I have been playing this remarkable game for just 1 week but I am finding some aspects of presentation do not suit my style of play especially during battle resolution. Namely:-
1. Despite the 'binocular view' shaped piece of map displayed in the battle window I cannot always locate where the battle is taking place and so I don't know how important it is to hold that region. This is particularly true when I'm the defender. Perhaps I can afford to make a tactical withdrawal or maybe I need to fight to the death? Usually I can't tell from the little snippet of map provided and I'd like to be able to put the conflict in context across that region of the Front.
So, is it, or would it be possible, to be able to minimise the battle screen so that I can refer to the strategic map? It would be even better if the map was already centred on the battle zone of course!
2. The battle screen is an interesting concept and generally speaking I like it but I would prefer that combat results were more prominently displayed during the battle. Units which remain on screen are indicated as 'locked' (unfit for the moment to return to battle) or exhausted with an appropriate symbol applied to their counter, but others disappear, sometimes due to elimination and at other times due to being 'out of combat'. So it is very difficult to recognise how well / badly one is doing. Could there perhaps be a 'dead box' display showing counters removed from battle, each with an icon to indicate status (e.g. skull for eliminated)? That way I'm sure I'd be better able to keep track of the battle. Fair enough FOW would prevent me seeing the enemy's losses this way. Similarly, the little red lettered messages indicating each combat result seem to be held on screen for a mere flicker. I'd like them to be bigger, bolder, and to last longer on screen - a 'bubble shaped' text box would be my preference.
3. Without referring to the battle log it is not always obvious to me which side has won! Can we have a banner stating Entente / Central Powers win at least on the losses pop-up screen? (EDIT: I've just this minute noticed the crossed swords inverted = defeat; still not massively obvious though especially if you're clicking through an AI led battle)
4. I find it frustrating not to be able to see the result of the battle on the strategic map. Have I finally conquered that much sought region? Is my enemy slowly encircling me? etc. Without this information I can't rationally make choices about later battles and how the strategic situation may have changed.
I present these ideas not as criticisms but with a view to improving the game's interface if others feel similarly.
-
Chris Ferrous
- Corporal
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:31 pm
-
Chris Ferrous
- Corporal
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:31 pm
OK, maybe other players don't experience the same difficulties that I do with the battle screen's lack of unit detail.
However, now I've got as far as the Grand Offensive planning screen which shows nearby units, both friendly and enemy, I have to ask why we cannot be shown units on the map in the 'binocular' view presented on the normal battle screen?
However, now I've got as far as the Grand Offensive planning screen which shows nearby units, both friendly and enemy, I have to ask why we cannot be shown units on the map in the 'binocular' view presented on the normal battle screen?
I suppose perhaps some of your observations are due to how you would like to see combat results information available to the Player and one should not argue with another's personal preferences. Nothing you have posted is inaccurate but I suspect that all you see is working as desired.
My take on what your comments are generally the opposite, that is to say lack of information or maybe more accurately, the difficulty in getting certain pieces of information plays into the entire Fog of War aspects of the game. I actually like the way the combat screens are organized and that combat losses, because one cannot refer to a scoreboard, are essentially irrelevant. Only resources remaining, National Will, manpower, munitions and units are of importance and in my opinion this plays nicely into the mindsets of the national commanders during WW1 and represented in the game by the Player.
This is not to say that the politicians, princes and generals were immune to the slaughter, rather, what was spent in the way of resources had become less important than what was left. In many respects the way information is presented in Le Grande Guerre encourages the player to adapt the mentality of a Joffre, Haig or Falkenhayn.
It's a difficult mindset to adapt since in most wargames the player deluged with easy to access information and encouraged to minimize losses whereas in WW1G, once trench warfare kicks in, combat goals change and losses become largely meaningless, what Prof. John Laffen referred to as the "Heavy Casualties Inevitable" syndrome that dominated offensive planning and execution.
The battle screen and logs provide a lot of information to the player but it is transient and cannot be referred to later. This is unusual for computer strategy wargames but I think the overall effect serves the recreation of a WW1 mentality in the Player quite nicely.
To each his own.
My take on what your comments are generally the opposite, that is to say lack of information or maybe more accurately, the difficulty in getting certain pieces of information plays into the entire Fog of War aspects of the game. I actually like the way the combat screens are organized and that combat losses, because one cannot refer to a scoreboard, are essentially irrelevant. Only resources remaining, National Will, manpower, munitions and units are of importance and in my opinion this plays nicely into the mindsets of the national commanders during WW1 and represented in the game by the Player.
