Hi guys, the beta testers have finally been given permission to unleash some AAR's, and I happen to be the first to post. I know I haven't been posting here much in the past few months, and CTGW was the reason why. I've been testing my butt off.
Anyway, I hope my AAR is entertaining and informative. It's a work in progress and I'll update it as often as my schedule allows.
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=38749
Cheers!
Thanks, nice read. I'm looking forward to CTGW (and the rest of your AAR).
Good read Slick.
Slick Willie, this game has been at the top of my radar for a looong time, but even if I had never heard of it, your AAR would have snagged me. Great read!
Looking good.
How much is this going for, at release?
Nice AAR Slick. I am also having a blast with the CTGW beta, even though I have been soundly thrashed by the AI in both my games as the Central Powers. I hope you have better luck! :)
I want this.....now!
Good job on the AAR, Slick Wilhelm. Looking forward to the next installment.
Absolutely outstanding breakdown of gameplay. I feel like I know how to play this game already. Can't wait to sink my teeth into this one.
I didn't read entirely through the last few paragraphs so forgive me if I ask this and it has already been covered but:
Is there any kind of data tables in this game to view your losses throughout the war as well as estimated casualties caused?
Quote from: W8taminute on October 31, 2012, 05:59:04 PM
Is there any kind of data tables in this game to view your losses throughout the war as well as estimated casualties caused?
Yes there is. It's very basic(too basic IMO) but there is one. I will put that on my list of features to demo soon.
Btw, I just put up another round of turns. So much to show you, so little time in my day!
Great report. Really shows the effort to make the game exceptional. The Central Powers player starts the game as Austria in July 1914. So does the Entente Powers player start the same time as Serbia or later as Russia?
Thanks SW...the 12th can't come soon enough.
Thanks for posting Slick...I have been waiting for this game forever.
Looks good Slick!
Thanks, guys! Just added another couple of posts. Hope that keeps your juices flowing until I can put more up. :)
Pardon the bump, gents, but I figured that I'd give this thread one last punt to the top so that anyone who hasn't read my AAR can read it this weekend before buying.
My AAR is going slower than I would like, but I made a conscious decision to make it more of a tutorial than a strict AAR. I hope those of you new to the game find it informative. I did add three more turns of action to it since yesterday, and I'll be adding more this weekend with the hope of whetting your appetites.
Wilhelm:
Have you played the Battlefront WWI game -Strategic Command WWI? Does this really offer anything the other doesn't? I asked that in another thread and at the Matrix forum, and the only answer I got is "it's a different game".
What I want to know is HOW is it different (other than the use of a different engine, duh.)? I'm trying to talk myself into getting this if I already have the other, and can't really find a reason to do so.
Quote from: tgb on November 10, 2012, 01:34:52 PM
Wilhelm:
Have you played the Battlefront WWI game -Strategic Command WWI? Does this really offer anything the other doesn't? I asked that in another thread and at the Matrix forum, and the only answer I got is "it's a different game".
What I want to know is HOW is it different (other than the use of a different engine, duh.)? I'm trying to talk myself into getting this if I already have the other, and can't really find a reason to do so.
I'd also be interested in a comparison between the two.
To be totally honest, guys, I can't give you a blow-by-blow comparison between the two games because it's been too long since I've played SC:WWI. I do remember that I loved that game, though, and I love CTGW, too. I can say that I prefer the traditional hex system that CTGW uses over the squares that SC:WWI uses.
Some day I'm sure I will sit down to play both and compare them. But I've been so focused on CTGW that almost every game in my life has been put on hold. That beings said, if I had to make a prediction, it will be that CTGW does some things better than SC:WWI, and vice-versa.
At the end of the day, if you're a WWI enthusiast like myself, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to own both games.
So with this game being released tomorrow and my curiosity peaked, I was wondering how much the game is "scripted" versus the AI reacting to the situation. Will there be any variability where things won't happen always historically (although within reason)? I like a historical game but would really enjoy if things aren't overly scripted. At first I was leaning on waiting a bit for this game, but this AAR got me very interested.
Major events like the Russian Revolution are scripted (at least I think so based on my experiences) but the game doesn't necessarily follow history. For example, in the 1914 campaign that I just finished (and won in September 1818!) playing as the Central Powers the US never entered the war and Portugal came into the war on the side of the Triple Entente, fighting along side British and French troops in France.
Quote from: Shelldrake on November 11, 2012, 08:38:20 AM
Major events like the Russian Revolution are scripted (at least I think so based on my experiences) but the game doesn't necessarily follow history. For example, in the 1914 campaign that I just finished (and won in September 1818!) playing as the Central Powers the US never entered the war and Portugal came into the war on the side of the Triple Entente, fighting along side British and French troops in France.
Thank you....that sounds very interesting....
That sounds better. Very tempting.
For some reason, I am extremely excited about this one, despite not liking the WWII version. However, the Lordz are responsible for this one, so I expect some major differences.
They did the Napoleonics on which was OK, but nothing special.
QuoteThey did the Napoleonics on which was OK, but nothing special.
We did a little bit more the last few years :-), on a side note: for Commander: Napoleon we only did all the in game art and media. Commander: The Great War however is a complete new game on a new custom Lordz engine.
QuoteGames portfolio developed or co-developed:
Commander: Napoleon at War for PC and Mac, 2008
Conquest! Medieval Realms for PC, 2009
History Great Battles Medieval for PC, PS3, X360 and Android 2010
Battlefield Academy for PC, Mac and iPad, 2010
Battlefield Academy: Blitzkrieg France for PC, Mac and iPad, 2010
Panzer Corps: Wehrmacht for PC, 2011
Panzer Corps: Grand Campaign DLC`s for PC 2011-2012
Conquest! Medieval Realms for Android and iOS, 2012
Panzer Corps: Afrika Korps for PC, 2012
Commander: The Great War for PC, 2012
Upcoming:
Commander: The Great War for Mac and iPad, 2013
Panzer Corps Series for Mac and iPad, 2013
Sovereignty: Crown of Kings, PC and iPad 2013
NICE! An Ipad version! I hope I love this one tomorrow, because I would love to have a great portable wargame too!
I have to admit, finishing up the AAR, I'm a bit more excited about this. Now all I need is $. One thing, though - I don't remember seeing any reference to supply. How is it modeled, and does it affect efficiency?
How about for Android? ;D
I really love the art in this one. I was ignoring this game for so long. Now I think I will purchase this after some time.
Quote from: jomni on November 11, 2012, 08:08:24 PM
I really love the art in this one. I was ignoring this game for so long. Now I think I will purchase this after some time.
