60+ hours feedback....

[ajarnlance]

After 60+ hours playing the game I thought I would post some constructive suggestions here. First of all I am loving the game and I think it rivals ACW2 as the best AGEOD title yet. Here is my feedback:

1) Britain as the AI does not defend Egypt very well. I was able to stroll into Egypt as the Turks in April 1915 and take the whole country in four turns. In real life the British defended Egypt very well with infantry, artillery and gunboats which threw the advancing Turks back from the Nile and into the desert. The Suez canal is the lifeline for British trade with India and the far east and it should be defended much more vigorously by the AI.

2) Trench warfare is not realistically portrayed on the Western front. I suggest increasing the entrenchment values early in the game to a higher level. In real life the western front became a stalemate from the winter of 1914 for the next three years. [B]Currently this front is too mobile.[/B] Also it is too easy for raiders to break through the enemy lines and raid freely behind them. This could be reduced by perhaps introducing an increase to defender patrol values with the onset of trench warfare. Maybe this could also be addressed in the tech tree by adding more trench warfare effects, but they should take effect very quickly on the western front.

3) Overall the AI for the Entente is too passive. Playing on the normal aggression setting for the AI the Entente just sits around building big stacks. In real life there was tremendous pressure on the Entente leaders to attack the Germans in France and Belgium and recover the conquered territory. While this lead the Entente leaders to launch several futile offensives at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, this urgency to attack and dislodge the Germans, especially early on, doesn't seem to be reflected. Maybe prioritize certain strategic objectives more for the AI??

4) There needs to be a way to discourage building big stacks by both the AI and the Player. In reality both sides spread their forces along a 450 mile front from Belgium to Switzerland. I don't see this spreading out of forces in trenches reflected on the western front. Maybe there should be specific rules/ techs just for the western front to reflect this.

5) Following on from point 2 regarding trench warfare the Battle Planner too often declares a winner and a loser. The result for most of the war in the trenches was STALEMATE. This should be reflected in the battle results. Also I think that the tactical choices need to reflect more accurately the nature of trench warfare. There should be more diverse options for artillery in particular, which played such a key role in the stalemate. Players or AI choosing options like "Infantry assault" or "cavalry charge" from 1915 onwards should be severely punished. It would be nice to see options like "preparatory artillery barrage" followed by Infantry assault. I haven't seen an option for "night attack" yet but this was a tactic that brought about one of the few successes enjoyed by the Entente.

6) COUNTER ATTACK was a tactic used very often in response to the failure/ limited success of most assaults. It is also what contributed to the stalemate. This needs to be reflected more closely in the game. The player should be counter attacked while still recovering from low cohesion after a battle. Perhaps there should be a 'second line' behind the first that is standing by ready to counter attack. Here is another area where perhaps the AI could take a more aggressive role.

7) The UI is a 'click fest'. This has been commented on elsewhere by other players. PLEASE consider returning to the old system for setting stances and ROE which involved less clicks. (I know there are hot keys but I want to play without overusing the keyboard). I think the UI in general is starting to show its age and needs modernizing for a game of this immense scope and complexity. For example, it is still very time consuming to identify the command structure and which generals are eligible for promotion. Also scrolling left to right through the recruitment box takes too many clicks. Add a slider here. Also add a button to sort the display BY NATION to reduce the huge number of counters I have to click through to find my German Infantry. The infantry box for recruitment is just too crowded, sorting by nation would help to address this.

Hopefully most of these changes can be made by tweaking the existing program. Thanks!

[Pocus]

That's with which version?

Some good remarks!

[ajarnlance]

That's with which version?

Some good remarks!

Thanks Pocus. I think I started out playing with the original version. If there has been a patch then I guess this will have updated automatically since I play thru Steam.

[ajarnlance]

One more item: it is very difficult to distinguish the recon from the fighter planes. Thanks!

[Pocus]

That's from Templer actually, but yes I agree...

[Templer]

... but yes I agree...

Vive la France!

[wodin]

Fully agree with all his points. Well said. if you manage to do what is written here you'd have a game that does actually represent WW1.

Though for me it has one major issue I still really enjoy the game.

After 60+ hours playing the game I thought I would post some constructive suggestions here. First of all I am loving the game and I think it rivals ACW2 as the best AGEOD title yet. Here is my feedback:

1) Britain as the AI does not defend Egypt very well. I was able to stroll into Egypt as the Turks in April 1915 and take the whole country in four turns. In real life the British defended Egypt very well with infantry, artillery and gunboats which threw the advancing Turks back from the Nile and into the desert. The Suez canal is the lifeline for British trade with India and the far east and it should be defended much more vigorously by the AI.

2) Trench warfare is not realistically portrayed on the Western front. I suggest increasing the entrenchment values early in the game to a higher level. In real life the western front became a stalemate from the winter of 1914 for the next four years. [B]Currently this front is too mobile.[/B] Also it is too easy for raiders to break through the enemy lines and raid freely behind them. This could be reduced by perhaps introducing an increase to defender patrol values with the onset of trench warfare. Maybe this could also be addressed in the tech tree by adding more trench warfare effects, but they should take effect very quickly on the western front.

