Have the game already - replayability?

[MarkShot]

I actually have the game already (a gift), but haven't installed it.

Basically, my time is very limited. So, I tend to invest my time on the learning of only two categories of games (assuming good solid game play):

(1) Lots of user designed scenarios such that you pretty much cannot run out. Some examples: Combat Mission, Harpoon, Sub Command/Dangerous Waters, ...

(2) Dynamic campaign/scenario quick generator such that you can play indefinitely: Aces of the Deep, Silent Hunter 1 & 3, Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Tropico 1&2, ... (yes, I know that I got some very, very old titles there)

So, is this a game I can play for the next few years or am I going to learn it in a few weeks and find the game getting repetitive and uninteresting after a few months of play?

By the way, there is nothing wrong with replayability being limited. For some, if they have fun for a few months, then they got their money's worth. For me however, I got enough excellent games that I am very picky about investing time (I already have the game; received it as a gift) in something if it won't be my hard drive for the next five years.

Thanks for comments and opinions.

---

PS: Normally, asking if a game is "any good" on the game's forum is foolish. But I think for my question about replay depth, this is perhaps the perfect place to ask; among the most dedicated/hardcore players. Remember, there is nothing negative if a game you pay for only gives you three solid months of fun; you are still way out ahead compared to a movie. So, I am not asking for negative feedback or implying anything negative here. Thanks, again.

[MarkShot]

One other question. If I install, should I go with v1.10 or v1.20Beta6? Thanks.

[wurger54]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I actually have the game already (a gift), but haven't installed it.

Basically, my time is very limited. So, I tend to invest my time on the learning of only two categories of games (assuming good solid game play):

(1) Lots of user designed scenarios such that you pretty much cannot run out. Some examples: Combat Mission, Harpoon, Sub Command/Dangerous Waters, ...

(2) Dynamic campaign/scenario quick generator such that you can play indefinitely: Aces of the Deep, Silent Hunter 1 & 3, Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Tropico 1&2, ... (yes, I know that I got some very, very old titles there)

So, is this a game I can play for the next few years or am I going to learn it in a few weeks and find the game getting repetitive and uninteresting after a few months of play?

By the way, there is nothing wrong with replayability being limited. For some, if they have fun for a few months, then they got their money's worth. For me however, I got enough excellent games that I am very picky about investing time (I already have the game; received it as a gift) in something if it won't be my hard drive for the next five years.

Thanks for comments and opinions.

---

PS: Normally, asking if a game is "any good" on the game's forum is foolish. But I think for my question about replay depth, this is perhaps the perfect place to ask; among the most dedicated/hardcore players. Remember, there is nothing negative if a game you pay for only gives you three solid months of fun; you are still way out ahead compared to a movie. So, I am not asking for negative feedback or implying anything negative here. Thanks, again.

I would say the game has reasonably high replayability, but not along the lines of the games you mention (although after playing Aces of the Deep non stop for 6 months I thought the scenarios started to look the same). I think the replayability is... what? Less dynamic? [&:] The game is pretty subtle and definately has a WWI feel to it, so you have to take satisfaction in a battle that saw an opponant dash his young men against your trenches in vain, while your greater strategy for victory is unfolding elsewhere. [:D] Even in the early phases of the game, rapid movement is a term that is greatly qualified when compared to WWII, or even ACW games.

You also have to enjoy strategic level games. There is nothing tactical, and only moderately operational about this game. Although I swear I can smell the gas and see the barbed wire across muddied fields on occasion. [X(]

Something for the group. Speaking of muddied fields. I did a look see of the area around Verdun on Google Earth. You can make out the craters and torn up landscape around Fts. Doumount and Vaux (sp?) . Pretty amazing.

[TheHellPatrol]

[edited-see below]

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot


So, is this a game I can play for the next few years or am I going to learn it in a few weeks and find the game getting repetitive and uninteresting after a few months of play?

By the way, there is nothing wrong with replayability being limited. For some, if they have fun for a few months, then they got their money's worth. For me however, I got enough excellent games that I am very picky about investing time (I already have the game; received it as a gift) in something if it won't be my hard drive for the next five years.

Thanks for comments and opinions.

I'd charectize me as a fairly hardcore gamer. I think its an excellent game and the AI is fairly good, but nothing i'd say is much of a problem for hardcore gamers. Then that isnt limited to this title but games in general so its nothing I'd to hold against it.
Comming to ur question.

I've played it from 1.1 to beta 1.2.4. I played maybe 15 campaigns over a few weeks not playing much else. I'd say im finnished with the game vs the AI now. I can beat the AI sleeping now. Knowing exactly which moves to make and how the AI reacts. I've played using the different strategies. As CP france first, Russia first, France with and with out Belgium. Same from the ET side. Go after AH first, go after germany first and so on. Exhaused the different AI responces to my different strategies.


If i was to play more it would be vs humans more or less exclusively. (Un)fortunatly another project fell in my lap that takes my time now. I might check from time to time on patches and see how the AI is doing. Problem ofc being as the AI becomes more profecient so do i as a player, so its not some thing i see my self playing a whole lot more. Having played out the different strategies vs AI i can think of in those 15 games.
I've gotten my bang for the bucks the game costed so im satisfied.