Me too....now will I have self-control tomorrow and not pull the trigger...that is the question:)
I am DEFINITELY buying the collectors edition tomorrow. Not even a question :)
Quote from: Gusington on November 11, 2012, 08:53:11 PM
I am DEFINITELY buying the collectors edition tomorrow. Not even a question :)
Make sure to post early impressions so you can force me to buy it by the end of the day:)
Quote from: Gusington on November 11, 2012, 08:53:11 PM
I am DEFINITELY buying the collectors edition tomorrow. Not even a question :)
Ditto! Hell, if it goes on sale at midnight, I'll be downloading it tonight :)
Hey Gus. You going to start as Central Powers or Allied?
Quote from: tgb on November 11, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
I have to admit, finishing up the AAR, I'm a bit more excited about this. Now all I need is $. One thing, though - I don't remember seeing any reference to supply. How is it modeled, and does it affect efficiency?
Yes, supply is actually quite a concern during movement and must be taken into account, whether you're trying to decide how to cut off enemy units from their supply, or trying to decide how to move without exposing your units from being cut off from their supply.
Basically, capital cities and regular cities provide all the supply for units. Fortresses provide supply to its garrison, and if the fortress also has a production value(of Production Points) then that fortress also can provide supply to other units as if it were a regular city.
Surface naval units can also provide supply to adjacent land units.
Units that get cutoff from supply are very prone to destruction, hence the need to seriously consider moves, especially risky longish moves behind enemy lines. The AI is very good at cutting your units off from supply if you get greedy. At least on privileged mode, it is.
Units can be on full supply, half supply or no supply.
Units on half supply lose 30% of their movement points. If idle, they can recover 3 efficiency per turn(as opposed to 5 per turn for units on full supply).
Units on no supply can move only 1 hex per turn, and lose 1 strength point per turn. They also don't recover any efficiency and cannot be repaired.
So, the penalties for being out of supply are pretty steep. I don't recommend it. ;)
It's now available for sale and I will try to make it through the day without caving.
I don't want to be accused of blasphemy or anything, but I'm trying to figure out what all the excitement is about. My prior two experiences with the Commander series have been decidedly underwhelming, and that is putting it nicely. I'm aware that this one has been designed by Lordz from the ground up, whereas the other two in the series were not. I'm actually more interested in knowing how is this different from the other WWI games we have to chose from, ie. Ageod's WWI Gold, SC WWI, etc.
I'll probably get this eventually (like tonight) anyway, but I'm just curious why this game is so eagerly anticipated.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 12, 2012, 11:18:07 AM
I don't want to be accused of blasphemy or anything, but I'm trying to figure out what all the excitement is about. My prior two experiences with the Commander series have been decidedly underwhelming, and that is putting it nicely. I'm aware that this one has been designed by Lordz from the ground up, whereas the other two in the series were not. I'm actually more interested in knowing how is this different from the other WWI games we have to chose from, ie. Ageod's WWI Gold, SC WWI, etc.
I'll probably get this eventually (like tonight) anyway, but I'm just curious why this game is so eagerly anticipated.
I am guessing it is because WWI continues to get some love compared to the past where it didn't. Even with the other couple of games out, not many out there compared to WWII and other time periods. The other thing that is attractive to me (maybe not others) is that it seems it might be a nice blend of not too simplistic but not too complex type of game.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 12, 2012, 11:18:07 AM
I don't want to be accused of blasphemy or anything, but I'm trying to figure out what all the excitement is about. My prior two experiences with the Commander series have been decidedly underwhelming, and that is putting it nicely. I'm aware that this one has been designed by Lordz from the ground up, whereas the other two in the series were not. I'm actually more interested in knowing how is this different from the other WWI games we have to chose from, ie. Ageod's WWI Gold, SC WWI, etc.
I'll probably get this eventually (like tonight) anyway, but I'm just curious why this game is so eagerly anticipated.
I tend to agree. The thing that worries me most is that the theatre that was 80% of the war is only eleven hexes long. I am not sure how that is going to play out in simulating what happened there - most especially given the series' most obvious handicap - ie a lack of stacking.
What Grim said. This game also appears to be more accessible than the other ones.
Slash I think I am going to start out as the Central Powers once I get it.
I checked the site earlier and it still said unavailable...have to go check again.
I asked over at the official forums about AI turn times and initial response I received was 2+ minutes in the 1917 scenario at turn 11. hhhmmm....not sure what to think. Typically I am not a patient person, so I am concerned this might frustrate me, even if it helps make the AI better. And this was only turn 11, wonder what it will be in the end game?
Does turn processing time concern anybody else?
I'm installing it now. Can't wait to see how it looks.
Will post some impressions when I have some time.
So far, I've only played about an hour or so, but I'm getting a strong "Guns of August done properly" vibe. The UI seems to have been tonked and tweaked up from the previous Commander series. More Panzer Corps style/feel to it, than the previous "made in Macromedia" efforts.
I usually struggle with these sort of Grand Strategic games, preferring my Operational chit shufflers, but this one is stroking an urge, that I only ever got from Guns of August. Only now it feels modern and up to date. I think I would have been still wading through the manual, if it were not for Slick's AAR. A quick read through, and I've more or less waded into this, and have felt at home with it.
Quick to play - turn processing doesn't seem that bad - Strategic Command does it a lot worse going on turn times. Always struggling for resources and units, when the Russian Bear wakes up! Production and Research seem fairly straight forward, although I'm always pining after more PP/MP to get more units out on the field.
AI does seem to know when and where to exploit your weaknesses. Leave a gap in your front line for a moment, and you'll have french pouring through it! Stray too deep, to attempt a supply line cut-off, and you'll be over-enveloped yourself, and quickly despatched from the unseen advancing Russian horde! :)
The only thing I felt was disappointing, was that you start off with very little in the way of artillery, love the trenches developing on the landscape as units are stationed, but to really give out the WWI buzz, I wanted more arty popping away from the off. Seems to take an eternity to get arty out, whilst you're bean counting your way to another infantry unit, and a much needed, somewhat affordable, but very weak militia.
Good stuff though. Especially if Guns of August was your thing, when that was released, quirky as it was.
Just installed, ready to go. Want to finish Slick's AAR first though.
Quote from: Gusington on November 12, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
Just installed, ready to go. Want to finish Slick's AAR first though.
For the love of God man...Just play!
Here are some impressions after playing a couple of turns of the 1914 campaign (and not reading the manual).
First of all, I love the look of the game. The map is great and the sepia-toned information cards fit in nicely, as do the faux-newspaper headlines that announce major events. Anyone that has ever played a Panzer General styled game will be able to jump right in, as combat, repairing units, and recruiting new ones is straight out of that playbook, which is fine. The big difference is that each country starts with a finite level of manpower that never replenishes, and as you get closer to the bottom of the well, the quality of your troops diminishes, so you have to be careful not to go repair and recruitment crazy.
