So, how is it?

[Kung Karl]

It took a long time but now it is here.

What do you people think of it? Is it a great game?

[sol_invictus]

Yes, it is a great game. If you have any interest in WWI at all, you will greatly enjoy it.

[flintlock]

See here or here for two good threads with players' thoughts on the game. There's also many impressions from players in various other threads throughout the forum.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Yes, it is a great game. If you have any interest in WWI at all, you will greatly enjoy it.

I'd argue if you didn't even have an interest in WWI, then it's still a great game. I never dreamed I'd be picking this up. WWI just was not my cup of tea. But the game plays very well.

The interface takes a little getting used to and like everyone else, I restarted several games before I clicked with it properly....but now I'm up to 1915 and still making mistakes but enjoying doing so.

[buffewo]

Would appreciate any comments on the re-playability of GOA.

Regards
Roger

[sol_invictus]

I seems that there is a good deal of re-playability. The AI has several different strategies that it can choose from. The AI is also very competent when playing the Triple Entente side. It is still pretty good as the Central Powers, but since the burden is mostly on the CP, it can have a hard time trying to juggle between the two Fronts.

[ejs6263]

I was involved in the beta testing and played the game numerous times in its various incarnations. I never found the game boring and I always found it challenging. GOA is comprehensive but not in an overly micro-managerial way.

One thing I particularly enjoyed about being involved in the GOA beta testing was that it prompted me to do a little additional studying of the conflict on the side. I found that the game did a very nice job of replicating the strategic and tactical problems of the era particularly with Frank's emphasis on resource allocation and shipping.

If you approach GOA from those perspectives you'll be very satisfied.

[JD Walter]

Hi Kung Karl,

GoA is fully the equal of "Paths of Glory" (GMT), Ted Racier's boardgame design on the same subject (which is itself widely hailed as one of the best WWI strategy games made, excellent for tournament play at conventions).

It has great replayability, both against an opponent. and against the AI.

As noted by Arinvald above and Frank Hunter himself, the AI plays the Triple Entente (TE)best, in part due to the resource and manpower advantages the Allies enjoyed. The Central Powers position is indeed very challenging for solo play; the AI is very good at balancing the eastern and western fronts for the TE, launching offensives on one to relieve pressure on the other. (Especially if Germany or Austria-Hungary over-commits! Don't ask me how I know that...[:)])

I would recommend you purchase GoA if you have any interest in WWI. It is one of the best games I have played this year.

[SteveD64]

Yeah comparison to "Paths of Glory" is a good one.  Both have brain breaking decisions to be made with limited resources plus a delicate balancing act between fronts.  I think combat is better in this game but "Paths" has more chrome (or flavor) with the cards.

If this game had historical leader capabilities (ie. a Brusilov HQ that gave you bonuses etc) it would be practically perfect.  It's fantastic as it is.

[JD Walter]

If this game had historical leader capabilities (ie. a Brusilov etc) it would be practically perfect. It's fantastic as it is.

Totally agree.

Especially if (as an option) leaders could be "untried" until committed in combat (at which time you would find out who you got from the force pool).

[sol_invictus]

I also agree, giving historical Commanders some increaced ability; like being able to increase their HQ by more than one Activation point per turn for competent commanders; would be a nice little piece of chrome.

[SteveD64]

Even random events popping up like "Brusilov appears, Russia receives one free HQ refit"  or "Wireless intercept, Germany receives one free air recon on the Eastern front"  etc etc

[sol_invictus]

CLEVELAND, nice idea.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Yes, it is a great game. If you have any interest in WWI at all, you will greatly enjoy it.

I'd argue if you didn't even have an interest in WWI, then it's still a great game. I never dreamed I'd be picking this up. WWI just was not my cup of tea. But the game plays very well.

The interface takes a little getting used to and like everyone else, I restarted several games before I clicked with it properly....but now I'm up to 1915 and still making mistakes but enjoying doing so.

My sentiments exactly[&o]...

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Yeah comparison to "Paths of Glory" is a good one.  Both have brain breaking decisions to be made with limited resources plus a delicate balancing act between fronts.  I think combat is better in this game but "Paths" has more chrome (or flavor) with the cards.

No offensive, and I probably shouldn`t start this, as well as being an opinion from someone who thinks Richard Berg is a great Board Game Designer [X(]...BUT:

" Brain Breaking" is certainly the operable word for Racier`s game system , especially his verbose ( being kind ) rules writing, which made it more then a little difficult to seperate the mass of useless " Chrome for it`s own sake " out from essential gameplay functions.

[SteveD64]

To each his own I guess.  The couple times I played POG I had a blast.  It very well could've been too much of a good thing but I was too busy trying to decide what I was going to do this turn and the next couple of turns to worry about it.

I don't play board wargames anymore anyway.  [:)]

[SMK-at-work]

Intersting thought about Brusilov - except of course what happened was that Russia stockpiled resources for that offensive for ages before launching it ....which is what you have to do in the game.  As well as time it when Austria is looking weak......
 
Most players tend to fritter away activatin points IMO - using them when they become available in 1's and 2's per turn.
 
IMO the correct way to use them is to accumulate them until you have a very large stockpike, then climb into the opposition in summer turns (4 phases) where they do not have an opportunity to rebuild units between phases.  This is what nations did historicaly - they planned and launched massive offensives anticipating good weather - Somme, Verdun, Brusilov, Carporetto, St Michael & St George - even Paschendale although they got that one spectcularly and muddily wrong!

[EUBanana]

You can certainly bruise the enemy very badly if you amass enough HQ points to keep an offensive going four impulses in a row.  I actually think that its not quite as harsh as it was IRL on the Western Front in 1916, in that you certainly can advance if you amass the required number of troops.  The problem is that to really make a significant push it takes many turns of preparation.

It very much so is a game about the "Big Push".  [:D]