This is my opinion and i hope it helps,

Rasmus

P.S i'd say go with the most recent beta patch. An error might crep in, but overall they are improvements IMO.

[wurger54]

Play vs a human is much more rewarding. [:D] Of course sometimes finding the human opponant to suit your play level, intensity, reliability level, etc. can be a challenge.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: wurger54

Play vs a human is much more rewarding. [:D]

I agree.
Which IMO and that has nothing to do with this title, but is a general observation.
That is in no way contrary to making the AI as good as possible.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[wurger54]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: wurger54

Play vs a human is much more rewarding. [:D]

I agree.
Which IMO and that has nothing to do with this title, but is a general observation.
That is in no way contrary to making the AI as good as possible.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

The most rewarding gaming experience of all is of course face to face. [8D] I think it has something to do with watching the suffering on someone else's face up close and personal. Even computer games can be an absolute kick in the pants in a 'hot seat' situation. Of course gaming sessions in my house tend to be more like an NFL tailgate party at a Raiders game. That may have something to do with it also. [:D] Oh, the stories I have. [8D]

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

One other question. If I install, should I go with v1.10 or v1.20Beta6? Thanks.

I would wait until the "official" patch comes out(since it's close), it seems there are still some little issues not WAD. Personally, i have only played thru a whole campaign once(many starts/tinkering) and my buddy...LarryP...hasn't been able to get it to run at all[:(]. It does appear to be a very deep game with much replay potential.

[gothfather]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I actually have the game already (a gift), but haven't installed it.

Basically, my time is very limited. So, I tend to invest my time on the learning of only two categories of games (assuming good solid game play):

(1) Lots of user designed scenarios such that you pretty much cannot run out. Some examples: Combat Mission, Harpoon, Sub Command/Dangerous Waters, ...

(2) Dynamic campaign/scenario quick generator such that you can play indefinitely: Aces of the Deep, Silent Hunter 1 & 3, Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Tropico 1&2, ... (yes, I know that I got some very, very old titles there)

So, is this a game I can play for the next few years or am I going to learn it in a few weeks and find the game getting repetitive and uninteresting after a few months of play?

By the way, there is nothing wrong with replayability being limited. For some, if they have fun for a few months, then they got their money's worth. For me however, I got enough excellent games that I am very picky about investing time (I already have the game; received it as a gift) in something if it won't be my hard drive for the next five years.

Thanks for comments and opinions.

---

PS: Normally, asking if a game is "any good" on the game's forum is foolish. But I think for my question about replay depth, this is perhaps the perfect place to ask; among the most dedicated/hardcore players. Remember, there is nothing negative if a game you pay for only gives you three solid months of fun; you are still way out ahead compared to a movie. So, I am not asking for negative feedback or implying anything negative here. Thanks, again.

I think this is a foolish question to ask here. First replayability is a subjective quality to any game. I replay some games that other people would say has little or no replayability just because i enjoyed the game.

This is such a stupid question there is no point. HOW could we possibly know if you will be playing this game in 5 years? We don't know anything about you, nor do you know anything about the people answering so you are not getting INFORMED answers here. You don't know if the people who say the game has a lot of replayability are anything like yourself or if they just have a personality that doesn't get as bored with the old as fast as is "normal." Likewise you don't know if the people who say the game has little replayability suffer from ADD or have personalities that get bored with things far faster than "normal."

[MarkShot]

Very kind of you to reply.

I think the question was about a particular quality of the game (although perhaps a subjective quality) as opposed to whether I am an idiot or not. But now that I think about it, it is probably a greater long-term value for me to know that I am an idiot than whether GOA has lots of replay value.

Thanks.

[James Ward]

I think the game has petty good replay value. There are many ways to play the game, France First, Russia First, Invade the Balkans, Through the Alps etc. While there aren't a ton of scenarios there are enough that you won't be putting the game on the shelf after finishing a few games.

[gothfather]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Very kind of you to reply.

I think the question was about a particular quality of the game (although perhaps a subjective quality) as opposed to whether I am an idiot or not. But now that I think about it, it is probably a greater long-term value for me to know that I am an idiot than whether GOA has lots of replay value.

Thanks.

You asked a question that no one here could possible give you a truely informed opinion based on your critera. How could anyone know if you will be playing this game 5 years from now? Operationg systems change with no guarentee of backwards compatability. Hardware can increase by leaps and bounds in 5 years. A better game could come out that tackles WWI better. How could we possibly provide you with any useful information given the realities of computers. If the game only stays on your hard drive for two years would you consider it a failure in time invested?

We have no idea what you like in a game and no idea which parts of game play makes a game replayable. Since this game allows you to change the setup of every unit in the game, then does that make it replayable for you? i do not know as i do not know what you are looking for in actual game play. It doesn't matter if you can mover around the set up of the game if you hate the game play. If you hate the game play then replayability is zero.