3) Overall the AI for the Entente is too passive. Playing on the normal aggression setting for the AI the Entente just sits around building big stacks. In real life there was tremendous pressure on the Entente leaders to attack the Germans in France and Belgium and recover the conquered territory. While this lead the Entente leaders to launch several futile offensives at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, this urgency to attack and dislodge the Germans, especially early on, doesn't seem to be reflected. Maybe prioritize certain strategic objectives more for the AI??

4) There needs to be a way to discourage building big stacks by both the AI and the Player. In reality both sides spread their forces along a 450 mile front from Belgium to Switzerland. I don't see this spreading out of forces in trenches reflected on the western front. Maybe there should be specific rules/ techs just for the western front to reflect this.

5) Following on from point 2 regarding trench warfare the Battle Planner too often declares a winner and a loser. The result for most of the war in the trenches was STALEMATE. This should be reflected in the battle results. Also I think that the tactical choices need to reflect more accurately the nature of trench warfare. There should be more diverse options for artillery in particular, which played such a key role in the stalemate. Players or AI choosing options like "Infantry assault" or "cavalry charge" from 1915 onwards should be severely punished. It would be nice to see options like "preparatory artillery barrage" followed by Infantry assault. I haven't seen an option for "night attack" yet but this was a tactic that brought about one of the few successes enjoyed by the Entente.

6) COUNTER ATTACK was a tactic used very often in response to the failure/ limited success of most assaults. It is also what contributed to the stalemate. This needs to be reflected more closely in the game. The player should be counter attacked while still recovering from low cohesion after a battle. Perhaps there should be a 'second line' behind the first that is standing by ready to counter attack. Here is another area where perhaps the AI could take a more aggressive role.

7) The UI is a 'click fest'. This has been commented on elsewhere by other players. PLEASE consider returning to the old system for setting stances and ROE which involved less clicks. (I know there are hot keys but I want to play without overusing the keyboard). I think the UI in general is starting to show its age and needs modernizing for a game of this immense scope and complexity. For example, it is still very time consuming to identify the command structure and which generals are eligible for promotion. Also scrolling left to right through the recruitment box takes too many clicks. Add a slider here. Also add a button to sort the display BY NATION to reduce the huge number of counters I have to click through to find my German Infantry. The infantry box for recruitment is just too crowded, sorting by nation would help to address this.

Hopefully most of these changes can be made by tweaking the existing program. Thanks!

[ajarnlance]

Thanks Wodin. I appreciate your comments. I enjoy the game too. Maybe there is a way to make the warfare in the west more static from 1915-1917 by adding specific events or tech that only impact the western front. Make entrenchment values higher or make military control harder to change. It is a lot of fun BUT the trench warfare on the western front just isn't happening like it should.

[Nico165]

Thanks Wodin. I appreciate your comments. I enjoy the game too. Maybe there is a way to make the warfare in the west more static from 1915-1917 by adding specific events or tech that only impact the western front. Make entrenchment values higher or make military control harder to change. It is a lot of fun BUT the trench warfare on the western front just isn't happening like it should.

Not too sure about that.

Changes in latest beta patch (AI, MTSG, trench memory) make it more likely to have a longer stalemate in the west. The patch is still being worked on. We'll have to see with more games what the result is.

It also asks the following historical question : without any decisive blow in the western front in 1914, what would have been the odds not to have a 3-years stalemate ? And what probability of it happening/not happening ? If anyone has some reference on the subject, it would be interesting.

[ajarnlance]

Not too sure about that.

Changes in latest beta patch (AI, MTSG, trench memory) make it more likely to have a longer stalemate in the west. The patch is still being worked on. We'll have to see with more games what the result is.

It also asks the following historical question : without any decisive blow in the western front in 1914, what would have been the odds not to have a 3-years stalemate ? And what probability of it happening/not happening ? If anyone has some reference on the subject, it would be interesting.

I haven't tried the new patch yet. Waiting for an official release. I agree that there should always be the chance of a 'what if' scenario where the western front is different. If the Germans had been successful with the Schlieffen plan and taken Paris in 5 weeks (like they did in 1940) then of course things would have looked very different. I still think though that it was primarily technology that placed the advantage with the defence from 1915-1917. Machine guns and heavy artillery meant that trenches were vital. Any gaps in the line of trenches from Belgium to Switzerland would have invited a breakthrough. There were weak points which did invite attacks but they were mostly counter attacked and the results were at best a few yards gained at a terrible cost in casualties. Consequently what you had was a CONTINUOUS LINE of trenches for about 450 miles. Is this happening in the game (western front) from 1915? Also the battle planner result needs to show 'stalemate' more often to reflect the nature of trench warfare. I guess one problem from a game design point of view is that the Eastern front was more open and more mobile. The game needs to reflect two quite different modes of warfare between these two fronts. That is why I think there needs to be some special 'events' which only affect the western front and make it into the static war that it was for three years. Perhaps make military control much harder to change in the west??

[RGA]

I still think though that it was primarily technology that placed the advantage with the defence from 1915-1917. Machine guns and heavy artillery meant that trenches were vital.

Not just high tech, but low tech like barbed wire had a big influence as well. Sadly, there is no graphic for it in the game. Image of barbed wire (on top of sand bags) would have been better than brick wall for higher level trenches.

[Highlandcharge]

In the pbem games I am playing the Western front is turning into trench warfare, I believe this issue is mainly with the AI...

Yes RGA I to believe that having barbed wire on the entrenchment graphics would add more of a WWI flavor to EAW, maybe some talented moder could change it :-)