One difference between this and PG (or the other Commander games) is that leaders are not purchased like ordinary units. They appear when certain milestones are reached. For instance, Von Hindenberg only becomes available to the Germans when a) they are at war with Russia and b) the German infantry has destroyed 20 enemy strength points (note - not units, so knocking a French unit from a strength of 10 to 6 counts as 4 for this purpose).
Likewise, diplomacy is handled uniquely. The 1914 campaign starts with Austria-Hungary at war with Serbia, and 21 neutral countries in the bleachers. Rather then sending diplomats or spending PP's to influence them, they all react to player actions, and that's what makes them more or less likely to enter the war. For example, if the CP player parks a couple of naval units outside of Constantinople, it increases the likelihood that Turkey will enter the war.
Research is handled a bit differently as well. At the start of 1914, you can only invest in infantry research, with the other schools (naval, aircraft, etc.) only becoming available after a certain number of turns. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since it seems a little gamey. Why CAN'T I build labs to research naval tech in the first turn if I want to?
So, right now I like what I see, but I feel I have to RTFM. The only thing I haven't yet found is a way to see the supply situation, but it may be hidden in there somewhere.
Quote from: tgb on November 12, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
So, right now I like what I see, but I feel I have to RTFM.
I think you're spot on.
I, too, need to RTFM. Muddling around for three or four turns has been amusing, but I'm clearly missing something. The Russians have overrun me in the East, the French are clobbering me in the West. The Serbs and I seem to be stalemated in the South.
Also, I'm not seeing any way to try and positively influence diplomacy. I can declare war whenever I like, but how, for instance, might I try to improve relations with Italy? RTFM, I guess... :)
Quote from: LongBlade on November 12, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: tgb on November 12, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
So, right now I like what I see, but I feel I have to RTFM.
I think you're spot on.
I, too, need to RTFM. Muddling around for three or four turns has been amusing, but I'm clearly missing something. The Russians have overrun me in the East, the French are clobbering me in the West. The Serbs and I seem to be stalemated in the South.
Also, I'm not seeing any way to try and positively influence diplomacy. I can declare war whenever I like, but how, for instance, might I try to improve relations with Italy? RTFM, I guess... :)
Go to the diplomacy screen and check the info tab for each country. It will give hints as to how to make it more or less likely that the country will enter the war (i.e. - The CP player needs to send a German battleship to Constantinople to get Turkey into the war)
I have been waiting for a 'Panzer General' of WWI for ten years. This a momentous occasion! My brain is just not hard wired to jump right in. I'm afraid if I do, I will miss too much, get frustrated and then postpone really learning the game. Too much to lose!
Quote from: LongBlade on November 12, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: tgb on November 12, 2012, 06:37:41 PM
So, right now I like what I see, but I feel I have to RTFM.
I think you're spot on.
I, too, need to RTFM. Muddling around for three or four turns has been amusing, but I'm clearly missing something. The Russians have overrun me in the East, the French are clobbering me in the West. The Serbs and I seem to be stalemated in the South.
Also, I'm not seeing any way to try and positively influence diplomacy. I can declare war whenever I like, but how, for instance, might I try to improve relations with Italy? RTFM, I guess... :)
Maybe I am just a better natural commander... ;) I am able to keep the Russians at bay and the Western Front looks a lot like the western front in real life, even by November, 1914. I'm fairly conservative in my attacking, however, and I won't usually assault unless I know it will lead to something. Letting your units sit seems to increase their entrenchment level, and I absolutely LOVE that entrenchment shows physically on the map as little black trenches (awesome touch, a wargame that deforms the map a little).
I'm not sure I understand the battle predictor dialog thingie, it seems to give numbers like 1:3 that don't actually translate to reality. I need to read up on that.
The problem with WWI games is that, when playing the CP, I feel like I have lost early on by spending so much on infantry and garrisons to protect my cities and push back the Russians. That leaves me behind in the air and sea arenas. Certainly I don't expect the CPs to be a naval giant, but I don't want to get steamrolled later in the war by waves of British boats and planes. PP are few and precious, and I almost always need them for infantry and garrisons (for those having trouble in the East, remember that garrisons are built the next turn and, although weak, provide a way to protect cities from Russian grabs).
Quote from: LongBlade on November 12, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
I, too, need to RTFM. Muddling around for three or four turns has been amusing, but I'm clearly missing something. The Russians have overrun me in the East, the French are clobbering me in the West. The Serbs and I seem to be stalemated in the South.
Also, I'm not seeing any way to try and positively influence diplomacy. I can declare war whenever I like, but how, for instance, might I try to improve relations with Italy? RTFM, I guess... :)
In my AAR, while instructing how to play the game, I'm also giving strategies for not getting rolled by the AI. Notice in East Prussia that I'm not attacking, and instead I'm building a defensive line around Koenigsberg/Danizig?
You must establish and keep a cohesive line in order not to let the AI flank and/or surround your units. It's a very delicate balancing act and you'll never have enough PP or MP. War is hell, after all. ;)
Don't be afraid to counter-attack, though. Many times, the best defense is a good offense. You can stop an attack by the AI by counter-attacking its advanced units, knocking them down to 8 or less strength. If you can do that, the AI will stop to repair(so would a human player).
IMO, Diplomacy is the achilles heel of CGTW. You'll notice in my AAR I have so far ignored the Diplomacy tab. The reason is because there's not much to do in there but look at how mad or happy the other nations are with you. They will still enter the war on whichever side they are slated to, but your actions can delay or speed up when they enter. But that's about it.
In short, I wouldn't worry about the Diplomacy tab, and just focus on winning on the battlefield. Hope that helps. :)
Slick your AAR is going to make this game for me. Thanks for putting the time into it. You should look into writing official manuals.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 12, 2012, 10:05:13 PM
I'm not sure I understand the battle predictor dialog thingie, it seems to give numbers like 1:3 that don't actually translate to reality. I need to read up on that.
SoM, is my AAR not clear on the combat prognosis box? I really tried to make that clear.
In a nutshell, the game compares many values between both units involved in the potential combat(like hex entrenchment, unit attributes, unit entrenchment, terrain, etc) then it gives you an estimate of what will likely happen if you proceed with the attack.
If you selected "Show casualties in the combat prognosis" in the display settings: The numbers inside the combat prognosis will show how many strength points and efficiency points will be lost by each side. The red number is how many YOUR unit will potentially lose, while the green number shows how many points the AI will lose.
If you selected "Show kills in the combat prognosis" in the display settings: The numbers inside the combat prognosis will show how many strength points will be destroyed by each side.
It's just a matter of personal taste. I prefer to see how much I stand to lose when attacking, so I use "Show casualties". Someone else may prefer to see how much potential damage they inflict on their enemy during the attack, so they would choose "Show kills".
