Guns of War Skippy?

[wargamer123]

Hey fellows,

I've played a lot of Strategic Command 1 and 2... I also played a lot of Hexagon Strategy WarGames from the 90s...Though I wasn't that much of a Panzer General fan, it did appeal. I was curious how appealing is Guns of August? What is the gameplay like? The AARs just can't give you a feel for that. I've been playing a lot of Paradox games lately, like HOI/and previously Europa Unversalis, they were fun. I found a lot of the fun depends on the interface and depends on the MultiPlayer Group... ???

Thankyou

[hjaco]

GOA is primarily designed to be used with PBEM/hotseat. AI is no worse/better than in most other games of this genre but the way this game works means you have to play human opponents to get full benefit of the game.

Documentation, sound, graphic and interface could as always with this genre be better. Considering the low price compared to most others games is a large plus. Players on this forum is very active and the designer very attentive to wishes in changing the game design.

Both sides have complete freedom at setup so neither player is going to know what the other player is planning for. FOG means you can only ever see adjacent hexes but being WW1 means reconnaissance may miss the number of units or worse the presence of units at all.

You can only peek at enemy units with air support which is based from turn to turn on technology and air to air ration.

HQ's uses offensive points to activate adjacent units which is needed to attack and cover enemy controlled territory. OP are awful expensive to replace. Movement is planned and carried out for both sides simultaneous with each single unit being given an initiative number based on a number of factors. This boils down to that your move may be cancelled if being attacked first. It also means that once your armies are engaged in fronts which also are active it is extremely difficult to disengage units again for action elsewhere.

Bottomline is when the action is fluid you need reserves and deploy cavalry to screen the front with main armies parrying and feinting between that cavalry screen. That together with FOG makes it very chess like in nature.

When deadlock has occurred its attrition all over the map which may sound dull but its another way of conducting and planning your campaigns with up to half to a years time ahead because you need to produce the necessary surplus to be able to carry out any given campaign.

The naval and air system is handled abstract.

All in all I must say the game is unique in nature. If you play PBEM then buy it.

[SMK-at-work]

No one can tell you how appealing GoA is for you - only how it is for htemselves - here's my take:

GoA is to SC1 & 2 & WaW as chess is to chinese checkers.  SC* is "flash", but GoA is better - despite having a "clunkier" interface and much more limited options. 

SC & especially WaW tries to capture your interest by adding more and more....GoA does it by doing as little as possible, but doing it right - you'll never run out of ammunition in SC*, the UK will never be on the verge of starvation if the U-boats run rampant, a WW1 version will never have Germany and Austria-Hungary starting to starve in 1916 from the blockade, gas attacks will never happen, and tanks will be fielded in all-powerful armies or corps instead of as supporting units for the infantry.

It all happens in GoA tho...or can....depending on how you play...plus more besides....

[wargamer123]

Hjaco and SMK,

Interesting takes on the Title. It sounds a lot like High Tech Chess but with the Cosmetics of WW1 and well aren't all board games and wargames pretty much that in essence. Although I will admit some wargames that tie one up too much in tactical nonsense drive me to boredom. The reason being I'm not too interested in 20 ugly sprites requiring 10 hours to move from point A to point B. Although that is pretty much all Wargaming, the other aspects, like Strategy, Abstraction, Tactical Manuevers however dull seemingly... Bring my attention. My big big issue is I really have to have the feel of WW1 or WW2 in it. The Taste the Flavor, I'm a historical nut... Although some of the games I mentioned may be considered Mickey Mouse in ways with good opponents you can forget their shortcommings.

This sounds like it has a lot of great qualities, some shortcommings in graphics and some finishing touchings but all that can be done. I'm just a little worried I might get bored with the Stack a Hex, looks more like a 1988 style SSI game where the ultimate goal are 3 Victory Hexes. Now I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy some of those, but Miss the bigger picture and you get dull. Far as I can tell from the AARs and what you both describe, it's far from that. Though the appearance may turn people off as they don't see the pleasure in Trench Warfare or tied up units that can only make realistic limited movements. I really don't like to feel like I'm playing Chess, the whole idea is to trick myself that I'm actually commanding real life units... and real life Generals, etc... That way with abstractions of economy, navys, airforce you are LudenDorf for a few hours and facing all those decisions...

I am so worried these days as no matter what people say you gotta love the way the mouseclicks go the way the operational aspects work. They have to be fluid. If they are dull to you, you'll hang the game up. SC1 was more like a 1993 game... But very loveable. It didn't last long before it got boring but the opponents made it fun... for a long long time. I do play a lot of PBEM and I may purchase this title...

I love to plan out intricate strategies of attrittion and What Ifs... Not much of a WW1 buff though, I hope in time I may join your community and kick your butts Though heck, that could take a few months by the sounds of it, very complex for a very simple appearing title... at least MP PBEM

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

Hjaco and SMK,

Interesting takes on the Title. It sounds a lot like High Tech Chess but with the Cosmetics of WW1 and well aren't all board games and wargames pretty much that in essence. Although I will admit some wargames that tie one up too much in tactical nonsense drive me to boredom. The reason being I'm not too interested in 20 ugly sprites requiring 10 hours to move from point A to point B. Although that is pretty much all Wargaming, the other aspects, like Strategy, Abstraction, Tactical Manuevers however dull seemingly... Bring my attention. My big big issue is I really have to have the feel of WW1 or WW2 in it. The Taste the Flavor, I'm a historical nut... Although some of the games I mentioned may be considered Mickey Mouse in ways with good opponents you can forget their shortcommings.