This is not to say that the politicians, princes and generals were immune to the slaughter, rather, what was spent in the way of resources had become less important than what was left. In many respects the way information is presented in Le Grande Guerre encourages the player to adapt the mentality of a Joffre, Haig or Falkenhayn.
It's a difficult mindset to adapt since in most wargames the player deluged with easy to access information and encouraged to minimize losses whereas in WW1G, once trench warfare kicks in, combat goals change and losses become largely meaningless, what Prof. John Laffen referred to as the "Heavy Casualties Inevitable" syndrome that dominated offensive planning and execution.
The battle screen and logs provide a lot of information to the player but it is transient and cannot be referred to later. This is unusual for computer strategy wargames but I think the overall effect serves the recreation of a WW1 mentality in the Player quite nicely.
To each his own.
-
Chris Ferrous
- Corporal
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:31 pm
Thanks, Random, that's a brilliantly put argument, and one with which I largely agree.
Certainly the game engine DOES force the player's mindset back to those horrendous days, and perhaps the 'what's left?' versus 'what'v'we lost?' observation is particularly valid. So, ok, I'm happy not to have a ready log of my losses (and I wouldn't expect to see the enemy's losses because I always play with Fog of War on), but that was only a secondary point.
My main point was the difficulty of locating the battle in my mind's eye on the strategic map, especially on the long eastern front where town's names are less familiar to me, so that I can assess the tactical situation there. Given the game scale of approx 1 month per turn and I'd estimate 50km (40miles) per region, surely, even in 1914, GHQ would be aware of enemy advances in different sectors of the front? My point is, that in the 'binocular view' I see no units at all, unlike on the Grand Offensive planning map. Neither can I refer to the strategic map between AI attacks, so an advance in one sector may have changed the strategic situation and hence my preferred response, i.e. tactical withdrawal or tenacity.
Finally, I certainly wasn't trying to imply the game wasn't working (it wasn't for me before patch 1.08L but it is now), just that I felt the presentation of the battle screen might be amended to improve one's strategic appreciation of the sectors of the front under attack.
Great to read your views.
Certainly the game engine DOES force the player's mindset back to those horrendous days, and perhaps the 'what's left?' versus 'what'v'we lost?' observation is particularly valid. So, ok, I'm happy not to have a ready log of my losses (and I wouldn't expect to see the enemy's losses because I always play with Fog of War on), but that was only a secondary point.
My main point was the difficulty of locating the battle in my mind's eye on the strategic map, especially on the long eastern front where town's names are less familiar to me, so that I can assess the tactical situation there. Given the game scale of approx 1 month per turn and I'd estimate 50km (40miles) per region, surely, even in 1914, GHQ would be aware of enemy advances in different sectors of the front? My point is, that in the 'binocular view' I see no units at all, unlike on the Grand Offensive planning map. Neither can I refer to the strategic map between AI attacks, so an advance in one sector may have changed the strategic situation and hence my preferred response, i.e. tactical withdrawal or tenacity.
Finally, I certainly wasn't trying to imply the game wasn't working (it wasn't for me before patch 1.08L but it is now), just that I felt the presentation of the battle screen might be amended to improve one's strategic appreciation of the sectors of the front under attack.
Great to read your views.
Thank you, your comments are much appreciated!
Some of this effect can be mitigated by using the Army by Army mode rather than WEGO. However, that style of play is difficult to master and not particularly user friendly in my experiance although I am making a concerted effort with it. It would certainly be nice to be able to review the previous turn's combat even if the system in place now actually encourages a kind of strategic tunnel-vision that once again, mirrors the actual event.
I really do feel your pain regarding locating obscure placenames though!
Perhaps some sort of post game-turn review phase would fit the bill but I doubt that the Dev's could insert something like that at this stage.
Suspect that the desire to retain as much of the flavour of the original Le Grande Guerre boardgame as possible resulted in a GUI that does not make the best use of the computers ability to manage transient information. Like in a board game, a combat result cannot be reviewed and at turn's end one is left in an entirely new situation with no way to retreive the mechanics of how you actually got there. Does this make some sense, coming from a long-time board wargamer?
My main point was the difficulty of locating the battle in my mind's eye on the strategic map, especially on the long eastern front where town's names are less familiar to me, so that I can assess the tactical situation there. Given the game scale of approx 1 month per turn and I'd estimate 50km (40miles) per region, surely, even in 1914, GHQ would be aware of enemy advances in different sectors of the front? My point is, that in the 'binocular view' I see no units at all, unlike on the Grand Offensive planning map. Neither can I refer to the strategic map between AI attacks, so an advance in one sector may have changed the strategic situation and hence my preferred response, i.e. tactical withdrawal or tenacity.