Quote from: Gusington on November 13, 2012, 09:10:10 AM
Slick your AAR is going to make this game for me. Thanks for putting the time into it. You should look into writing official manuals.
Thanks, Gus. Very kind of you to say. I'm writing the AAR/tutorial in a way that I hope will allow people to more or less jump right into the game and play while consulting my AAR as they go along.
The learning curve is really not steep. But there are some things that are not so obvious unless you take a close look, and I've tried to highlight those things in the AAR by using highlights, arrow, etc.
Quote from: spelk on November 12, 2012, 05:53:56 PM
The only thing I felt was disappointing, was that you start off with very little in the way of artillery, love the trenches developing on the landscape as units are stationed, but to really give out the WWI buzz, I wanted more arty popping away from the off. Seems to take an eternity to get arty out.
Now that my NDA has been lifted, I can talk about the Arty unit. :)
This was one of the most debated issues by myself and a couple of other testers. I had difficulty accepting that a game based on what was essentially a war between artillery and machine gun, would not have many artillery units!
But, the Lordz explained that the Infantry and Garrison units that make up the ground game already have artillery built into them. So arty is in there, albeit abstractly. The Artillery unit in CTGW should be thought of more as an "Artillery barrage", something akin to the preliminary bombardment along the Somme the week before July 1, 1916.
I lobbied hard to have the unit name changed from Artillery to Artillery Barrage, but it was decided to leave it as Artillery. Oh well, c'est la Guerre!
In the game itself, you should definitely save up to purchase Arty units and to increase your Arty production, because the Arty unit is the only real effective way of punching through a stalemated front, like the Serbian front. Once you punch a hole through, it's possible to maneuver and then pick apart the Serbs, but you have to punch through their line somewhere, first.
Don't forget about amphibious invasions, either. You can use it against Serbia, and I have the feeling that sneaky players will use it against their opponent in multi-player games.
Thanks for the insight Wilhelm.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 13, 2012, 09:43:07 AM
Thanks for the insight Wilhelm.
Please, LB, call me Slick. We're all friends here! ;D
One thing I haven't mentioned yet, and I feel strongly about, is how much CTGW feels like playing chess.
When I play, I often spend many minutes agonizing over one move, trying to figure out what could happen in the next few turns if I move a unit to a certain hex. The AI is very brutal when played on privileged mode, and it will make you pay for any opening that you give it.
But, that's a good thing! :)
Hey Slick. If you have time please go over again for me what does the privlidged AI get as opposed to regular or not-privlidged? Can the AI be a challenging opponent without being given a big edge or cheats? Your AAR and opinions are the reason I come to Grogheads. I almost don't trust industry reviews anymore. Thank you, Sir William.
Quote from: Sir Slash on November 13, 2012, 10:28:19 AM
what does the privlidged AI get as opposed to regular or not-privlidged?
Hey Slash,
Well, I'm not privy to exactly what the privileged AI gets, as it wasn't fully disclosed by the Lordz. But if I recall correctly, they did mention that it gets more PP than when on the Neutral or Handicapped setting.
I also don't know if the neutral or handicapped AI is operating at full "smarts", but my guess would be that it's not.
It was fun and amazing to see the progress of the AI during the beta. It went from being a pushover to being a monster! Myrddraal, the Lordz developer responsible for the AI, made huge strides as testing went along. Impressive stuff, indeed.
Speaking of the Lordz, those guys were totally dedicated to this game during the time I spent with them. They seemed to literally eat, breathe and sleep CTGW. And they were extremely attentive and open to any suggestions for improvement or constructive criticism about the gameplay, user interface and just about everything. It was a real privilege to get to test this game for them.
In fact, if you've ever thought about wanting to be a beta tester, I would highly recommend trying to get into one of the Lordz' games. It was a very rewarding and interesting experience.
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on November 13, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 12, 2012, 10:05:13 PM
I'm not sure I understand the battle predictor dialog thingie, it seems to give numbers like 1:3 that don't actually translate to reality. I need to read up on that.
SoM, is my AAR not clear on the combat prognosis box? I really tried to make that clear.
In a nutshell, the game compares many values between both units involved in the potential combat(like hex entrenchment, unit attributes, unit entrenchment, terrain, etc) then it gives you an estimate of what will likely happen if you proceed with the attack.
If you selected "Show casualties in the combat prognosis" in the display settings: The numbers inside the combat prognosis will show how many strength points and efficiency points will be lost by each side. The red number is how many YOUR unit will potentially lose, while the green number shows how many points the AI will lose.
If you selected "Show kills in the combat prognosis" in the display settings: The numbers inside the combat prognosis will show how many strength points will be destroyed by each side.
It's just a matter of personal taste. I prefer to see how much I stand to lose when attacking, so I use "Show casualties". Someone else may prefer to see how much potential damage they inflict on their enemy during the attack, so they would choose "Show kills".
Thanks Slick! I was confused because the red number is on the side that discusses the enemy stats and the green is on the side that discusses your unit's stats. So I was having trouble deciding if that meant losses inflicted or losses taken.
Diplomacy is a weakness in all of these Grand Strategy style TBS games, IMHO. With any of the SCII games, WWII or WWI, you had a hard-coded war to fight, so worrying about diplomacy was pretty much secondary. I suspect the Making History version of WWI will focus more on diplomacy than the others.
How many men does one "strength point" represent? I really dislike games that abstract man-power.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
How many men does one "strength point" represent?
No idea. Abstractions don't bother me as much as you, especially if the end results and the feel of the game are plausibly historical. YMMV, of course.
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on November 13, 2012, 03:13:35 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
How many men does one "strength point" represent?
No idea. Abstractions don't bother me as much as you, especially if the end results and the feel of the game are plausibly historical. YMMV, of course.
They aren't so much "men" as they are really angry pixels.
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on November 13, 2012, 03:13:35 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
How many men does one "strength point" represent?
No idea. Abstractions don't bother me as much as you, especially if the end results and the feel of the game are plausibly historical. YMMV, of course.
In a war such as WWI that was characterized by misery and wholesale slaughter, the likes of which had never been seen in combat up to that time, I think this kind of an abstraction is a total immersion breaker...at least for me.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
How many men does one "strength point" represent? I really dislike games that abstract man-power.
There is an excellent joke in here somewhere... but I just can't find it.
Strategic Command: WW1 Breakthroughs has a lot of very easily moddable scripts. These can be altered by just unchecking a box without writing any code.
I'm currently working on an AAR where:
Central Powers take no offensive action initially excepting Serbia.
Central Powers take no offensive naval action in the North Sea or Atlantic
Central Powers do not invade any neutral countries - especially the low countries.
