Other WWI-based games

[Fastsnake]

Hey everybody!

As I am really enjoying WWI: Gold I was wondering how many games were taking place during the first War.

- I already knew http://www.jeuxvideo.com/jeux/pc/00011286-the-entente-battlefields-ww1.htm made by Russians, a STR who reminds me of Cossacks.

- There are actually a bunch of dogfight simulations, often focused on the Red Baron.

- But concerning wargames (which are the most interesting games you won't contradict myself :neener , I've also found two other games.

The first, which was released roughly in the same time as WWI: 14 - 18, seems... Kinda interesting. But it is really unknown, and reviews are very scarce, although the ones I found strongly supported the quality of this game. If some of you have already played it, please tell us some words. I know we already talked about this one in this forum but I don't find where, and that's not important after all.

- And the most interesting discovery here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/385/details/Commander.-.The.Great.War.

What's this game?! He seems so interesting!
After investigating, I've simply found out that we can not buy it anywhere, just because it ain't released yet! It is foreseen to be released on september... I will wait for this!

[ulver1]

One of my all time favorite games is”Guns of August”
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/331/details/Guns.Of.August.1914.-.1918

Deceptively simple game mechanics hides a terrific game play with surprising depth. You can read a replay of my last game here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1902732

[Fastsnake]

How d'you compare it with WWI: Gold (or not gold, whatever!)?

Ageod's games always remain the best aren't they?

[Nikel]

HPS is releasing this weekend France 1914

http://wargamer.com/article/2885/hps-announces-france-14


Jison, the modder of PzC, has already posted his graphic mod

http://www.hist-sdc.com/MapMod/fwwc.htm

[ulver1]

How d'you compare it with WWI: Gold (or not gold, whatever!)?

Ageod's games always remain the best aren't they?

Hard to compare them as they embody completely different design strategies. In making GoA Frank Hunter set out to deliberately make the game mechanics as simply as possible while still simulating every critical aspect of the Great War. I think he ended up with a work of genius in its often chess-like simplicity that still manages to encompass the conflict. I have played a lot of GoA and much of its appeal lies in the way it works so well as PBM

La Grande Guerre on the other hand is a PC version of an extremely complex board game – that is both a strength and a weakness. Having only played it a few times it is far too early for me to form a judgment. Transparency or rather lack of it, in the underlying mechanics remain an issue for me. I can’t help feeling that I’ll never really understand them until I play the actual board-game. Having ordered a hideously expensive used copy and convinced my World in Flames group to try it I guess I’m about to find out. Mind you once I have played it some more I may change my opinion.

[poweraxe]

One of my all time favorite games is”Guns of August”
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/331/details/Guns.Of.August.1914.-.1918

Deceptively simple game mechanics hides a terrific game play with surprising depth. You can read a replay of my last game here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1902732

Agreed, that game is great. Took me a while to get the hang of it(At first I used up my offensives too quickly :bonk , but really enjoyed it once I did. I think I prefer La Grande Guerre right now, but as you said, the two games are quite different from each other so they're both great in their own way.

[Random]

Looked long and hard at GOA before settling on WW1G therefore my opinions on the former are based solely upon the reviews and game forum over at Matrix.

Three things eventually drove me to choose WW1G and are personal opinions only:

1. BIG scale hexeswars are better represented by provinces or some similar system. The GOA map seems very artificial even if it also appears entirely functional;

2. The arbitrary division of quality into only four fundamental levels designated as A through D seems to be a gamey solution for such a complex and subjective unit interaction; and

3. The method of recreating the inital mobile phase appeared to be somewhat contrived and reproducing results similar the historical campaign through October 1914 looks to be unlikely.

I will freely admit that I may have misjudged GOA but since it was one or the other WW1G won out with no regrets to date.

Cannot fairly comment on the HPS offering but have not been to impressed with those HPS titles that I have bought so far. Looks to be something like WITP-AE with trenches, a micromanager's dream and a big-picture strategist's nightmare.

Command-TGW looks interesting to be sure, seems to split the hexwar difference between GOA and the HPS France 1914.

