Potential new buyer with some questions

[Gregg Helmberger]

Hi all,

I'm very strongly considering getting this game because I love grand strategy games, think WWI is under-modeled, and think it looks like fun. However, I was wondering some things.

1. Has the manual been fixed? I noticed in the reviews that the manual was disparaged as being inadequate and even inaccurate; however, I also see a link here to an updated version of the manual. Would a noob find the documentation sufficient to proceed?

2. My impression is that, with proper documentation, the game would not have a brutal learning curve. Is this accurate?

3. In reviewing several AARs, it seems that France simply has no shot at holding out against Germany and is always swiftly knocked out. Is this the case with later patches, or are the AARs I've looked at just anomalies?

Thanks in advance.

Gregg

[anarchyintheuk]

1. I have no idea, haven't looked at the manual in a long time

2. It's definitely a unique system that takes getting used to. Overall, its not a difficult learning curve except for your initial deployment (one of the most important things you'll do in the game).

3. Haven't read any aars, so I won't comment.

I'd recommend the game to anyone who is interested in WWI. Not that there's a lot of competition, but I think it reflects WWI strategic/operational combat and decision making better than anything I've ever seen.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Gregg Helmberger

Hi all,

I'm very strongly considering getting this game because I love grand strategy games, think WWI is under-modeled, and think it looks like fun. However, I was wondering some things.

1. Has the manual been fixed? I noticed in the reviews that the manual was disparaged as being inadequate and even inaccurate; however, I also see a link here to an updated version of the manual. Would a noob find the documentation sufficient to proceed?

2. My impression is that, with proper documentation, the game would not have a brutal learning curve. Is this accurate?

3. In reviewing several AARs, it seems that France simply has no shot at holding out against Germany and is always swiftly knocked out. Is this the case with later patches, or are the AARs I've looked at just anomalies?

Thanks in advance.

Gregg

Had it for a few weeks and have only really started trying to play.

1. If the new manual is better than the old I weep for the original buyers. The manual, for example, has nothing I can find on supply based on the contents and index.

2. It does, to me, because the game mechanisms are obscure. There are a lot of factors but it isn't clear from the UI or documentation what some of your decisions mean over time. I think the game play is also harder to pick up since the UI is primitive. Also the core of the gameis the command and control and supply system both of which are problematic for me right now.

3. Do not know but from my efforts, admittedly poor, as the French they get smacked around pretty good.

[Lascar]

I have been playing GoA game regularly since it came out last August. The patches have ironed out all identified major and minor issues. So the game is now in a highly matured state.

The learning curve is rather short compared to many other strategic wargames, but the manual, though it has been updated to a limited extent, best serves as an intro or outline to the game. Enough to get you started and on your way. There is still some ambiguity surrounding some aspects of naval warfare but nothing that is a show stopper.

Question that may come up during play are best answered by searching through previous posts on the forum or, if not already there, posting a new question on the forum. Usually a reliable answer can provided by some of the experienced players.

France is actually a tough nut to crack if commanded by an experienced player. Often the preferred option chosen by an experience CP players is to pursue a Russia first strategy.

The problem with a France first strategy is that just being a good CP player is not enough. Because the window of opportunity for knocking out France is rather narrow the CP also needs quiet a bit of luck in battle outcomes. Some of the odds in the important early major battles against the French are very close and if the Germans lose most of them their offensive will stall out and the Russian steamroller will then start rolling into Germany in earnest at the end of 1914. This will effectively end Germany's chances for a quick knockout of France. If the Germans win most of the major battles in France in the first two turns (August through October)then the French army will have been bled white and the Germans will be at the gates of Paris, leaving the French too weak to counterattack and push the Germans back. The British won't be able to offer much assistant until the New British army begins arriving in spring 1915, which will probably be too late to save France.

[boogada]

Overall this game is great! I highly recommend it. Its best played against another human because its full power comes into it if you have a human opponent who does things different than the AI.

Also I think its modelling the WWI situation quite accurate. I've seen games that really came close to the original history. (and lots that were totally different too)

1. Has the manual been fixed? I noticed in the reviews that the manual was disparaged as being inadequate and even inaccurate; however, I also see a link here to an updated version of the manual. Would a noob find the documentation sufficient to proceed?

2. My impression is that, with proper documentation, the game would not have a brutal learning curve. Is this accurate?

3. In reviewing several AARs, it seems that France simply has no shot at holding out against Germany and is always swiftly knocked out. Is this the case with later patches, or are the AARs I've looked at just anomalies?

Thanks in advance.

Gregg

1. I'm not sure. The manual is not really good. I got to admit that. But the forum is great and the community very responsive. Even Frank Hunter did answer a lot of questions and did a lot of patching.

2. There are like 3 things that are hard to learn: a) the HQ activation system. But you'll learn this quickly. b) the naval warfare.. the documentation on this is not so good, but its doable. c) production, resource management etc... in the long run this is the key to victory as WWI is attricion warfare.
I think the game is actually easy to play once you get used to it a little. Really. To master it... well ask Hjaco he seems to have done it...

3. France does not always get knocked out swiftly. In the hands of an experienced player the Entente can do very well.

[Gregg Helmberger]

Thanks for the replies. I want to purchase the game, especially given that it's WWI and it looks to have pretty interesting and complete naval simulations (I remember hand-making naval unit counters for the GoA boardgame using rules from The General back in the day) but the lack of a decent manual is pretty intimidating.

[hjaco]

1. Has the manual been fixed? I noticed in the reviews that the manual was disparaged as being inadequate and even inaccurate; however, I also see a link here to an updated version of the manual. Would a noob find the documentation sufficient to proceed?

2. My impression is that, with proper documentation, the game would not have a brutal learning curve. Is this accurate?

3. In reviewing several AARs, it seems that France simply has no shot at holding out against Germany and is always swiftly knocked out. Is this the case with later patches, or are the AARs I've looked at just anomalies?

Thanks in advance.

Gregg

In that case I will toss in my pound of meat too.

1. Well show me a really good computer manual from the past 10 years [;)] The Manual is solid enough to get you into the game as a noob. But the transgression to an experienced player will require finding the more hardcore answers on this forum depending on your need.

2. I will put it another way. The learning curve is not that steep or long compared to say Europa Universalis but this game really favors the player who uses each and every little advantage/knowledge. You really get the most benefit out of a multiplayer game in the long run and to master this game well you must play it as a strategy game and plan campaigns well ahead taking logistics into consideration (like buying enough activation points half a year ahead of the campaign).

3. The game is not forgiving to major newbee failures and the Entente can hardly afford to make major mistakes in the first year of the game. Most early falls of France comes from major early mistakes. In the long rong Germany can almost always take out France but often at a discriminating cost which will loose them the game.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: boogada

I think the game is actually easy to play once you get used to it a little. Really. To master it... well ask Hjaco he seems to have done it...

Thanks for that opinion but don't think my games come easy anymore [8D]

The more I learn about the game the more benefit I can get by focusing on cunning long run strategic planning broken up in smaller campaigns.

Bottomline is that even after a year I get more than fulle value of this game.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: hjaco


The learning curve is not that steep or long

this game really favors the player who uses each and every little advantage/knowledge.

to master this game well you must play it as a strategy game and plan campaigns well ahead taking logistics into consideration

I think this is very well spoken. Its exactly what the game is alike. The general game mechanics and the interface are not hard to handle. Some stuff is really not documented well - I give you that - but there is no single thing that is actually hard to do or to archive.
But: It takes a lot of knowledge and planing to bring everything together to turn a campaign into a victory and to find the right long term strategy to beat your enemy. Some stuff only makes a difference in the long run so sometimes all it takes is to delay your enemies actions by a turn or two. Its not unusual to have one or multiple power changes over the full time of the war etc...
The good thing about this is: Even after a full year with a lot of games and different players I still learn new stuff about this game.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: boogada
I think this is very well spoken. Its exactly what the game is alike. The general game mechanics and the interface are not hard to handle. Some stuff is really not documented well - I give you that - but there is no single thing that is actually hard to do or to archive.
But: It takes a lot of knowledge and planing to bring everything together to turn a campaign into a victory and to find the right long term strategy to beat your enemy. Some stuff only makes a difference in the long run so sometimes all it takes is to delay your enemies actions by a turn or two. Its not unusual to have one or multiple power changes over the full time of the war etc...
The good thing about this is: Even after a full year with a lot of games and different players I still learn new stuff about this game.

As someone on the other end of this curve I'll say this appears to be my impression.

1. You'll spend the inevitable WTF are all these numbers type moments that you do with any war/strategy game. You might spend more because of the really bad documentation and UI (why can't anyone create a decent UI, grids people are your friend). For me the strategic elements are badly presented and that is where most of the mystery lies in the game.

2. Once you battle past that, it all sort of works. For me, that was playing through2 full game turns.

3. The way that everything links together- how many arms refits do I have and is this it type stuff- take longer.

4. It is a start and stop type game. I've run through 1 turn games and been totally lost and could do nothing in turn 2. I mastered turn 1 and was able to play turn 2 and then I was all out of points to do anything in turn 3. Restart, move forward again. For me, the game is about managing the long-term and handling what are resources far more scare than I would have guessed based on playing my first turn. It is a long "mastery" curve more than a long "learning" cruve.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: ILCK


It is a long "mastery" curve more than a long "learning" cruve.

That is a very insightful observation. I am still in the mastery curve after playing it for a year.

[EdinHouston]

First let me say that GoA is an outstanding game. Its my first Matrix purchase, and it was money well-spent. Its an excellent strategic game, and does a great job of portraying the strategic choices facing the various nations, and it gives a very good 'feel' for what became the trench slugfest of WW1.

But there are some problems with the game. I agree that the interface is not very intuitive and seems like it could have been done better. (Although that being said, I had no trouble learning how to use it and play the game; indeed, it was much less trouble than I expected after reading some reviews and these forums.)

In particular the naval portion of the game is weak. I understand that naval war isnt the focus of the game, but why not just click and move ships like you do land units, instead of that naval interface? And why cant you at least click through a stack of your naval units at sea and see what missions they are on? Currently you can only check this during the strategic phase, and during the land impluses you cant even look at your own stack of ships.

And while the manual is easy to read (unlike some wargame manuals), its woefully incomplete. Examples include:
1) supply - its barely mentioned in the manual, and some explanation of how things like terrain, adjacent hexes, and advances affect supply would have been very helpful
2) strategic moves - how contested hexes, adjacent hexes and overstacking can affect strategic moves, and even cause a unit not to move at all (to be fair, part of my problem here isnt just the manual but how strategic move orders are carried out)
3) amphibious moves - what level of sea control is required to move units amphibiously, and how invasions work (how many units can invade? can naval units in a port preclude an invasion of that port? etc)

Those are just some things off the top of my head where the manual is lacking.

Be that as it may, it still is an excellent, fun game. You just have to accept the fact that some aspects of the game will take some time, and searching on this forum, to learn. But thats true of many games, even large budget, mass market games. Its a fine game, and like I said above, its actually pretty easy to learn. A few turns and you will probably have it pretty much under control. In fact, its a shame that some folks let the interface stop them from trying this fine game. While the interface is bit clumsy and not so intuitive, its certainly not something that makes the game unplayavle, or even detracts from enjoying the game. Once you learn it, its quite easy and fun to play.

[Gregg Helmberger]

Well, I bought it. Wish me luck. [:)]

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Gregg Helmberger
Well, I bought it. Wish me luck. [:)]

Good Luck!

It's fun and if you have any questions just keep asking -- this is a great forum. My first piece of advice is pay attention to the start up screen and choose the same resolution that you computer is using, then lower your toolbar. That should prevent the most common newbie start up problems ( I says --looking in my mirror)