Matrix Games Forums

I am neither an historian nor a hardcore wargamer. However, I am a casual wargamer and intimately familiar with a few engines.

I just finished searching the Net for references and discussion about this game (which I already have, by the way). I has seen it stated that Frank Hunter attempts to isolate the patricular unique aspect of conflicts and capture it in detailed game forms while leaving other areas addressed in a more generic or abstract way.

So, I want to ask what design features in this game uniquely convey combat and command during The Great War when compared to systems found in games like: RDOA/HTTR/COTA (admittedly smaller scale), EU2/Victoria/HOI, and BOA/ACW/NCP?

I am not trying to start any flame wars or negative depiction of one game version another. I just happen to be very interested in game interface and engine design. In particular, I am curious how the design aspects of this game have been especially tailored for WWI? (Such that the interface and engine design would not be a good fit for the ACW or WWII.) Myself, I don't have particular thoughts on this matter, since I only have a vague overview of WWI which I got from one History Channel series.

Thank you.

Some of hte characteristics of WW1 lend themselves to the simp-licity of the design....for example there are no mechanised forces, so movement of 1 hex per move is adequate, and there is no significant air attack capacity, so that has been ignored.

also the naval model is good - he's resisted the temptation of trying to treat ships as if they were land units that just happened to only move on water, and has used a sea zone and function approach which is a good approximation of how navies actually worked.

However IMO the main feature is the economic model.  IMO it's far from perfect, but it is streets ahead of otyher 20th century strat game economics in the way it ties together industrial output, population (via food) and transportation.

Opps - and how could I forget the command/activation system...they "feel" of storing up points (integration with the economic system), then spending them to send a rush of men "over the top" as your corps crash into the enemy line is just superb!

I think GoA makes for a good representation of the Great War. As SMK noted, the HQ activation adds to this “right feeling”, as these activation points are not cheap. Decisions must be made to prioritize production/research areas which also give some feeling for the restraints/constraints that the leaders of the day had to deal with. The “fog of war” is severe which adds another dimension of realism. The trenches, forts, and aircraft vying for recon add to the overall WW1 environment. Long term planning is required for proper placement of replacements, artillery, and HQ w/ activation points. Doing what feels good on turn to turn bases (or every other turn changing) will not lead to success.

An example of a very good game that would not model the Great War very well would be the AA series engine. The main reason I say this is the way that supply is modeled. In CotA, if there is a reasonable route free of enemy units or fields of fire (and you avoid moving your supply units around), you will receive supply. This just does not fit well with WW1. Perhaps it would work on the Western Front in the summer, but that’s about it.

There are many other game engines that are stuck in the IGOUGO mode w/o any decent tricks to make up for that extremely unrealistic setting. Even the good ones in this category would fall short in comparison (for WW1) to GoA just on this one factor.

I think the system for combat (HQs need to declare offensives) is a stroke of genius. While you have plenty at the start of the war you will soon notice how your drive slows down, and you dig in to hold you current positions while you save HQ points for a new major offensive that will hopefully decide the war ... while your enemy does the same.

At the same time, the fronts in the east are wonderfully fluid (more room to maneuver).

This also makes for really intersting decision when you choose where should your offensive be. For exemple, if you want to push in the caucasus with Russia, that's 1-2-3-4-5-6 less activation somewhere else. When you keep in mind that one activation for Russia is roughtly 1 turn of economic production[X(]... OUCH! it better be worth it!

Yes, this modeling of activation is quite interesting and does seem to impose a very significant constraint on the player. In fact, I would say of the other systems for which I am familiar, this is the most extreme forms of initiative restriction I have seen. Since its impact is the total removal of offensive initiative.

With PG's engine, we have a very good system of command delays. However, it is not all or nothing and you have more a graceful degradation of offensive capability. Given the scale of this game (PG), this feature of delays is not production based but instead is HQ load based along with excessive player micro-managing.

With AGEOD's engine, we have an activation concept. Once again it is not all or nothing, but rather functions as an extreme penalty upon movement rates and combat benefits. Also, again it is not tied to national production, but instead is more intended to reflect personal commander competence and the overall impact of national/organizational doctrine upon the side. So, in BOA, the British have very significant activation penalties when compared to the colonist.

So, I can see how in GOA one most really plan well if one does not want his/her attack to lose momentum once achieving an initial break through. In other games, the lose of momentum might have been more handled by the loss of cohesion and reduction of supply as the lines radiated out further from their supply bases. And generally, the impact would have been less extreme.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Personally, I like the abstraction of air and naval combat. Trying to handle all three without abstraction makes for a game with time granularity problems. The first HOI suffered from this greatly. I cannot really say about the others, since I did not purchase them.

So, I can see how in GOA one most really plan well if one does not want his/her attack to lose momentum once achieving an initial break through. In other games, the lose of momentum might have been more handled by the loss of cohesion and reduction of supply as the lines radiated out further from their supply bases. And generally, the impact would have been less extreme.

I think that those HQ activation points have to be purchased with national production is quite realistic. Before the Somme and Verdun offensives, respectively, each side built up huge stockpiles of resources to fuel the attacks.