I've altered the scripts so there is no automatic entry into the war of the USA or the UK given my strategic choices. The UK still starts leaning 80% towards the Entente - but no automatic 1914 Entry.
The conventions of Strategic Command and the new game are very similar. This is not a criticism or accusation. The logistics and technology of WW1 are driving the design choices.
I'm real interested in the Lordz release - but I'm not going to start anything until I finish my current WW1 campaign and I get into January.
I had a technical problem with SC:WWI. The scrolling on my machine was slow and jerky. They said something about it being related to Windows 7 machines, but I never could get an adequate fix.
Slick...I finally read through your AAR. Within two minutes of finishing, I was downloading the game. Well done.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
Slick...I finally read through your AAR. Within two minutes of finishing, I was downloading the game. Well done.
Thanks, Jarhead, I appreciate it. I hope you enjoy the game. Maybe we can play a multi-player match someday.
Has anyone played PBEM yet?
The first thing I did when I got home last night was to buy this game directly off of Slitherine's website. I was up until 01:30 late into the night before finally saving my game to turn in.
Commander: The Great War is the commander of great games! Seriously this game really scratches that history TBS game itch like no other has done for me in quite a while. Your excellent AAR contributed the most to my decision to buy this game and I'm really happy.
Is this just Panzer Corps in another wrapper? Looking at the screenshots it seems it's Panzer Corps in WWI but with a larger scale (map)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 14, 2012, 08:20:36 AM
Is this just Panzer Corps in another wrapper? Looking at the screenshots it seems it's Panzer Corps in WWI but with a larger scale (map)
No sir, completely new game engine. I suspect it may look a little like PC because the same team designed both. Kinda of like how a classical music composer's music uses the same harmonics, orchestrations, etc, making their music identifiable to the trained ear.
I've got PC and I don't think CTGW plays like it.
It a complete different engine Judge, it is also hex based sure and a wargame, but as PzC is more a tactical game where you go from one scenario to the other, this is more a grand strategy game.
Of course there are similarities, but it plays different and needs another approach, tech and fronts change a lot. In the beginning is important to get feets on the ground asap, than try and contain and stabilize the Western Front, Eastern front is more dynamic, later the Middle East. The Balkans, Italian, Romanian front, Caucasus... you will have to deal with limited Production Points, keep an eye on National Moral and Manpower levels.
To win the war, planning your technology upgrade paths and strategic decision have an impact, eg. how fast or late the US gets involved if you start sinking too many convoys, or how fast the Russian Revolution can be provoked by giving The Russians some beating.
And the AI is very aggressive and unforgiving if you make many mistakes, so a game that requires good planning and thinking.
Give it a try, and get a feel for it. Units evolve a lot during the years, so don`t expect early fighters to be superb dog-fighters or your bombers very efficient strategic bombers in 1914 (airships are better for that early on, but again when aircraft and anti-air tech evolves they get a beating, not useless as recon and if you invest in anti-submarine tech they still can be useful), but research the right tech and you have a whole other battle.
Nations also differ eg, The British depend a lot on convoys so, keep an eye on their PP levels, once the many convoys come in from their worldwide dominions they can put more in the field. And every nation has a slightly different tech path, like eg. The Germans have a slight edge in Infantry tech early in the war, so important is to stop them asap before Paris.
Many more under the hood, but people just have to find it out themselves and yes: read Slick his excellent AAR!!!!
Of course you can plunge in at any date and try eg. 1917 as the Entente, that is a big one, but we we recommend starting as the Entente Allies in 1914 on balanced AI.
Hmm...how come you recommend starting as the Allies? In 1914 are the Central Powers in a much more difficult position in this game?
I ask because I wanted to start as the Central Powers :)
I'm not sure why he's recommending the Entente but last night I started a game as the Central Powers. Can I tell you that the first few months are nail biting but if you can juggle the fronts properly you'll make it to the new year.
Lord Zimoa is correct, early in the grand campaign you have to get boots on the ground or you'll die. However that is what really happened isn't it? Germany had a very strict timetable based off of how fast France and Russia could mobilize. Just read "Guns of August".
This game so far has really hit on all the points that the history books describe about the early years of the war. Meaning, it's fun to watch the different techs get introduced at roughly the same time they appeared historically and how the battle is constantly swinging back and forth. I really love how the Western Front is modeled in game. It's an endless meatgrinder of carnage galore. Doesn't matter how much arty you bring to the party because ammunition stocks dry up faster than lines can be punched through. Brilliant!!
The Eastern Front gets bogged down in static trench warfare but then quickly becomes mobile again thanks to some tech or simply numbers of men in the field. The mobile war last for only so long though before settling down again statically. There have been more than one occasion where I thought I finally had those Russians on the run but the very next turn they pull out millions and millions more men to plug the holes. Only to see them get burned up a few turns later.
My XBOX which has kept me chained to it for almost a whole year is about to face some fierce competition from Commander: The Great War. ;)
The Russian bear is a real...bear once it wakes up. Maintaining a strong defensive line in the east is a real challenge but absolutely necessary. In my case, the Russian Revolution came just in the nick of time!
Yeah bought this today. Muat say I like what I see. Pity there is no hotseat. I always like to play both sides at some stage.
You know I hate you guys right. :P Between Slick Wilhelm's great AAR and all the talk I am downloading the game now. This will be the first WWI game I've ever played but I just couldn't help myself. So yeah thanks for that.
Also I think the best marketing a company can have for their new game is a well written AAR, well it suckers me in more often then not... ::)
W8 funny you mention your XBox. In a similar way Skyrim has had its grip on me for about a month. It's slowly slipping away.
I have a collection of about 15-20 WWI books that I have been saving just for that perfect WWI strategic game to come along, including a British history of the war that I actually bought when I was at the Imperial War Museum almost 10 years ago.
All of that, waiting for this moment. And here it is. I need to savor.
GIGGITY
I have fought the urge to buy so far, but not sure how much longer I can hold out. All the talk seems to make it sound like a very good game.
^You know you want to. Now that the floodgates have opened I may buy the Strategic Command WWI complete package just to compare the two. Happy days.
Quote from: Gusington on November 14, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
^You know you want to. Now that the floodgates have opened I may buy the Strategic Command WWI complete package just to compare the two. Happy days.
You are right, I want to buy for sure:) Just trying to minimize my impulse buys nowadays....but I really like the sounds of this one where it seems easy to play but hard to master.
Just wait a few days there'll be another suggested impulsive game purchase to consider.
