How does this compare with Guns of August 1914 – 1918?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

jscott991, just buy the game already and try it. It's only $40 bucks, and you're clearly a WWI afficionado and an avid wargamer, so you're sure to get *something* out of it. It's just not worth vacillating over.

Lordz have produced a terrific product from which I've already derived dozens of hours of fun - this is Grand Strategy at its best, provided you can accept a certain level of abstraction (I not only accept it, I require it in order to strike the playability vs realism balance). They and other independent wargame-developing studios really do deserve the support of our community for their efforts. You may end up loving CTGW, or you may just find it 'okay', depending on your tastes (I guarantee you won't dislike it).

But for all the above reasons and more, it's really worth the purchase.

warspite1

+1

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

GoA doesn't mirror real life at all. It's a complete abstraction that doesn't even do a good job at simulating the actual ebb and flow of the war. You can't duplicate the German blitzes in 1914 and 1915 (just try to take over all of Poland in a single month). The Central Powers are at a huge disadvantage in terms of balance of forces (Russia's army is enormous and Austria's is pitifully small).

If you think GoA is too much of a simulation and TGW is more "fun" then I really hesitate to imagine what resemblance TGW has to the actual war.

GOA implemented an HQ activation system to arbitrarily limit German offensive operations. This was a gamey move to reflect more acurately the progression of the war, hence to "mirror real life".

[Gilmer]

I know it will probably never ever happen and even if it did, it would be years because I know they are working on a big project right now, but I wish the WiTE guys did a very similar type game for WW1 as WiTE is for WW2. I'd be shelling out all sorts of money for that.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

I know it will probably never ever happen and even if it did, it would be years because I know they are working on a big project right now, but I wish the WiTE guys did a very similar type game for WW1 as WiTE is for WW2. I'd be shelling out all sorts of money for that.

Well, in my humble opinion WiTE is a boardgame (hexes, igo-ugo) gone bonkers with all the detail. AI can't handle it. The game engine, doped with all sorts of pseudo-realism, produces weirdness and a lot of bugs. CTGW's simplicity is just ingenious.

[catwhoorg]

Simple, effective, fun. (and durn addictive)

That more or less follows the historical flood of the initial war.

How it goes beyond that is down to the players.

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

jscott991, just buy the game already and try it. It's only $40 bucks, and you're clearly a WWI afficionado and an avid wargamer, so you're sure to get *something* out of it. It's just not worth vacillating over.

Lordz have produced a terrific product from which I've already derived dozens of hours of fun - this is Grand Strategy at its best, provided you can accept a certain level of abstraction (I not only accept it, I require it in order to strike the playability vs realism balance). They and other independent wargame-developing studios really do deserve the support of our community for their efforts. You may end up loving CTGW, or you may just find it 'okay', depending on your tastes (I guarantee you won't dislike it).

But for all the above reasons and more, it's really worth the purchase.

I prefer the devil I know I guess. I know that GoA loves the Allies/Entente. I'm not comfortable with this game's portrayal of the Central Powers. I've yet to find a post by a new-ish player saying "Serbia is too weak" or "It's too easy to duplicate Germany's advance in 1914/1915." I have no interest in another game that thinks Belgium, Tsarist Russia, and Serbia are the world's greatest military powers.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

I prefer the devil I know I guess. I know that GoA loves the Allies/Entente. I'm not comfortable with this game's portrayal of the Central Powers. I've yet to find a post by a new-ish player saying "Serbia is too weak" or "It's too easy to duplicate Germany's advance in 1914/1915." I have no interest in another game that thinks Belgium, Tsarist Russia, and Serbia are the world's greatest military powers.

What are you actually complaining about?

[Lord Zimoa]

I have no interest in another game that thinks Belgium, Tsarist Russia, and Serbia are the world's greatest military powers.

Well I think we got this right in CTGW, Belgium is not a real problem, it main function is too delay the CP long enough for the Entente to manage the Western front and bring in their resources and manpower to stabilize the front in the West, but it will never hold.

Russia is vulnerable because of its long front and has not the best units or good starting technology, it is vulnerable to morale drops when carnage get too heavy or suffers from prolonged defeats, but it has a big pool of manpower.

Serbia can be a little "be-atch", as it has some well entrenched and hilly, mountainous terrain as a starting advantage, but limited manpower reserves, technology upgrade possibilities or economic leverage. It can succumb, but good fighters, so need some attention to be defeated completely.

[ParaB]

ORIGINAL: jscott991
I have no interest in another game that thinks Belgium, Tsarist Russia, and Serbia are the world's greatest military powers.

Neither do I. But was has that got to do with CTGW?

I've only been playing since last weekend and have already achieved FAR better than historical results with the Central Powers.