To End All Wars released today

[jomni]

Trench warfare definitely still needs some work.  The way units build trenches is fine - they increase in strength as the unit stays in place (like in CW2 - but the rest is still a bit of a mess. 

First, the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanism - by which any unit commanded by a general may leave its province and march to reinforce a battle - means that front-line units engage in lateral movement that the player can't entirely control.  A battle in Province B can cause all your units in Provinces A and C to abandon their trenches and march to Province B.  Which might be fine if they win (it appears that winning units return to their original positions after the battle).  If they lose, though, they all retreat and the single battle thus opens a huge multi-province hole in your lines.   

Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like.

Third, the mechanisms for making a unit stay home and defend in place are unclear and not especially satisfactory.  You can give a unit the Evade Combat order, but the order may fail if the general in inactive (weird that an inactive general would make a unit more likely to move).  Or you might be able to make a unit stay put by not giving it a general at all (so it won't MTSG) but that weakens it as a defensive force.

An on/off switch per unit for MTSG seems to be the obvious solution.  This is a prime example of an area where the CW2 engine doesn't necessarily work for WWI.  Hope they fix it.

Sounds like WW1 Gold does a better job.

[Queeg]

I think you will find that it models trench warfare pretty well. units have always had the ability to entrench automatically the longer they remain in the area. What they did with this game was increase the power of entrenchment and increase the amount of entrenchment you can do. so if you have units string from province to province that have been there for several turns, they will automatically create a trench network which gives them an incredible defense of bonus against an enemy attack. entrenchment always has

At the same time, I did not like how world war one gold basically forced you to go into trench warfare at a certain point in the game if you had not won yet. This, again as with most a AGEOD games at least gives you the possibility and opportunity to create a different type of war than World War I turned out to be. maybe it didn't have to devolve into trench warfare... maybe there was another way to conduct the war and this game allows it instead of simply forcing you to get entrenched and fight each other for four years

Good points. It sounds like AGEOD has come up with a system that it superior to WWI Gold. I agree that the flexibility is to be desired.

EAW is more flexible in that trench warfare doesn't occur on a more-or-less fixed schedule (there was some flexibility in WWI Gold, but not much).  But in many other ways, it is much less flexible.

Probably the biggest difference is the way WWI Gold handles reserves.  In that game, reserves are committed on an Army or GHQ basis, so reserves can be fed selectively into any battle across the entire front.  One of the nice strategy decision points in WWI Gold is "Do I commit my reserves to this battle or save them for the next one down the line?  Or do I save them for a counter-attack?"  The system allows for a strong front line with a flexible defense in depth, all within the player's direct control.

EAW, by comparison, is much less flexible.  Reserves will march (or not) pretty much wherever they want, even laterally, based on factors you really don't have great control over.  Hopefully, they'll fix some of this, but the system probably won't ever be as flexible as WWI Gold.  The mechanics for player choice just aren't there.

[sandman2575]

It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

Nothing would make me happier than an AGEOD WW2 game -- although I understand why lots of folks (like mikeck) would not be thrilled at yet another game devoted to the most over-represented conflict in history.  But the mere thought of what AGEOD could do with detailed OOBs in a ww2 context makes me giddy.   

[Boggit]

Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Whilst I recognise the issue of commincations and national self interest, I raised the issue of single entente with Slitherine just before release and got the response - "Hardcore mode indeed :p Played by 0.3% of the players" I think the concern is that as it's very complex a lot of players might be overwhelmed with the complexity of the game to cope with the full entente. It's very understandable, but not what I wanted to hear.

So, if like me you're into hardcore mode then the way forward has to be grassroot support for it. WHO'S WITH ME!!! O0

[Boggit]

It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

Nothing would make me happier than an AGEOD WW2 game -- although I understand why lots of folks (like mikeck) would not be thrilled at yet another game devoted to the most over-represented conflict in history.  But the mere thought of what AGEOD could do with detailed OOBs in a ww2 context makes me giddy.   

IIRC from my time at HOW14, it is something that both Phil Thibaut, and Phil Malacher have thought about, and may yet revisit in the future. This release really may not be To End All Wars (if you'll excuse the pun ;)). 

[mikeck]

Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

Agreed. In the meantime you can leave them on a defensive posture I believe. This prevents them from marching off. Any enemy army entering territory you hold automatically switches to offensive so they will still be forced to attack you. From the manual:

Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege.

So in other words: that unit won't leave it's trench to march to the sound of the guns.
It will sit where it is until attacked.

What I like is that you don't HAVE to end up in trench warfare. wW1 gold forced you to do it. EAW allows you to try something else. You may still end up hitting enemy units in level 5 trenches in which case, you better dig in. I hated that I'm 1915 (WW1 gold) I had to revert to trench warfare.