Quote from: Bison on November 14, 2012, 07:52:41 PM
Just wait a few days there'll be another suggested impulsive game purchase to consider.
sad but true....guessing the holiday sales are right around the corner as well.......bad time of the year for my wallet:(
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 14, 2012, 07:54:57 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 14, 2012, 07:52:41 PM
Just wait a few days there'll be another suggested impulsive game purchase to consider.
sad but true....guessing the holiday sales are right around the corner as well.......bad time of the year for my wallet:(
well Iron Sky is due out on 11/22. :D
I was downloading CTGW within minutes of it being available, but I think I'll wait on some reviews b4/if I pick up that one (but it does look very interesting!)
I'm just not sure this scale pleases me anymore. Back in the day when I hung about Matrix Games more often I'd have bought this on day one - but a) it looks like Panzer Corps (which after the initial nostalgic value wore off I lost interest in) - and Grand Strat games have a very, very bad reputation of rubbish AI.
I might - actually I'll read Slicks AAR maybe
Quote from: Gusington on November 14, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
^You know you want to. Now that the floodgates have opened I may buy the Strategic Command WWI complete package just to compare the two. Happy days.
I was trying out the new demo yesterday for Strategic Command WWI Breakthrough. Was underwhelmed by its simplicity. Not a big fan of squares over hexagons. Also, why the hell does France have a bomber unit and an aircraft carrier unit in 1914? Not saying its a bad game but those were my impressions after playing it for an hour.
I started a game as the Entente last night after giving the manual a quick read through. Not sure exactly what I am doing yet but I finally stopped the German advance in the east but my Russians are not fairing as well as I thought they would. Turkey just entered the war for which I was not prepared and they are running amuck in Egypt. PP is running low for each country and I am not sure if that is due to me buying to many units or if I am getting fix/upgrade happy with them. Also I have no idea what to do with some of my naval units, specifically the ones in the Mediterranean. Its been fun but once I get my bearings I'll start a new game "for real" ;D
Ah the old "for real" gag.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 13, 2012, 05:25:41 PM
I had a technical problem with SC:WWI. The scrolling on my machine was slow and jerky. They said something about it being related to Windows 7 machines, but I never could get an adequate fix.
I just wanted to say that, in response to this post, the SC:WWI dev PM'ed me and let me know that they had instituted a fix in Breakthrough. So I DL'ed the demo and it worked much better! How is that for service!
All this talk of WWI has waken my 'I most own a WWI game :P'. And I have tried the SC WWI Breakthrough demo, but find it slow, the UI old and the graphic very 'messy' ( Maybe its my color blindness that makes it harder than it should...)
But SC WWI B looks more deep....
Argh all those choices.
Somebody please do a comparison ;)
PS. I have Slitherines Panzer Corps and semi like the game (not a fan of the turn limit, but setting the difficulty one notch down, has helped a lot)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 15, 2012, 09:39:33 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 13, 2012, 05:25:41 PM
I had a technical problem with SC:WWI. The scrolling on my machine was slow and jerky. They said something about it being related to Windows 7 machines, but I never could get an adequate fix.
I just wanted to say that, in response to this post, the SC:WWI dev PM'ed me and let me know that they had instituted a fix in Breakthrough. So I DL'ed the demo and it worked much better! How is that for service!
Try the Ludendorff offensive scenario though - I cant get that thing to scroll at all ...
Quote from: Cougar_DK on November 15, 2012, 11:45:22 AM
All this talk of WWI has waken my 'I most own a WWI game :P'. And I have tried the SC WWI Breakthrough demo, but find it slow, the UI old and the graphic very 'messy' ( Maybe its my color blindness that makes it harder than it should...)
But SC WWI B looks more deep....
Argh all those choices.
Somebody please do a comparison ;)
PS. I have Slitherines Panzer Corps and semi like the game (not a fan of the turn limit, but setting the difficulty one notch down, has helped a lot)
I have fired up the SC demo about 50 times in my battle to decide between the two. I just cant get on with it. I ended up buying the Matrix game. I am not sure SCWWI is deeper - there are a lot of nuances to the Matrix game that arent apparent immediately - but I havent played the battlefront game enough to confirm that. SC has a lot more content with the other scenarios and the different level of operations - but as I say the matrix game just feels nicer - although one area its a bit thinner is in diplomacy - though if you want WWI to play out as it happened all that stuff strikes me as a bit irrelevent. I gues I am just looking for a simpler, full WWI game so am not bothered by all the other scenarios in the SC game - its an abstract engine so not sure of the value of the more detailed division level scenarios. I hate squares as well.
Thanks,
I have decided for Commander - The Great War :)
Downloading.... ;)
Let me know what you think because I have the exact same question
Trying to decide which game will scratch my WWI itch better. I would like to have something that is realistic (reasonably) fits historical parameters and results and basically feels like a good recreation of WWI
Con
Quote from: Con on November 15, 2012, 02:16:27 PM
Let me know what you think because I have the exact same question
Trying to decide which game will scratch my WWI itch better. I would like to have something that is realistic (reasonably) fits historical parameters and results and basically feels like a good recreation of WWI
Con
Seconded. Although the AI is important too.
You guys won't regret buying Commander: TGW.
The battelfront series of Strategic Command games never really grabbed me because the gameflow was not smooth. I could never really establish a rythim of playing a turn. Playing a turn seemed like a lot of work.
In C:TGW, game flow is very smooth. IOW action items that need to be done every turn such as moving units, performing combat, buying new units, repairing damaged, units, research, etc. all are easy to execute. This translates, for me at least, easy to play turns despite the demands for my attention to various fronts, production matters, and research priorities.
I can't put my finger on it but playing this game just feels right.
iow? in other words?
Quote from: W8taminute on November 15, 2012, 02:28:35 PM
You guys won't regret buying Commander: TGW.
The battelfront series of Strategic Command games never really grabbed me because the gameflow was not smooth. I could never really establish a rythim of playing a turn. Playing a turn seemed like a lot of work.
In C:TGW, game flow is very smooth. IOW action items that need to be done every turn such as moving units, performing combat, buying new units, repairing damaged, units, research, etc. all are easy to execute. This translates, for me at least, easy to play turns despite the demands for my attention to various fronts, production matters, and research priorities.
I can't put my finger on it but playing this game just feels right.
I do not disagree that the flow of C:TGW is much smoother and the turns a whole lot quicker than in SC:WWI. The big factor in this is the much more abstracted level of C:TGW and the, at least in my opinion, much smaller numbers of units and larger hex abstractions. For example, in SC:WWI, you might have 3-4 airplanes and 4-5 artillery units that can all fire and fight every turn. In C:TGW, you are lucky to have a few planes and one or two artillery units. You are VERY lucky to have the ammo to fire all those artillery (not to mention fire artillery and fire battleship barrages). But each barrage has a marked effect on the front.
