Totally incomprehensible!

[CSS]

Stockwell how is your playing going?

[stockwellpete]

Stockwell how is your playing going?

Well, I have started to learn "Wars in America" which I have been told is one of the more accessible AGEOD games. I am finding some aspects of the game straightforward but other things like supply, attrition and combat are very, very puzzling. I know WW1 Gold uses a different game engine to most of the AGEOD games but I think it might be a bit too complicated for me, to be honest. I have not played many computer wargames really and I have recently purchased a brand new laptop, which is very powerful - the depth of these newer games really has taken me by surprise (I could not run them on my old lap-top). Anyway, I have printed of the 200+ pages of the WW1 Gold manual and I have started to read it but I am not sure when I will give the game another concerted try. I have already spent 9/10 hours trying to understand the tutorial (now achieved!). In future, I think the best way for me to really get into a game is to buy it when it first comes out and then play online straight away where everyone is really a "beginner". Lesson learned for me, I think! Cheers!

[CSS]

Play the shorter scenarios. I have played board game and computer games for over 30 years. So they are a bit easier for me to figure out. Still if you can figure out this one it is excellent for replay value.

[wodin]

I'm not keen on grand Strat games as tactical is more my thing. However after a very poor start we now have WW1Gold which not only the best WW1 PC wargame out there but for me also the best Grand Strat game period. However you do have to read the manual. I also had problems with the tutorial but managed to force my way through it enough to learn the basics i then jumped straight into the 4 player Grand Campaign. I've never finished one yet! However I love it even though really I'm very poor player and muddle my way through. The best thing to do is check out an AAR.

I never printed the manual but have read it a few times..it's a great read and mind blowing how much there is in the game.

Maybe when you become more experienced with wargames you will venture back and give it another go..quite a few people where out off at first but came back for another go and ended up loving it.

I do suggest AJE as another good AGEOD game for beginners. However the best games are the ones that you have a interest in historically. I'm a WW1 Obsessive

[stockwellpete]

Hello Wodin. Thanks for your reply. Yes I will give the game another try in a few months time. I have printed off the manual and I agree that the detail in the game is incredible. There is plenty of time for me to learn the game because I purchased it as a way of getting into WW1 now that the centenary of the war is nearly upon us. I am learning the AGE system through BOA2 at the moment and that is going OK - and I also have Rise of Prussia to go with it (covering Seven Years War). Once I have played through them I will return to the WW1 game and I also have Revolution Under Siege, so that will keep me going for the next 5 years! lol (I realise WW1 Gold uses a different engine)

[Taillebois]

Too many games and not enough time, that's the trouble. I've a shelf full of games, many hardly touched, some remain unwrapped.

AGEOD, Paradox, Panther, Slitherine etc. There are so many fantastic history based games around it makes me weep at how much struggle there is in the UK to even suggest that school pupils should have the barest introduction to history. Yet almost any of these games can generate curiosity and a thirst for knowledge in one or more periods. Even Civilization is a terrific game. Just suppose every schoolchild were given a copy.

[ERISS]

There are so many fantastic history based games around it makes me weep at how much struggle there is in the UK to even suggest that school pupils should have the barest introduction to history. Yet almost any of these games can generate curiosity and a thirst for knowledge in one or more periods.

Yes, curiosity is great.
Maybe that's why History is no longer learnt in scool in some countries: It could make the children go on the web search for more (i.e. with less censorship than in school books).
But sold games are not perfect: Often censorship is also there (i.e. pogroms in RUS, or usual ordering of mass killing of civilians, including children, in all, even by dear Cesar).
About WW1, I don't know.

[Random]

[Rant On]
Complex events call for complex treatments in order to accurately reflect cause and effect. History tends to be complex and nuanced as well as biased to various degrees. I wonder how much of the failure of modern education systems, particularly in the West (big assumption from me here but based on much anecdotal evidence), is due to the immediate nature of modern information technology. When information is delivered in 30-second sound bytes on TV as demanded by the media pundits it should come as no real surprise that our schools tend to deliver only a superficial understanding of past events.

Many people get much of their history from TV; an almost entirely visual medium that is commercially incapable of providing the background and understanding that flows from significant historical events. Far better for TV producers to show some entirely subjective CGI recreation with things blowing up, a dramatic soundtrack and where applicable, perhaps even some graphical blood-spattering than to pass on such mundane information of the hows and whys that may require a deeper understanding of the event. Drama is everything in TV but in real history the drama usually requires context and details that tend to fall by the wayside as being mundane or unexciting.

Too many people are willing to accept testimony as fact, opinion as analysis and links to "sources" (including Wikipedia) as the absolute final say on any subject.

The OP's remarks on the incomprehensible nature of WW1G are a case in point. The game is complex but the subject matter is incredibly complex and this is reflected in the finished product. To Stockwellpete's great credit he is making the effort to make the game comprehensible and so may come to realize that its very complexity can teach something about the subject. Acquiring new knowledge and skills takes effort, at least for most of us mere mortals but the work required is too often an anathema to a culture where everything needs to be delivered instantly and without any effort on the part of the "learner". Our historical record needs to be sanitized, dramatic, inoffensive to all, conform perfectly to our cultural mythology and be delivered visually in 30-second sound bytes or 44-minutes of commercial fluff.

Well designed historical games can provide some small sense of why things happened and if they cause a person to dig a bit deeper into the subject matter of the game rather than just waiting for the next TV docudrama, they may also provide a bit of a leg up in understanding the world over the average Twitter-obsessed, blog-worshipping, TV addict. Best of Luck to the OP and here's hoping that he finds the journey worth the effort. [Rant Off]

-C

[NY Rangers]

That's a quality rant! <- my twitterish response

[wodin]

WW1 is also a War with alot of Myth touted as facts and it's history is muddied with the anti war literature during the thirties by ex servicemen disillusioned during the great depression and then again in the sixties. You mention WW1 to anyone and the general consensus would be idiotic blood thirsty generals and poor infantry wallowing in mud oh and going over the top all in a line walking to their death. None of which is how the war was fought. Yes there where poor generals and on the first day of the Somme they did walk in a line and yes at time sit was muddy especially during the attack on Pashendeale. However the walking in line was a one off affair because they thought the Kitchener Army wouldn't be able to do proper tactics so they believed the arty would do the job and they could walk and keep in order (though one battalion ignored the advice and used fire and movement and managed to get further than any other unit that first day, for a vast majority of the time there was no mud in no mans land and also it had alot of plant life growing over No Mans Land during the war and it wasn't just stumpy shell ruined tree trunks and mud, and when it comes to generals the death rates for generals was far higher than in WW2 as many took risks with their own lives.