The Naval War

[Mike Parker]

I have to say, there is a reason in WWI the British Fleet didn't just sweep away the German Fleet on day 1. They actually really were spoiling to engage the German Fleet but could not get them to engage (until Jutland). You could easily give the British an additional BB counter (perhaps not full, put it at an 8 or 7) to start, but seriously upgrade the port defense bonus so that it is foolhardy to try and attack the German High Seas fleet in port.

Then it seems you could have a more historic OOB without the problem of the British being able to force a decisive naval engagement.

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc...

We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better.

And this is why I won't ever buy this game. I'm glad I wandered into this random thread. I was getting hammered in another thread for saying this very stuff about the game and being told it wasn't true.

Thanks!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Guys, historical background is of course hugely important and we know the numbers, but if we go this route, basically GB will shoot everything out of the water with a breeze. We always let the gaming factor come first, from a game balancing point of view, decisions like not giving France a rail capacity at the start(as the AI would rail reinforcements to Brussel, and kill always your Schlieffen plan attempts), not giving German cities more PP in the Alsace and Ruhr areas, as if you as a player, would make rapid advantages along that front it would immediately knock Germany out of the war, now it will do so as well, but at least give the AI some more fighting spirit, not having the AH with full armies near the Russian border at game start, so you cannot kill Russia in a few turns and have to pay attention to the Serbian front as well as building a strategic reserve along AH`s front with Russia, etc, etc...

We know it is not completely historical, but we try to offer at least the change for any player to alter history and win the game in another way, this set in a WW1 historical environment with WW1 abstracted tactics... this makes the game fun and better.

And this is why I won't ever buy this game. I'm glad I wandered into this random thread. I was getting hammered in another thread for saying this very stuff about the game and being told it wasn't true.

Thanks!

warspite1

I don't understand, you don't like the game (fair enough), you won't buy it (again, fair enough) but with that said, why do you hang around telling everyone why you don't like it and will never buy it?? Do you get some perverse pleasure from it?

I like cars, but I don't like Nissan. However I do not feel the need to hang around my local Nissan garage telling everyone how much I don't like their product. We get it, its your choice....... move on.

[jscott991]

I am a World War I buff and followed the development of this game for months. When it was released, I read quite a few initial impressions and reviews. Based on those, and prior experience with WWI games (GoA in particular), I posted some questions and comments in a few threads. I was immediately told that my concerns were not valid and that the impressions I had read (and thus, my own impressions) were false.

That's why I keep posting. If someone had said "Austria-Hungary has no army to speak of so the war can be abstracted in a more fun way for many players" in my initial questions, I'd have just said, "Thanks" and moved on. But that isn't what I was told. I was told that the game didn't rely heavily on abstraction, didn't short change the Central Powers, etc. All of that appears false.

But I'm sorry for taking perverse pleasure in posting on the forum while researching TGW.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

I am a World War I buff and followed the development of this game for months. When it was released, I read quite a few initial impressions and reviews. Based on those, and prior experience with WWI games (GoA in particular), I posted some questions and comments in a few threads. I was immediately told that my concerns were not valid and that the impressions I had read (and thus, my own impressions) were false.

That's why I keep posting. If someone had said "Austria-Hungary has no army to speak of so the war can be abstracted in a more fun way for many players" in my initial questions, I'd have just said, "Thanks" and moved on. But that isn't what I was told. I was told that the game didn't rely heavily on abstraction, didn't short change the Central Powers, etc. All of that appears false.

But I'm sorry for taking perverse pleasure in posting on the forum while researching TGW.

warspite1

Well I'm sorry if I appeared rude, but I am genuinely baffled. I guess from what you are saying you have a sense of disappointment that - as a WWI buff (and no doubt looking forward to the game coming out) the game is not what you had hoped. But as I say, it is what it is and there is nothing that can be done to change that. The guys have said they are to continue tweaking and modifying, but I guess the game is so far from what you were hoping for, it will never satisfy you.

[jscott991]

You are right. The game is not what I hoped, and I'm severely disappointed. I felt that I was going to be disappointed as soon as the initial impressions and first trickle of reviews came out. I lingered around the forum because so many people told me those impressions were wrong, but there is now a ton of evidence that they are not, including a very informative post from Zimoa, which basically confirms every single one of my criticisms and fears.

