How is this game?

[Krec]

i am a ww2 player mostly. never played a ww1 game , but this format looks right up my ally[:D]. o , please tell me , whats this game like? , pros and cons , i am looking for another game i can play vs human . i dont play vs ai so skip that stuff[>:] , just give me the blood and guts of this baby.

[Snowbart1943]

Its good so far.  Everyone has been waiting on the 1st patch which the beta just came out today, the official release is in a day or 2.  You can play by email but i believe most people were waiting on the patch. 
 
Its fun, a nice change from the WWII theme, and the gameplay is intuitive and fun.  Try it out, you wont be sorry. 

[hjaco]

This game is especially worthwhile playing against a human opponent which it is awesome at.

You have full control over at start deployment (in 1914 campaign) so you can try different strategies. With limited ability to strategically move troops on a large scale you are basically stuck with your overall strategy which makes this decision a nail biter - for both sides because the Entente must also be in the offensive where not under attack.

FOG means you only now that something is in a hex next to you, but you have limited intelligence on what composition of forces you are up against. So you don't really know if Germany is going east or west before after a couple of impulses, which makes it difficult for Russia/France to come to each others help. Remember - you are basically stuck with your pré-war deployment of forces.

Movement & combat is resolved at the same time which means that your grand movement plans are not always carried out because some of your unit may get attacked (each unit is measured on initiative). This means that it is difficult to disengage an entire front voluntarily i.e. to get weak units out of the line before they are crumbled forcing you to reinforce a weak spot under heavy attack. So you really have to think ahead.

There is a unique way of attacking. You have HQ's with offensive point which is used to activate units around them. Without activation you can only do defensive stuff. Offensive points are very expensive to replace (although you start with a lot) and your ability to replace losses are limited on national manpower reserves. All this boils down to that you must prepare a major offensive up to a year in advance, building up the necessary reserve to keep that offensive going. It also means that attrition is a viable strategy (either for or against you [:D])

Air and naval warfare is simulated on a very high strategic level so the game concentrates on ground warfare. Graphics are what warfare game usually has and forget about music. Manual is as always very basic with few informations for Grognards but you get quick help on this forum. Game interface isn't the best but it works. The price is good compared to most other games !

I can only recommend it especially because it is unique in design.

[JudgeDredd]

The HQ activation stuff is a superb way to do things. With limited activations (you can buy more at the cost of other things on the Strategic phase, but these don't show up for many turns after), you really have to make the right choices and know what you are doing.

The game is just simply great. I've had a hard time dragging myself away from playing it. I've made several errors but the most prominent is not thinking far enough ahead. You HAVE to do this in order to make any coherent attack/defense.

I've never been interested in WWI and avoid the WWI scenarios in TOAWIII like the plague...but this...this is something else.

[EUBanana]

Top game. 

To add to what others have said above - the system itself is fairly simple, but it does do a good job of replicating various WW1 strategies and difficulties.  You get shell shortages, when advancing you advance out of range of your artillery support, your general flexibility and mobility is very limited, etc.   Attrition is a very valid strategy, nations get exhausted after too many casualties and manpower or the arms required to equip the manpower comes from a very finite pool in the case of some nations (especially France which has too little manpower and Russia which has too few arms). 

The HQ system does a reasonable job of replicating WW1 static warfare, if a front is deemed not worthy of serious investment (offensives are very costly) you can have two lines of troops lobbing shells at each other for months and not moving.  On the other hand if you do focus a massive amount of effort you can break the line without too much trouble so it isn't a frustrating game, its just a question of planning ahead and making the required investment.  If static warfare is allowed to go on for too long and an army invests heavily in trenches though you can end up with a very tough line to break, so by 1916 Somme-like battles of attrition become possible.


I've been bored of WW2 for a long time, and am something of a WW1 buff, so this really is the dream game as far as I'm concerned.  [:D]

[hjaco]

I have one further thing to add.

Conquest is a very complex matter - a country will not necessarily surrender just because you have taken their capital although it certainly helps.

Each nation has a morale level which starts at 100 % and when it reaches 0 % they will surrender. Being below 20 % for Russia can sparkle a revolution adding nice flavor to the game. Morale is secret to the other side so you have an idea of how their situation is but no more than that.

So maybe just one more offensive is all you need.......

Morale is lost primarily by losing cities and suffering too many losses on the battlefield but other factors count as well like capital ships lost, food shortages, allies surrendering.

[nukkxx5058]

Is it possible to take a minor state and  play peacefully? I mean, stay neutral, avoid war and provocation and try to grow your economy ?

[EUBanana]

No. Industrial capacity is fixed and cannot be expanded, resources are a matter of owning certain hexes and can't be created or expanded either.

You don't actually play a single nation but an alliance (Triple Entente or Central Powers) so you will be at war from turn 1, and the minor nations don't actually have a properly modelled economy like the great powers do, they get a small and fixed trickle of supplies is all.

When a nation is neutral its not actually controllable, you don't get to tinker with them until they join the alliance you are in.

[SMK-at-work]

Ahh....no...this is WW1 - it's not a 4X game!![8D]

[EUBanana]

So whats 4X then? :p

[SMK-at-work]

Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate!!

Empire/economy building games of all sorts from Sci-fi to Civ (I, II, III, IV??), Age of Empires, etc.

[EUBanana]

Aha.

Those games are good too.  [:D]

[StkNRdr]

I too had never played a grand WWI game until this (about 40 years of war gaming off and on). It just happened I was reading a book on WWI when this came out and I thought I would give it a try. I found it very immersive. The turns are well laid out and all aspects are covered; economy, naval, air, infantry, cavalry, artillery, morale, entrenching, gas, etc. without it becoming work. Great strategy level game.

[flintlock]

Just to echo the sentiments expressed by those who have already replied--it really is an enjoyable and solid strategy game!

[SteveD64]

For a WWI game it has great replay value. Trying multiple strategies on multiple fronts for both sides will consume your soul.
 
Buy it.

[sol_invictus]

Yep. buy it.