To End All Wars - First Impressions

[Huskalator]

You can only have one GHQ. Only Germany is allowed two with a Western and Eastern front GHQs. As concerns creating armies (corps in previous games), you need to be in the control radius of the GHQ (Stavka in the Russian case).

Whoah, ok. So basically I'm going to have lots of Corps running around with only one main force of GHQ+Armies? Sry if that's a dumb question just trying to get a grip on playing this game.

Should I be moving my GHQ all around the front creating armies?

[James D Burns]

Whoah, ok. So basically I'm going to have lots of Corps running around with only one main force of GHQ+Armies? Sry if that's a dumb question just trying to get a grip on playing this game.

Should I be moving my GHQ all around the front creating armies?

It's easier to simply rail your 3 star generals to within command range of your GHQ (select GHQ and hold shift to see range) and create the armies. Then rail the 3 star armies to where they are needed next turn.

Corps will be used more in non-important regions, with the larger armies defending the rail lines or objective regions. The MTSG feature will allow adjacent troops to help out the smaller corps stacks if they get hit.

Jim

[fred zeppelin]

It's easier to simply rail your 3 star generals to within command range of your GHQ (select GHQ and hold shift to see range) and create the armies. Then rail the 3 star armies to where they are needed next turn.

Seems like a lot of busy work, though. This is the one area of AGEOD games that seems overly ritualistic. Creating an army should be easy. If you want to simulate command and control problems, then penalize how the army behaves.

[Ace]

Actually, initially in early setups, all starting mayor nation 3 star leaders had armies. But, then some lost the army and GHQ got locked for the first few turns to give some areas poorer leadership in the opening turns depending on the chosen warplan. So, for example, Russian commanders in Prussia cann't get an Army command in the first few trns

[fred zeppelin]

Actually, initially in early setups, all starting mayor nation 3 star leaders had armies. But, then some lost the army and GHQ got locked for the first few turns to give some areas poorer leadership in the opening turns depending on the chosen warplan. So, for example, Russian commanders in Prussia cann't get an Army command in the first few trns

I understand the thinking, just questioning the mechanic. An army is a designation on a piece paper - the Russians had plenty of them. If you want to model limitations on how their armies perform - then, well, impose limitations on how their armies perform.

The whole army formation ritual in AGEOD games is an unnecessary - as well as irritating - work around.

[HerrDan]

I understand the thinking, just questioning the mechanic. An army is a designation on a piece paper - the Russians had plenty of them. If you want to model limitations on how their armies perform - then, well, impose limitations on how their armies perform.

The whole army formation ritual in AGEOD games is an unnecessary - as well as irritating - work around.

I think it's a great solution to emulate the russian lack of coordination in their disastrous offensive in East Prussia. Or would you prefer to give different strenght to units? I, during the beta testing even argued that the russian infantry unit should have a weaker power compared to german or british ones, so that we can emulate their inneficiency/poor training/lack of supplies etc.

All in all, I liked the solution we reached.

[fred zeppelin]

I think it's a great solution to emulate the russian lack of coordination in their disastrous offensive in East Prussia. Or would you prefer to give different strenght to units? I, during the beta testing even argued that the russian infantry unit should have a weaker power compared to german or british ones, so that we can emulate their inneficiency/poor training/lack of supplies etc.

All in all, I liked the solution we reached.

I see you've found what I was talking about. I just think it's better to limit performance than to limit structure. The latter is, at best, a very indirect way of achieving the desired result - with a lot of irritating and immersion-killing side effects. Like having to transport all your generals by rail to the GHQ (kissing the ring, perhaps?) just to create an Army.

Better, I think, to let the Russians create Armies at will, but then impose additional command restrictions on them (to simulate things like failure to encode field orders, etc.) Certain generals could have attributes that increase or decrease those limitations. You could even introduce Decisions or Research options to remove the limitations. That way, you have full-featured game with choices, rather than a restrictive engine-driven workaround.