But hey, I still have my original (1968) copy of the A-H 1914 and last winter broke out my ancient SPI Great War in the East Quad during a a multi-day power outage.

[06 Maestro]

But hey, I still have my original (1968) copy of the A-H 1914

Lucky dog, you. I loved that game, but it "went south" decades ago. It was perhaps my favorite boardgame.

[ulver1]

Looked long and hard at GOA before settling on WW1G therefore my opinions on the former are based solely upon the reviews and game forum over at Matrix.

Three things eventually drove me to choose WW1G and are personal opinions only:

GOA and WW1G are two games so completely different in there approach that, really, there is no reason not get bet both of them. Can’t think of a single game mechanic they have in common.

[poweraxe]

3. The method of recreating the inital mobile phase appeared to be somewhat contrived and reproducing results similar the historical campaign through October 1914 looks to be unlikely.

This point is one of the reasons I prefer WW1G too, having played both games. In GOA it indeed seems quite impossible get similar results in the early part of the war, due to having limited offensives.

Also, I like the fact that in WW1G, diplomacy plays a bigger role than just getting other powers involved in the war (to get agricultural/economic aid and the like).

But like Ulver said, overall the two games are very different from each other in game mechanics so its hard to compare them on the same basis.

[Random]

Ulver1 wrote:

GOA and WW1G are two games so completely different in there approach that, really, there is no reason not get bet both of them. Can’t think of a single game mechanic they have in common.

Am not convinced that one should feel compelled to collect multiple contemporary game variations of the same historical situation however there is certainly no issue with doing so if that is what somebody wishes to do. I just consider purchasing different games that model the same situation using unique mechanics really accomplishes very little as does comparing the differing developers' style with the aim of showing one version superior to another.

On the other hand, collecting books on the same topic from assorted authors or written with opposing slants allows a person to see a situation from multiple points of view and so provides a better background to make informed commentary but that is not so true for strategic computer games. Gaming is principally for entertainment, every session changes history and there is essentially no difference between gamed alternate histories and well researched alternate historical fiction. While some games can certainly provide insights into why things developed a particular way, one should beware of carrying gamed analogies too far.

I would not presume to say that WW1G is better than GOA since "better" is entirely subjective and I have never played the latter. WW1G appeared to contain more features and a development approach with greater personal appeal which in turn drove the decision to purchase one and not the other. Some aspects of GOA were certainly attractive and by most accounts it is polished, professional, well supported and entertaining. I may indeed buy it at some point but not likely anytime soon since the surface of WW1G has barely been scratched.

Ubique

[wodin]

hps is releasing this weekend france 1914

http://wargamer.com/article/2885/hps-announces-france-14


jison, the modder of pzc, has already posted his graphic mod

http://www.hist-sdc.com/mapmod/fwwc.htm

+1

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Well I looked at GOA long and hard while I was looking at Ageod's WW1 and I'm so happy I waited it out and bought WW1G!

Ageod has done a wonderful job of fixing the issues with the original game and adding some nice functionality to WW1G. In my opinion there is no substitute for WW1G.

[gchristie]

If this game http://www.slitherine.com/games/ctgw_pc plays as well in multiplayer as Commander Europe at War, it should be a winner. Though I'm anxious of "mind-breaking decision making" in any venture, let alone a game

Also of interest is their claim that "CTGW will use a different (non java-based) game engine." Hoping different is good, though I've no idea what this means.

[Random]

If this game http://www.slitherine.com/games/ctgw_pc plays as well in multiplayer as Commander Europe at War, it should be a winner. Though I'm anxious of "mind-breaking decision making" in any venture, let alone a game

Also of interest is their claim that "CTGW will use a different (non java-based) game engine." Hoping different is good, though I've no idea what this means.

Thanks for the link, am looking closely at this game but so far have detected several things in the screenshots and descriptive text that make me go "Hmmmm" and which indicate a design philosphy that I'm not sure I agree with.

Will keep an open mind and watch and shoot as things develop.

In the meantime WW1G is only getting better.

[Mowers]

I'd agree with Random, I was excited and then when I looked more closely I realized that it might not be quite so great; a missed opportunity even.