This sounds like it has a lot of great qualities, some shortcommings in graphics and some finishing touchings but all that can be done. I'm just a little worried I might get bored with the Stack a Hex, looks more like a 1988 style SSI game where the ultimate goal are 3 Victory Hexes. Now I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy some of those, but Miss the bigger picture and you get dull. Far as I can tell from the AARs and what you both describe, it's far from that. Though the appearance may turn people off as they don't see the pleasure in Trench Warfare or tied up units that can only make realistic limited movements. I really don't like to feel like I'm playing Chess, the whole idea is to trick myself that I'm actually commanding real life units... and real life Generals, etc... That way with abstractions of economy, navys, airforce you are LudenDorf for a few hours and facing all those decisions...

I am so worried these days as no matter what people say you gotta love the way the mouseclicks go the way the operational aspects work. They have to be fluid. If they are dull to you, you'll hang the game up. SC1 was more like a 1993 game... But very loveable. It didn't last long before it got boring but the opponents made it fun... for a long long time. I do play a lot of PBEM and I may purchase this title...

I love to plan out intricate strategies of attrittion and What Ifs... Not much of a WW1 buff though, I hope in time I may join your community and kick your butts Though heck, that could take a few months by the sounds of it, very complex for a very simple appearing title... at least MP PBEM

I'm guessing from what you say above, that you would probably like the game. There are no "sprites" to be moved in this game!

[wargamer123]

May I ask a couple of Operational Questions, though I'm about sold on this title for trial...

The Units within game, are corpsize? I heard HQ activation points allows for certian movements? That is through some sort of Supply Rule? Morale Rule? Units then move upon command like a historical Unit? With similar to historical commands?

So far it's very interesting the way this game sounds designed, very strange indeed. Hard to believe someone came up with this idea.

[boogada]

You need HQ points to attack enemy units. (or to be correct: to move into an enemy hex) Movements on your territority are working "normal". This simulates the efforts to organize a full scale offensive. The thing is: those points are expensive and you need to plan ahead in time to get your troops moving. 

[hjaco]

Corps sized infantry and cavalry corps as standard fighting units. HQ, artillery, siege artillery, tanks, assault troops as special units. Combat units consist of a certain number of strength points which differs from country to country. They are also rated a certain category which rates their quality. Standing army in the beginning is category A with first mobilization rate being B and so on. Quality decreases with sustained losses.

Each type of unit has a different stacking number and stacking limit in each hex is based on terrain type. This gives this WW1
feeling of planning your coming summer offensive ahead. Deploy frontline troops with supporting artillery on the flanks and reserves behind to exploit success.

Supply is based on terrain in each controlled hex and combat readiness is recovered based on supply.

Cavalry can take control of empty open enemy controlled territory otherwise your troops need to be activated from impulse to impulse from a HQ in an adjacent hex. Each HQ can store a certain amount of offensive points which are very costly to replace. Each country has a different stock of stored OP at the beginning.

Although HQ are named by a historical commander they don't get a specific bonus or penalty based on historic performance.

[wargamer123]

hjaco, some the movement phaze seems to be a bit more complex requiring good planning.. Actually by the sounds of your AARs a lot of study and careful consideration

It seems as though dashing Cavalry Charges and the early Phazes of WW1 with the sweeping winds of changing territory is not present or it could be? It's very mind boggling to imagine all this in action fluidly, but I suppose you have to open the title and view. I have never seen a replica. The last WW1 based game I played was Victoria... Which is nothing like this at all... Though Victoria was massively economic and based on territorial movent RTS Walking literally. Not realistic as this sounds but one should be cautious to think this is a Point-Click-Kill and regroup regain... though it is essentially the same, it's handling all the unit actions a bit uniquely. I'd love to get a feel for this to understand it better, and that'll require the game. Thankyou for the Detailed Responces!

One just has to be sure that they can fall in love with the the methods and Supply systems that this Engine Utilizes...and how much it immerses one in the feel of the Great War.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
It seems as though dashing Cavalry Charges and the early Phazes of WW1 with the sweeping winds of changing territory is not present or it could be?

It is most certainly present.

Say a historic opening is being recreated in the west Germany must push hard and fast against the French before their mobilization is being finished. That means swarming the French corps penetrating in force around their flanks and even take the risk to push your troops far beyond the safety margin of combat readiness (simulating outrunning of supply and exhaustion). This creates perfect conditions for a battle of the Marne and well executed counterattacks.

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
. . .
It seems as though dashing Cavalry Charges and the early Phazes of WW1 with the sweeping winds of changing territory is not present or it could be?

. . .

One just has to be sure that they can fall in love with the the methods and Supply systems that this Engine Utilizes...and how much it immerses one in the feel of the Great War.

Any WWI game has the difficulty of how to simulate the very fluid opening couple of month's of war and then the stagnation that developed(one doesn't want to have enforced in the game by absolute designer fiat. Stagnation should be likely result, but not a necessary result in the game design) This game walks that line very very well! Perhaps later stages of the war are a tiny bit too fluid, but arguably it isn't. The activation point system along with trench rules and R&D rules are what all make this happen.

This is a typical hex wargame, though with all the benefits of being computerized; an AI to practice against, nice ways of implementing FOW (fog of war), automatic rules enforcement, easier implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO turn in this case) etc.

If you have never played hex wargames (computer or board) you may find things very different from RTS, FPS games and it will require a lot of getting used to. But once you've made the effort the rewards are great.

[Shawkhan]

This is a strategic level game. At this level 'sweeping cavalry charges' take place by advancing one hex. Massive WWI campaigns like Verdun or the Somme also take place in one hex with no discernible advances taking place. That is the fact of WWI. Much of the war was spent in static positions.