The feel of each game is extremely different. C:TGW is a faster paced, chess-like, almost boardgame simplicity in its execution. That doesn't mean it is a simple game, just that the mechanics are all there in front of you and easy to access. Your turns are more manageable in small bites. You can play for 30 minutes and actually get somewhere. To me, C:TGW is pure beer and pretzels. It is dynamic and energetic, like T.E. Lawrence in 1917.
SC:WWI is a far different beast. It feel more like a grand strategy. You have lots of units, you have lots of production, you have little hand-holding and you need to be very keen with all of your moves, lest you embark on a path that will crumble a properly prepared offensive. You can't expect research to improve without funding and you have little limit on what you research at what time (I suppose you could start researching tanks from day one). SC:WWI feels more "stately," the map is a grander scale, your armies slowly slog, your turns are calculated, your production is meticulous. In 30 minutes you *might* get three or so turns in, depending on where you are in the war, but I doubt you will see a lot of gains on any front in that short of a time. So SC:WWI is stately, but more ponderous, like Hindenberg in the 1930s.
Does that make one *better* than the other? No. In fact, I'm grappling with which one I prefer. I need more game time before I can make that judgement. I think both have a place and scratch different itches.
^^IOW = In other words. :)
^What I couldn't put into words you did. Thanks for that comparison. You're spot on with W:TGW. I've got one problem now. You summarized what is needed to play SC:WWI so nicely that I just might have to revisit the demo again. If I can make sense of this game and allow myself a little patience, I just might pick up this title as well!!!
The bad news is that I'm going to have to put Black Ops II on hold so that I can properly digest the aforementioned games.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on November 15, 2012, 12:18:40 PM
Try the Ludendorff offensive scenario though - I cant get that thing to scroll at all ...
Hi Zulu1966
The issue with scrolling seems to be with having the map text showing, and hopefully in the Breakthrough Demo if you go into Options -> Advanced and select the
Hide Text During Map Scroll button, this should speed up the scrolling significantly.
Please let me know if this does make all the difference (you can always PM me) and reading your post has made us consider making this the default setting so as to hopefully avoid this cropping up again in the future. With the possibility for players to change it of course.
Thanks
Bill
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 15, 2012, 08:07:58 AM
I was trying out the new demo yesterday for Strategic Command WWI Breakthrough. Was underwhelmed by its simplicity. Not a big fan of squares over hexagons. Also, why the hell does France have a bomber unit and an aircraft carrier unit in 1914? Not saying its a bad game but those were my impressions after playing it for an hour.
Hi Bboyer66
Just thought I'd explain about the French units as before researching for the game I also would have been surprised to see the French have a carrier in the game.
The French started developing Seaplane Carriers before the war, being the first country to do so, and the one in the game is La Foudre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Foudre
In the game Seaplane Carriers are only really useful for reconnaissance, and of limited use at that. But they can occasionally prove very useful in a naval engagement when knowing where the enemy fleet is is all important.
As to the Recon bombers, the French had about 120 aircraft when war broke out, and like their seaplane counterparts they are only really useful for reconnaissance in 1914, gaining a better ability to bomb later in the war after being improved and upgraded.
Bill
There are several detailed AARs for Strategic Command WW1 and for Strategic Command: Breakthroughs.
The Strategic Command series seems to give the players more options. It seems to have more depth in research, diplomacy and on the battlefield. The battlefield options seem greater because there are many more hexes per front than in the other game. Strategic Command also seems both more complicated and more easily modded.
The new game also looks interesting. I'll probably buy it after I finish my current Breakthroughs game.
How well does Commander model naval combat? This is a weakness in the Strategic Command series IMHO.
Game play aside.
Commander's art style is way above Strategic Command.
It matters a lot if you want to stare at the screen for a long time.
Quote from: jomni on November 15, 2012, 05:37:42 PM
Game play aside.
Commander's art style is way above Strategic Command.
It matters a lot if you want to stare at the screen for a long time.
I sort of disagree. Commander's art style is brown and muddy, SC:WWI is bright, cartoony, and spite-based (edit: er... sprite-based). I like them both, both have their draw. Now the map art is better in Commander.
Spite-based...I like that.
Quote from: jomni on November 15, 2012, 05:37:42 PM
Game play aside.
Commander's art style is way above Strategic Command.
It matters a lot if you want to stare at the screen for a long time.
I won't compare the two, but I will say that Commander's artwork is really attractive. I love the sepia toned news that pop up.
Also, FWIW, I think the concept artwork of some of their other titles is fantastic. Lord Zimoa's footer is a awesome. I just love it.
Just saw on the Slitherine site that there is/may be a bug that makes the Handicapped AI harder than Balanced. Patch is being worked on, but they recommend playing on Balanced in the meantime...
I've bought most of the SC line, but truthfully the squares and the terrible artwork on the maps have always been a major turn off for me. I've already logged in more time playing Commander:The Great War than I managed to get in on SCWWI. I think it's great that we have more than one offering, since we all have different tastes, but CTGW is destined to be a personal favorite while I've already taken SCWWI off my hard drive.
^What are your thoughts of Commander?
Thanks for the above note Steve. All I need is a bugged AI to destroy 10 years of anticipation.
Quote from: Gusington on November 15, 2012, 09:43:02 PM
All I need is a bugged AI to destroy 10 years of anticipation.
The privileged AI does not appear to be bugged. It'll eat you for lunch, as I fear it's about to do to me in my AAR! :o
Hell, the balanced AI is kicking my ass.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 15, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 15, 2012, 05:37:42 PM
Game play aside.
Commander's art style is way above Strategic Command.
It matters a lot if you want to stare at the screen for a long time.
I sort of disagree. Commander's art style is brown and muddy, SC:WWI is bright, cartoony, and spite-based (edit: er... sprite-based). I like them both, both have their draw. Now the map art is better in Commander.
No, no, you're thinking of WW1Gold. Its art is spite-based. ;D
It occurs to me that a progression of ideal difficulty (not counting difficulty due to bugs) would be CTGW, SCWW1B, and then WW1Gold. (With Guns of August coming in somewhere before or after SCWW1B.)
Quote from: Gusington on November 15, 2012, 09:43:02 PM
^What are your thoughts of Commander?
Thanks for the above note Steve. All I need is a bugged AI to destroy 10 years of anticipation.
I'm loving Commander. Its very playable, all while allowing a number of strategies and options and a decent AI that will react to mistakes on your part, without being lured into obvious traps. It's a big jump over CEAW Gold, which is probably my favorite strategic level WWII game.
I've installed, but have not had the chance to play yet. Can't wait to dive in this weekend. Western Front, here I come!
I keep getting big, "DOAH!" moments when getting the mouse button controls mixed up and accidentally clicking & moving a unit into some random hex. :o
I just recently switched the option on for the 2-Button thing, that's a bit more traditional (L-click to select, R-click to move/attack/whatevah). So now I just gotta unlearn the default 1-button thing so I stop thinking it's still that way.