I did prefer other aspects of WW1 such as the handling of reserves

[mikeck]

Trench warfare definitely still needs some work.  The way units build trenches is fine - they increase in strength as the unit stays in place (like in CW2 - but the rest is still a bit of a mess. 

First, the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanism - by which any unit commanded by a general may leave its province and march to reinforce a battle - means that front-line units engage in lateral movement that the player can't entirely control.  A battle in Province B can cause all your units in Provinces A and C to abandon their trenches and march to Province B.  Which might be fine if they win (it appears that winning units return to their original positions after the battle).  If they lose, though, they all retreat and the single battle thus opens a huge multi-province hole in your lines.   

Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like.

Third, the mechanisms for making a unit stay home and defend in place are unclear and not especially satisfactory.  You can give a unit the Evade Combat order, but the order may fail if the general in inactive (weird that an inactive general would make a unit more likely to move).  Or you might be able to make a unit stay put by not giving it a general at all (so it won't MTSG) but that weakens it as a defensive force.

An on/off switch per unit for MTSG seems to be the obvious solution.  This is a prime example of an area where the CW2 engine doesn't necessarily work for WWI.  Hope they fix it.

Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I 100% agree with this comment though:

"Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like."

On the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

[Queeg]

Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I'm not sure that's correct.  I think folks are reporting that even units set to Defensive posture are MTSG if a unit in an adjacent province is attacked.  They are "defending" but across a broader front - I suppose in an attempt to mimic trench warfare, but with unintended consequences. 

On the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

Correct.  But "reinforcement" is also modeled by units in adjacent provinces MTSG, which creates the problem.  If reinforcements worked only via the GHQ (or perhaps at the Army level via units designated as reserves), that would be fine.  With the MTSG mechanic, though, you see too many battles morph from a one-province skirmish into a front-wide free-for-all, with the possibility of a resulting multi-province gap in the front.

[W8taminute]

Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

[Boggit]

Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

John Tiller games offer this. OK, the trench/improved positions might degrade for lack of maintenance, but are usually repairable. It's certainly the case in the WW2 Panzer Campaigns, and I'm pertty sure it operates the same in First World War Campaigns. I say "pretty sure" because my games in France, and East Prussia '14 have all been pretty mobile with me playing the Germans on the attack, so defence has not been the priority.

[Queeg]

Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

John Tiller games offer this. OK, the trench/improved positions might degrade for lack of maintenance, but are usually repairable. It's certainly the case in the WW2 Panzer Campaigns, and I'm pertty sure it operates the same in First World War Campaigns. I say "pretty sure" because my games in France, and East Prussia '14 have all been pretty mobile with me playing the Germans on the attack, so defence has not been the priority.

The Tiller games do a nice job of it, but with all the other baggage that comes with Tiller games.  Definitely a matter of taste.

[bboyer66]

Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I'm not sure that's correct.  I think folks are reporting that even units set to Defensive posture are MTSG if a unit in an adjacent province is attacked.  They are "defending" but across a broader front - I suppose in an attempt to mimic trench warfare, but with unintended consequences. 

On the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

Correct.  But "reinforcement" is also modeled by units in adjacent provinces MTSG, which creates the problem.  If reinforcements worked only via the GHQ (or perhaps at the Army level via units designated as reserves), that would be fine.  With the MTSG mechanic, though, you see too many battles morph from a one-province skirmish into a front-wide free-for-all, with the possibility of a resulting multi-province gap in the front.

What Queeg said. Even units in a defensive posture will support nearby units by "MTSG".   Works good in the Civil War game because it accurately models the corp support style of warfare at the time, where one corp would fix the enemy and every other corp in the nearby area would get there ASAP to help. WWI not so much.

[bboyer66]

Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Whilst I recognise the issue of commincations and national self interest, I raised the issue of single entente with Slitherine just before release and got the response - "Hardcore mode indeed :p Played by 0.3% of the players" I think the concern is that as it's very complex a lot of players might be overwhelmed with the complexity of the game to cope with the full entente. It's very understandable, but not what I wanted to hear.

So, if like me you're into hardcore mode then the way forward has to be grassroot support for it. WHO'S WITH ME!!! O0

The people buying this game are hardcore players. This aint tiddlywinks, you know what I am saying.

[Nefaro]

Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

I thought they were supposed to return to the location they had "marched" from, in previous games.  Maybe this was always the case when they're routed, but I'd say it's definitely an issue for all AGE games if this is the case and even more so for WW1. 

[bboyer66]

Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

I thought they were supposed to return to the location they had "marched" from, in previous games.  Maybe this was always the case when they're routed, but I'd say it's definitely an issue for all AGE games if this is the case and even more so for WW1.

That would make the situation a little more tolerable. But reports are that the supporting units are just retreating with the defeated units they supported.