How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war (seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? That's like a WWII game without France). People would never tolerate this kind of thing in a WWII game, so I'm baffled at some of the ahistorical abstraction in the three big WWI games. Oh well. Until Paradox makes a Hearts of Iron: 1914, I guess I'll just accept the fact that WWI is likely to never get its wargaming due.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

You are right. The game is not what I hoped, and I'm severely disappointed. I felt that I was going to be disappointed as soon as the initial impressions and first trickle of reviews came out. I lingered around the forum because so many people told me those impressions were wrong, but there is now a ton of evidence that they are not, including a very informative post from Zimoa, which basically confirms every single one of my criticisms and fears.

How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war (seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? That's like a WWII game without France). People would never tolerate this kind of thing in a WWII game, so I'm baffled at some of the ahistorical abstraction in the three big WWI games. Oh well. Until Paradox makes a Hearts of Iron: 1914, I guess I'll just accept the fact that WWI is likely to never get its wargaming due.

warspite1

Re the sentence in bold - this is where you spoil any valid criticisms (spelling??) you may have. It has been pointed out to you before that the Schlieffen plan IS do-able. Hell its been done to me so often its embarrassing. So please, if you are to stick around (your choice) and voice your opinions (as you are entitled to do) I would ASK you to PLEASE refrain from stating as fact, that which has been proven not to be so.

Edit: atrocious English [8|]

[Randomizer]

Wargame designers and developers get to be masters of their game realities. The Lordz Studio team certainly seems satisfied with the level of abstraction in CTGW but I agree with JScott991 that for some potential customers, the compromises are unacceptable and it's unlikely that I will purchase the game in the foreseeable future.

I see nothing untoward or insulting in any of his posts and most certainly am not intending to hurt anybody's feeling myself but this is a public forum and respectable comments should be treated with respect rather than indulging in messenger-shooting and false equivalencies. Having read everything that I can about CTGW it appears to me that this is more WW1 as a game rather than being an attempt to simulate the nature of the conflict. These were conscious design decisions that the publishers are (rightly) standing behind even as they try and spin the results towards the historical.

They doubtless knew they would never please everybody and decided not to try, probably a wise business decision. I wish them success even though there is little chance of them getting my money.

In the meantime there's WW1G and the TGW Mod for HOI1.

[JJKettunen]

Some of the criticism is really embarassing. Reminds me of the false Metacritic reviews.

[Myrddraal]

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

You pointed out something different, and you didn't get hammered, people disagreed with you. Forget the fact that only one person (who doesn't have the game) agreed with you, your point has obviously been proven.

IIRC, you asked if AH was treated as a minor power in the game, and whether or not the Schlieffen plan was achievable. Myself and others went to some lengths to reassure on both these points, and I stand by those things.

In this the issues thread, a different poster pointed out that the distribution of AH starting armies was incorrect. The OP is correct, but it's a different point.

What annoys me about these threads is that people form entrenched opinions based on the first few posts they read. Sometimes they even arrive at the forum with preconceptions which stem from completely different games!. They then exclusively read only what conforms to that opinion, and skip over the reasonable posts which try to explain what is and isn't true about the game. The fact that you still won't accept that the Schiefflen plan is achievable is particularly frustrating. There is a wealth of evidence showing that it is possible, but I'm repeating myself from the other thread.

How can you make a WWI game without an Austrian army on the Russian front? There are Austrian armies on the Russian front, and you can quickly reinforce them by rail. Yes, I accept that we didn't match the historical deployments here Without allowing players to try the Schlieffen plan? You're just dead wrong. See above. Without a historical balance of forces at the outbreak of the war Where did you get this from?(seriously, Russia isn't in the war from the start to make it easier on players? Only AH and Serbia are 'at war' at the start of the game. The other nations join in the first few turns. Russia's entry date is delayed by a few weeks. That's like a WWII game without France).

Comments like "That's like a WWII game without France", really wind me up. I'm not sure what context to take that in, or how you can justify it.

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

[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.

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.

[warspite1]

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??

[Randomizer]

Myrddraal wrote:

@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]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Myrddraal wrote:

@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.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Myrddraal wrote:

@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.

[jscott991]

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]

ORIGINAL: jscott991

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....

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) [8|]

Edit: English

[Myrddraal]

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...'