I can see that the AI will definitely take advantage of your bad decisions. Woe is my British mideast force right now. :-[
For my first playthrough I am going to put it on the easiest AI, just to ease into this.
Quote from: Gusington on November 16, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
For my first playthrough I am going to put it on the easiest AI, just to ease into this.
LOL!
Isn't it the most difficult level, right now, due to a bug? I wanna hear how
that turns out! :P
Up above they're saying there is no bug!
Quote from: Gusington on November 16, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
Up above they're saying there is no bug!
Ah. Well, carry on then. ;D
I
am making slow headway on the western front grind. So I'm not totally gettin' skewered on the regular difficulty level. I just gotta think my moves & attacks through a bit more, it seems, before committing. Especially since I'm accidentally moving on occasion (and there's no Undo command).
One thing I'd really like to see is the percentage of the original Manpower rating I currently have left, displayed after the MP rating in the Management tab's window for each nation. Just a percentage in parentheses after the current total is all. ;)
That stat would be pretty damned grim after a while I think.
Balanced and Privileged AI aren't bugged. Its the Handicapped (easiest) AI that may have a bug that makes it harder than Balanced...
Quote from: Gusington on November 16, 2012, 03:05:46 PM
That stat would be pretty damned grim after a while I think.
Well.. I keep worrying about how close I am to dropping below the dreaded 70% level where your newly recruited units start with lower efficiency.
There's no displayed percentage that I see.. and I didn't write down the initial levels to do the calculations, myself! :o Must just be an oversight or on the To Do list for post-release updates.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 16, 2012, 03:04:07 PM
One thing I'd really like to see is the percentage of the original Manpower rating I currently have left, displayed after the MP rating in the Management tab's window for each nation. Just a percentage in parentheses after the current total is all. ;)
I asked for this awhile back during the beta period, but it must have not been a priority. Hopefully the Lordz will add it in at some point in a patch. I feel it would be very useful to the player.
Something just struck me and I wonder if I was the only one
With Florence Green dying this year there are no living Veterans of WWI. This is the first year that Armistice Day has no survivors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Green
Con
Quote from: Con on November 16, 2012, 05:10:24 PM
Something just struck me and I wonder if I was the only one
With Florence Green dying this year there are no living Veterans of WWI. This is the first year that Armistice Day has no survivors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Green
Con
Thanks for the reminder. God bless all those men and women who fought, died and lived through the war.
QuoteThanks for the reminder. God bless all those men and women who fought, died and lived through the war.
Indeed. It's great to see all these new WW1 games out. Along those same lines, if you ever get to visit this place I would highly recommend
http://www.theworldwar.org
Quote from: Nefaro on November 16, 2012, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Gusington on November 16, 2012, 03:05:46 PM
That stat would be pretty damned grim after a while I think.
Well.. I keep worrying about how close I am to dropping below the dreaded 70% level where your newly recruited units start with lower efficiency.
There's no displayed percentage that I see.. and I didn't write down the initial levels to do the calculations, myself! :o Must just be an oversight or on the To Do list for post-release updates.
Nefaro, look under "Management", then check out the "Finances Overview". The manpower numbers you want are on the left :)
I think about the fact that there may be no WWI vets left anywhere and then I think there have to be at least a few undocumented ones who were mere boys back then left somewhere. In a few years though, every last one, documented or not, will be gone, and WWI will be for my children what the Civil War is to me.
Does that make any sense?
Quote from: Nefaro on November 16, 2012, 02:48:55 PM
I keep getting big, "DOAH!" moments when getting the mouse button controls mixed up and accidentally clicking & moving a unit into some random hex. :o
I just recently switched the option on for the 2-Button thing, that's a bit more traditional (L-click to select, R-click to move/attack/whatevah). So now I just gotta unlearn the default 1-button thing so I stop thinking it's still that way.
I can see that the AI will definitely take advantage of your bad decisions. Woe is my British mideast force right now. :-[
I find myself accidentally clicking sometimes and the AI jumps all over that. My mideast force is in bad shape now as well, I am fairly certain I will lose Egypt in a few turns.
Quote from: Steelgrave on November 16, 2012, 05:34:13 PM
Nefaro, look under "Management", then check out the "Finances Overview". The manpower numbers you want are on the left :)
Are you 100% positive that the "Economic Output" percentage is equal to the ManPower percentage? If so, that's great!
But I've yet to see this confirmed by the Lordz(or anyone else).
^No, that was my assumption. Now you have me wondering.
I have to check with Dave, will come back to this.
Quote from: Steelgrave on November 16, 2012, 05:34:13 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 16, 2012, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Gusington on November 16, 2012, 03:05:46 PM
That stat would be pretty damned grim after a while I think.
Well.. I keep worrying about how close I am to dropping below the dreaded 70% level where your newly recruited units start with lower efficiency.
There's no displayed percentage that I see.. and I didn't write down the initial levels to do the calculations, myself! :o Must just be an oversight or on the To Do list for post-release updates.
Nefaro, look under "Management", then check out the "Finances Overview". The manpower numbers you want are on the left :)
Thanks!
I didn't know if that percentage also went for the Manpower percentage. The title threw me off, but I
did notice that after posting and wondered. Now I don't have to ask! ;D
Edit: Or maybe not? LOL.
Quote from: Al on November 16, 2012, 05:29:45 PM
QuoteThanks for the reminder. God bless all those men and women who fought, died and lived through the war.
Indeed. It's great to see all these new WW1 games out. Along those same lines, if you ever get to visit this place I would highly recommend
http://www.theworldwar.org
I have the luck of living in in a suburb of Kansas City, MO. And I
still haven't gone to the WWI museum ever since I moved back here a couple years ago (and they had fixed the place up and expanded). AFAIK, we've had the last big remaining WWI memorial here for awhile now, in the US. It was originally created for one of the Divisions sent over there long ago. For quite awhile it became a place where vagrants and ne'erdowells hung out in the park outside to do drugs and such crap but they've since cleaned the area up years ago IIRC and worked up the museum. :)
I still have plans, though! Once I can pull myself away from other crap/issues, Imahitdat. Take the family, be an amateur tour guide. 8)
I live ~3 hours to the north of KC and have made it down to the museum at least once a year for the past 3 years. Last year that had a special showing of this guy's collection of WW1 German arms and uniforms that was amazing and quite extensive.
Plan on spending the day. It covers all the war and participants - not just the US as some believe.
Quote from: Al on November 17, 2012, 09:09:38 AM
Plan on spending the day. It covers all the war and participants - not just the US as some believe.
Yeah, I heard the Russian ambassador even had some of their stuff sent over. 8)