Simulation vs Playability

[wurger54]

Another question for the esteemed group...

Back in ancient history (I'm talking Avalon Hill General circa early '80s) there was a lively debate on what gamers wanted, a good simulation or a fun playable game. [&:] My question is where do you rate GOA?

... as a simulation? [:-]


... as a playable game? [:D]


Personally (using the 1-10 scale) I'd rate it about 7 as a simulation. I REALLY like the feel of the game! However, it is a tad too fluid in the west. I doubt a 'simulation' would see a hex ever change hands from the second turn until until the last (maybe one or two then).

... as a game? I'd rate it as a 6 going on a 9. [X(]

The game is unbalanced against the CP (maybe an arguement for being a better simulation), but incredible amounts of energy are expended trying to change that through strenuous game play.

Over all, this is my new, best, favorite, game. [&o]

[esteban]

I have only just started playing 1.2, but I think we are getting there in simulation 8/10

Playability is a 6/10, more if a lot of bugs (like ships getting stuck at sea) have really been squashed. I'll know more after a year or so of ingame time working with the new patch.

[TexHorns]

Early on I felt the simulation was low due to no entrenching by either side in the West. As CP I never had enough IP's to build trenches. As stated in different thread, only during the course of the 3rd game did I realize (duh?) that AUstria and Turkey ship raw materials to Germany who then use their industrial might to produce large amounts of IP's to not only build trenches if need be, but also ship to Austria and Turkey so they have more than 1 or 2 ip' to spend each turn.

As a game I give it a higher rating than simulation. Eventhough I wasnt building trenches in the west,I was still having lots of fun playing. Pretty intuitive interface and mechanics, so minimal learning curve, maximizing entertainment.

[wurger54]

I'm just getting clued into shipping resources around. After having my PBEM opponant push my German hordes out of Belgium in '15, I decided I was missing something basic and hit the books. Hopefully I'll make a better showing in my next game.

[Joel Rauber]

For me it gets pretty high marks in both regards.

Say:

7 or 8 out of 10 for simulation

and

8 out of 10 for fun (not quite the same a playability, but pretty close)

This is of course the advantage of computer games they can make fairly complicated simulations be a lot more playable than the old paper and cardboard (and thick rule book) wargames of my youth.

[Lascar]

I would rank it as 9 for simulation of WW I strategy. With the latest 1.2 beta it now has a much better WWI feel to it. I have only been playing the latest beta PBEM so I can't comment on a game against the AI.

In terms of playability it is an 8. Once you have developed a feel for the interface; the turn sequence has a nice rhythm to it that allows you to concentrate on the actual strategy and decision making without being distracted by a cumbersome interface.

[SMK-at-work]

Yep - IMO this game has achieved what a lot of other "historical" game designers find too hard - both accuracy and playability. 
 
Simulation - the accuracy is improving - there weren't many beta testers so a whole bunch of bugs had to await public release to be discovered, but it started out reasonably good and has been getting better 8/10 and improving
 
Playability - interface is still a bit clunky IMO, and could be improved, but the game play is excellent.  7/10

[wurger54]

Well I achieved the historical first turn in the west against the AI, that is gratifying. Now to do that against a human opponant... [X(] Agreed, this game is a decent strategic simulation.

[kcole4080]

I'd rate it very high in both catagories.
After the initial learning curve, I'm finding better ways to try & break deadlocks, while even the AI is learning, it seems!
 
I haven't played another game since I downloaded this one, though it's probably time to change for a bit to keep things fresh.
 
Any game that keeps you constantly wanting to play 'just one more turn' when it's already late & you should be in bed, is a winner in my estimation.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: kcole4080

I'd rate it very high in both catagories.
After the initial learning curve, I'm finding better ways to try & break deadlocks, while even the AI is learning, it seems!

I haven't played another game since I downloaded this one, though it's probably time to change for a bit to keep things fresh.

Any game that keeps you constantly wanting to play 'just one more turn' when it's already late & you should be in bed, is a winner in my estimation.

Yes, GoA certainly has that just "one more turn" quality about it.
WWI has long been neglected as a topic for wargames, especially computer wargames. GoA has done an outstanding job of rectifying that.

[SMK-at-work]

I don't really rate it on the "one more turn" thingie......many games have that when you start - even ones which I rate as relative failures.

What gets me with GoA is that it is believable (IMO - EUBananna disagrees[8D]) - there are lots of historical games out there that have good gameplay, or flash graphics, but AFAIK none of them do good jobs of creating believable alternative history along with it. 

In some cases the flashy stuff or interesting mechanics can keep me occupied for quite a while (eg the Total War series), but of games I've played this millenium only GoA and Combat Mission let me believe that this is something that could actually have happened, nd for me that's a major bonus in a historical game.

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I don't really rate it on the "one more turn" thingie......many games have that when you start - even ones which I rate as relative failures.

What gets me with GoA is that it is believable (IMO - EUBananna disagrees[8D]) - there are lots of historical games out there that have good gameplay, or flash graphics, but AFAIK none of them do good jobs of creating believable alternative history along with it.

In some cases the flashy stuff or interesting mechanics can keep me occupied for quite a while (eg the Total War series), but of games I've played this millenium only GoA and Combat Mission let me believe that this is something that could actually have happened, nd for me that's a major bonus in a historical game.

Ditto!!!!

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

In some cases the flashy stuff or interesting mechanics can keep me occupied for quite a while (eg the Total War series), but of games I've played this millenium only GoA and Combat Mission let me believe that this is something that could actually have happened, nd for me that's a major bonus in a historical game.

Interesting that you should place Combat Mission and GoA on the same level of quality. I have been playing Combat Mission regularly since it came out (7 years now I think). I have purchased other games since then, but until GoA none of them has been as compelling to me as Combat Mission.

[wurger54]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



What gets me with GoA is that it is believable (IMO - EUBananna disagrees[8D]) - there are lots of historical games out there that have good gameplay, or flash graphics, but AFAIK none of them do good jobs of creating believable alternative history along with it. 

In some cases the flashy stuff or interesting mechanics can keep me occupied for quite a while (eg the Total War series), but of games I've played this millenium only GoA and Combat Mission let me believe that this is something that could actually have happened, nd for me that's a major bonus in a historical game.

Absolutely agree. With the new patch I think this game is getting real close to the mark. [:D]