Some of this effect can be mitigated by using the Army by Army mode rather than WEGO. However, that style of play is difficult to master and not particularly user friendly in my experiance although I am making a concerted effort with it. It would certainly be nice to be able to review the previous turn's combat even if the system in place now actually encourages a kind of strategic tunnel-vision that once again, mirrors the actual event.
I really do feel your pain regarding locating obscure placenames though!
Perhaps some sort of post game-turn review phase would fit the bill but I doubt that the Dev's could insert something like that at this stage.
Suspect that the desire to retain as much of the flavour of the original Le Grande Guerre boardgame as possible resulted in a GUI that does not make the best use of the computers ability to manage transient information. Like in a board game, a combat result cannot be reviewed and at turn's end one is left in an entirely new situation with no way to retreive the mechanics of how you actually got there. Does this make some sense, coming from a long-time board wargamer?
-
Chris Ferrous
- Corporal
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:31 pm
You almost have me convinced!
Although railways were massively important in bringing Reserves into threatened sectors thus frustrating virtually every attempt at a decisive breakthrough, i.e defensive mobility implied, the fact remains that once troops were dug-in the frontline units certainly did not have tactical mobility! They were stuck in the meatgrinder.
The battle screen with its limited movement between boxes and the flow of Reserves recreates this situation very well indeed and I've always accepted that. If anything I don't think it is rigid enough in that units can usually escape with a 'white stripe' rather than being vaporised although we are talking of whole Corps here not just Battalions so that's probably fair enough.
So, given the fact the meatgrinder is there, whereever that is, then maybe I agree I don't need to be given access to the strategic situation. It's a case of "We fight and die here!" as there could be no thought of giving up ground. Now that's fine for trench warfare and I'm finally convinced.
I suppose the short period of movement warfare is so brief that any potential for tactical withdrawal even if it existed is hardly relevant. The fact remains that Armies would meet and engage and break apart but would still incur losses. This aspect is covered by the intelligently thought out finesse of having 'mobile battles' count double against the 'obstination' value, thus meaning mobile battles CAN be short(ish) if that's what the tactical situation demands.
No, I admit defeat; I'm happy with the situation. The battle board can continue to force me to think like a WW1 General (with his hands firmly tied behind his back!).
-----------------------------------
Final observation: Although this game comes very close to achieving it, I don't think a virtual game board can ever be as beautiful to veteran wargamers like ourselves as the real thing with its crisp map and die-cut counters in neat stacks being moved gradually across the fronts. However, I think even I would have struggled to operate this one! So I'm much relieved the computer can do all the hard work. I guess manually computing a single battle could easily have taken 10 minutes. No, no way could I have dealt with that!
Cheers. CF
Although railways were massively important in bringing Reserves into threatened sectors thus frustrating virtually every attempt at a decisive breakthrough, i.e defensive mobility implied, the fact remains that once troops were dug-in the frontline units certainly did not have tactical mobility! They were stuck in the meatgrinder.
The battle screen with its limited movement between boxes and the flow of Reserves recreates this situation very well indeed and I've always accepted that. If anything I don't think it is rigid enough in that units can usually escape with a 'white stripe' rather than being vaporised although we are talking of whole Corps here not just Battalions so that's probably fair enough.
So, given the fact the meatgrinder is there, whereever that is, then maybe I agree I don't need to be given access to the strategic situation. It's a case of "We fight and die here!" as there could be no thought of giving up ground. Now that's fine for trench warfare and I'm finally convinced.
I suppose the short period of movement warfare is so brief that any potential for tactical withdrawal even if it existed is hardly relevant. The fact remains that Armies would meet and engage and break apart but would still incur losses. This aspect is covered by the intelligently thought out finesse of having 'mobile battles' count double against the 'obstination' value, thus meaning mobile battles CAN be short(ish) if that's what the tactical situation demands.
No, I admit defeat; I'm happy with the situation. The battle board can continue to force me to think like a WW1 General (with his hands firmly tied behind his back!).
-----------------------------------
Final observation: Although this game comes very close to achieving it, I don't think a virtual game board can ever be as beautiful to veteran wargamers like ourselves as the real thing with its crisp map and die-cut counters in neat stacks being moved gradually across the fronts. However, I think even I would have struggled to operate this one! So I'm much relieved the computer can do all the hard work. I guess manually computing a single battle could easily have taken 10 minutes. No, no way could I have dealt with that!
Cheers. CF
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests