)

But what finally broke my goodwill are the supply rules. I played the Entente, allowed the AI to advance along the channel coast and used an opportunity to cut off four German units in the Calais/Rouen area. To my surprise those units stayed in half-supply. Apparently the game rules allow all cities, even recently captured enemy cities, to keep units in decent supply indefinitely. I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense.


It may well be that the game manages a somewhat historical course of the war in France. This is not difficult to simulate, there just have to be rules that make attacks on entrenched opponents very unlikely to succeed in the first years of the war and then give the attacker much better chances in the latter stages. But from what little I have experienced myself and have by now read about in other threads I cannot see that the same is true for the Eastern front or the Italian theatre.


I'm not saying the game should be changed. The purpose of a game is enjoyment, and if lots of players enjoy CtGW then you did a good job. But I must ask you to change the "unprecedented realism and accuracy" part of the product info which I feel cheated me into buying this game and wasting my money.










(in reply to Myrddraal)
Post #: 39
RE: Some issues - 12/22/2012 6:46:27 PM   
Lord Zimoa


Posts: 719
Joined: 10/10/2008
Status: offline
No problem, you don`t like the game, others do... to everyone his own taste.

_____________________________



www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
www.panzer-corps.com
www.commander-games.com


(in reply to micha1100)
Post #: 40
RE: Some issues - 12/22/2012 10:17:23 PM   
Myrddraal

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 11/13/2012
Status: offline
Hi Michael,

Thanks for giving the game a longer chance.

There are still a few things I think you've got wrong about the game (half supply is not decent, it sounds like your tactic worked) but I think in more general terms, there's a basic discrepancy between your expectations and the game. I'm sorry you haven't enjoyed it.

As a final explanation: this is a grand strategy game, and to a large degree the basic, low level tactical game mechanics are very abstract (for example only one move per unit per turn, no partial moves etc). If this game was trying to be a tactical simulation it would be fair to call this unrealistic. When we set out to make a historical game, are focus was on getting the balance of national power right, the evolution of the fronts in terms of position and mobility, that sort of level.

I feel we did a good job on that grand strategy scale, but obviously it's not what you were hoping for.

(in reply to Lord Zimoa)
Post #: 41
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Some issues Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.090