AGEOD Forums

One of the unusual aspects of this game is that there are three sides, rather than two. This means you can only see what is going on in the entire war if you play as the Central Powers. If you play as the Western Entente, you have no information about what is happening in the Eastern front, and if you play as the Eastern Entente, you are equally ignorant about what is happening in the west.

Unless there is some way to see what is happening on the other front that i have not found.

If there is not, the central powers have a great intelligence advantage, and realism is seriously compromised, as the various nations of the Allies were in contact with each other, and did communicate.

I also do not understand why there is no option to simply play as all allied nations, against all central powers nations.

Any comments that can shed light on this would be most welcome

Save your turn, go to the menu, load your game, choose the EE.

At the moments, that's how I play the entire Triple Entente.

No, you simply use the filter on the map which paints the conquered regions the color of the land that has MC on them. You don't need to know more than that, the two "Ententes" were not really collaborating openly back then either. It would have been unrealistic and possibly gamey to have it abstracted any other way...

Aurelin wrote:Save your turn, go to the menu, load your game, choose the EE.

At the moments, that's how I play the entire Triple Entente.

Thank you, that solves both problems.

Kensai wrote:No, you simply use the filter on the map which paints the conquered regions the color of the land that has MC on them. You don't need to know more than that, the two "Ententes" were not really collaborating openly back then either. It would have been unrealistic and possibly gamey to have it abstracted any other way...

That does provide more information, and I thank you.

I respectfully disagree that it is unrealistic to have one person play all the allied nations, as long as reasonable restrictions are in place. But the two ententes did attempt to help each other at various times, such as the Russians attacking East Prussia at the beginning of the war. And these was a great deal of cooperation and coordination between part of the EE, Serbia, and the western allies, especially after the fall of Serbia, when Serbian troops fought in the Balkans side by side with French and British units, and when the French and British sent troops to help Greece against Bulgaria on the Salonikan front.

vaalen wrote:I respectfully disagree that it is unrealistic to have one person play all the allied nations, as long as reasonable restrictions are in place. But the two ententes did attempt to help each other at various times, such as the Russians attacking East Prussia at the beginning of the war. And these was a great deal of cooperation and coordination between part of the EE, Serbia, and the western allies, especially after the fall of Serbia, when Serbian troops fought in the Balkans side by side with French and British units, and when the French and British sent troops to help Greece against Bulgaria on the Salonikan front.

Playing both sides of the Entente is no less realistic than playing Italy at the same time you're playing Britain/France. Or, for that matter, than playing Britain in Europe and the Middle East. Your ability to control and coordinate strategies across great distances and even different nations will always be greater in a game than happened in real life.

One big advantage of being able to the play both halves of the Entente is that you can have several different variations in possible outcomes. As discussed in another thread, you can have the scenario where either France or Britain surrenders separately, leaving Russia (perhaps with US intervention) to fight on with the remaining WE partner. Just makes for a more robust and interesting strategic game.

fred zeppelin wrote:Playing both sides of the Entente is no less realistic than playing Italy at the same time you're playing Britain/France. Or, for that matter, than playing Britain in Europe and the Middle East. Your ability to control and coordinate strategies across great distances and even different nations will always be greater in a game than happened in real life.

One big advantage of being able to the play both halves of the Entente is that you can have several different variations in possible outcomes. As discussed in another thread, you can have the scenario where either France or Britain surrenders separately, leaving Russia (perhaps with US intervention) to fight on with the remaining WE partner. Just makes for a more robust and interesting strategic game.

Yes, those varying outcomes are a lot of fun. I have really enjoyed this in the Strategic Command Great War game, which I have played to completion a number of times. I prefer the AGE system,, but those varied outcomes really enhanced the fun and variety of the game.