You ask a stupid question given that no one knows what make games replayable for you. Any information anyone provides you is of almost zero value to yourself as you don't know why people here find the game replayable or unreplayable. A truer test would be to wait 6 months and ask people how many people played the game 6 months ago and how many are also still playing the game. Even then that only tell you what x number of people find the game replayable not if you will find the game replayable and it will do nothing to tell you in in 5 years you will be playing the game.

I mean really how could anyone here know if in five years you would still be playing the game? How do we judge that criteria? is any time less than 5 years a failure in your opinion? would 4 years 11 months be too little return. what aout 18 months be too little return on your time investment?

As for calling you an idiot, i didn't. i said your question was stupid and foolish. And i know a lot of brilliant people who ask stupid questions. So I think its a rather huge leap to say you are an idiot just because your question is stupid.

[SMK-at-work]

nonetheless it is possible to answer the question from your own POV, and let the reader take from it what s/he will.
 
from my pov I've been beta testing and playing the game for over a year & it is still fresh and interesting.  And I've only ebver really played the one scenario - the War to end all Wars starting in 1914.  The only other games that I've enjoyed so much are Combat Mission (all 3 over several years since CMBO came out up until about 2 years ago...although I tried to get back into it recently & didn't enjoy that much) and TOAW (pretty much tied up in playing Fire in the East).
 
Others have come and gone - CEAW has lasted a couple of months since release.  SC2 I played when it came out & left alone for a year then played some more over het last couple of months & have now removed from my HD despite getting hte WaW expansion jsut a couple of weeeks ago!).  down in Flames is still there but not played much, nothing else has really made an impression.
 
Advanced Tactics looks good.
 
GoA is worth it IMO because it is a "proper" wargame.  Frank has replicated WW1 - whereas many other games vaguely imitate their historical prototype - they look the part, but IMO they quickly fail to give believable alternative history.  For me that's the crux.....if a game gives me a belivable alternate history then it makes the cut & is good value.
 
GOA does that.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
GoA is worth it IMO because it is a "proper" wargame.  Frank has replicated WW1 - whereas many other games vaguely imitate their historical prototype - they look the part, but IMO they quickly fail to give believable alternative history.  For me that's the crux.....if a game gives me a belivable alternate history then it makes the cut & is good value.
GOA does that.

I have to concur, GOA really does a good job of replicating WWI with all its unique issues.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

(1) Lots of user designed scenarios such that you pretty much cannot run out. Some examples: Combat Mission, Harpoon, Sub Command/Dangerous Waters, ...

(2) Dynamic campaign/scenario quick generator such that you can play indefinitely: Aces of the Deep, Silent Hunter 1 & 3, Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Tropico 1&2, ... (yes, I know that I got some very, very old titles there)

Jeez... what an idiot! [;)]

Seriously, though...

To be blunt, GoA has very limited replayability based on the criteria you set forth in your question.

I don't believe there will be many user designed scenarios because the tools are just not available to allow players to design them.

This is really not unusual for most operational/strategic level wargames. In fact, it is the norm.

It would be very kewl if all the needed "editors" (map, unit, OOB, etc.) were included in the game, but they are not.

So like most other operational/strategy games, replayability based on user scenarios and/or game generators is just not there.

As has been covered by several folks already, the greatest potential for replayability of GoA is in PBEM.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Basically, my time is very limited. So, I tend to invest my time on the learning of only two categories of games (assuming good solid game play):

(1) Lots of user designed scenarios
(2) Dynamic campaign/scenario quick generator

So, is this a game I can play for the next few years or am I going to learn it in a few weeks and find the game getting repetitive and uninteresting after a few months of play?

Hi Mark, not since Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri have I found a game that has provided longevity for me. Other's in my PC lifetime include Lords of the Realm 2, Steel Panthers 2 and Battles in Normandy. Railroad Tycoon 2, Tropico, Sims, Close Combat Normandy and Third Reich PC are honorable mentions (but I no longer have brain cells to re-learn the latter).

At this time in my gaming life I'm simply looking for 4 things:

1) Intuitive, slick interface.
2) Historical-feel gameplay with variation in AI reply.
3) Graphics that don't date back to 1995.
4) Reasonable length rules.

Forge of Freedom, Birth of America, Hornet Leader, Matrix Harpoon, World at War 2, and Advanced Tactics are all recent purchases that have fallen short in one category or another for me - Flashpoint Germany, Conquest of the Aegean, even Carriers at War have not satisfied me on release either.

So I too, am hungry for some good gaming and I'm looking at Guns of August like you.

But then I read (honest) feedback from the designer, of major issues still being found and hopefully fixed so many months after release, so much so that my biggest concern with this game is - does it work?!

And for that I'm just lothe to part with another $40 to Matrix at this stage. I'm thinking I'd be better off struggling with the personally "wanting" rule books of BoA, WatW or dare I say FoF and just putting time into a silent key board until hopefully, a game concept or two, there clicks.

My .02 but I want to see GoA solid before I buy. That's the player feedback I'm looking for (damn I jumped at AT just the other day based on feedback of a modern layout only to find the game can't even handle map labels). I'm very wary with developments on this site now.

Cheers,
Adam.

(Edit: Correction, I bought BoA from the Ageod site.)