EDIT: A perfect example of a limitation that makes perfect sense and fits smoothly into the game mechanics is the increased cost for Russian supply units, which nicely simulates the enormous logistical obstacles the Russians faced. See here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36929-Russian-supply-train-replacements-query

The game doesn't prevent the Russians from building supply units altogether or impose some other mechanical restriction; they just cost more. So there are plenty of ways to simulate limitations on one side or another without having to resort to restrictive workarounds.

[Respenus]

Actually, you do have the limitation in the form of command points. Because they aren't "armies" attached to a GHQ, they can command fewer troops effectively, simulating coordination and communication difficulties. However, I do agree that in the case of modern warfare, this ritual could be limited a bit.

[fred zeppelin]

Actually, you do have the limitation in the form of command points. Because they aren't "armies" attached to a GHQ, they can command fewer troops effectively, simulating coordination and communication difficulties. However, I do agree that in the case of modern warfare, this ritual could be limited a bit.

Bingo! Hence no particular need to prevent the Russian play from building them altogether.

[Tamas]

The difference between German forces were things like better organisation and command for the Germans, and a clear superiority in artillery. These both in fact are simulated (the command structure you already mentioned, and the Germans can produce and field more artillery units).

A big advantage of simulating actual factors like this via the game engine (rather than, say, having inferior unit counters for Russians a tabletop wargame would do) is that the disadvantaged side can spend effort in attempting at least locally overcoming the specific difficulties (going the extra mile to establish an efficient command structure for a part of the front, and/or concentrating available artillery at a given point).

In the end we end up with a more realistic and deeper system in exchange of next to nothing cosmetical disadvantages (the game not automatically naming all stacks "Armies" the Russians did)

[HerrDan]

Perhaps the "ritual thing" could be discussed, but the way the armies aren't attached to the GHQ makes perfect sense and works pretty well in the start of the war as mentoned already.

[HerrDan]

The difference between German forces were things like better organisation and command for the Germans, and a clear superiority in artillery. These both in fact are simulated (the command structure you already mentioned, and the Germans can produce and field more artillery units).

A big advantage of simulating actual factors like this via the game engine (rather than, say, having inferior unit counters for Russians a tabletop wargame would do) is that the disadvantaged side can spend effort in attempting at least locally overcoming the specific difficulties (going the extra mile to establish an efficient command structure for a part of the front, and/or concentrating available artillery at a given point).

In the end we end up with a more realistic and deeper system in exchange of next to nothing cosmetical disadvantages (the game not automatically naming all stacks "Armies" the Russians did)

Tamas you are brilhant, you simply summarized everything I wanted to say.

[fred zeppelin]

The difference between German forces were things like better organisation and command for the Germans, and a clear superiority in artillery. These both in fact are simulated (the command structure you already mentioned, and the Germans can produce and field more artillery units).

A big advantage of simulating actual factors like this via the game engine (rather than, say, having inferior unit counters for Russians a tabletop wargame would do) is that the disadvantaged side can spend effort in attempting at least locally overcoming the specific difficulties (going the extra mile to establish an efficient command structure for a part of the front, and/or concentrating available artillery at a given point).

In the end we end up with a more realistic and deeper system in exchange of next to nothing cosmetical disadvantages (the game not automatically naming all stacks "Armies" the Russians did)

I think we're both saying essentially the same thing. I don't favor artificial limits on the unit counters (unless you're trying to simulate something like inferior equipment). I'm just saying model exactly what you're trying to simulate. If you want to model supply problems, then make supply more expensive (the game does this). If you want to model the difficulty of coordinating armies over vast distances, then penalize Armies outside the GHQ command radius (the game does this too).

I just don't see that preventing the Russian player from building Armies simulates anything particularly realistic. If you want to simulate a dysfunctional command structure, then impose limits on how it functions - not on whether it exists at all.

The whole Army chit routine is a holdover from the original AACW game and just grows tiresome as the number units increases and the unit of action moves from Division to Corps.

[Altaris]

I've always considered the lack of an "HQ" attached to a "GHQ" to represent the fact the army is not in direct communication with the GHQ. So just because a 3-star general is not an "HQ" via the game mechanic doesn't mean they aren't in charge of an army. So at start of game, the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies are still armies, and are designated as such on the stack panels, but since the main Russian effort is in Galicia, they aren't attached to the GHQ and therefore have heavy command penalties. This is fairly historical too, as a large part of Russia's problem in East Prussia was the hatred of the 1st and 2nd Army generals towards one another with no oversight from a higher authority.

The initial attachment of HQs to GHQs is meant to represent where the focus of the major nations' planning was at prior to the outbreak of war, not to mean the armies didn't exist.

[H Gilmer3]

i turn it off as it has no volume control that i can see - rather strange in this day and age

Can you turn it down via computer volume, or did you want sounds of the battles and such louder and music lower?

[mariandavid]

Creating a new army was not in real life a simple thing. At the very least it would take a month or more because it needed signal, military police, aviation, cavalry messengers, in addition to a Commander, chief of staff, heads of artillery, engineers, medicine and on and on. There were very, very few totally new armies created in the first year of the war, almost all that did exist at the start being conversions of territorial, regional and fortress commands that were already designated as armies. The British, probably the most technology rich of the players only averaged one new army a year on the western front.

And, just to make matters worse there were strict expectations on how big, in terms of combat units, that new army was to be. No self respecting three-star general would demean himself by taking over an 'army' with a mere 4-5 divisions! Now such would be an intolerable rule in a game, so I am happy with the weaker restrictions in terms of forming near a GHQ.

Zed: I do not follow the logic of your suggestion on Russian armies or no armies. The issue was far more complex than that and included:
- the two army commanders hated each other's guts
- they followed different and opposing strategic aims (so for that matter did most of the Russian Army - essentially between the old-fashioned 'German' and the slightly more innovative 'Native Russian' schools of thought)

To make matters worse, unlike your suggestion, there were no limits on how those armies functioned. Both were aggressive, even successful, but also incapable of co-operation and careless to a fault in reconnaissance. In other words - were they armies in the game with the full strength they would achieve once their reserve corps arrived, they could throw the Germans back across the Oder and end the war in a hurry.

[fred zeppelin]

Creating a new army was not in real life a simple thing. At the very least it would take a month or more because it needed signal, military police, aviation, cavalry messengers, in addition to a Commander, chief of staff, heads of artillery, engineers, medicine and on and on. There were very, very few totally new armies created in the first year of the war, almost all that did exist at the start being conversions of territorial, regional and fortress commands that were already designated as armies. The British, probably the most technology rich of the players only averaged one new army a year on the western front.

And, just to make matters worse there were strict expectations on how big, in terms of combat units, that new army was to be. No self respecting three-star general would demean himself by taking over an 'army' with a mere 4-5 divisions! Now such would be an intolerable rule in a game, so I am happy with the weaker restrictions in terms of forming near a GHQ.

Zed: I do not follow the logic of your suggestion on Russian armies or no armies. The issue was far more complex than that and included:
- the two army commanders hated each other's guts
- they followed different and opposing strategic aims (so for that matter did most of the Russian Army - essentially between the old-fashioned 'German' and the slightly more innovative 'Native Russian' schools of thought)

To make matters worse, unlike your suggestion, there were no limits on how those armies functioned. Both were aggressive, even successful, but also incapable of co-operation and careless to a fault in reconnaissance. In other words - were they armies in the game with the full strength they would achieve once their reserve corps arrived, they could throw the Germans back across the Oder and end the war in a hurry.

All true. I'm just saying penalize the Russians, not me! Don't make me have to go through an elaborate ritual just to build an army.

[Ace]

The Russians are penalized by Samsonov not having an Army command. Of course you can rail Samsonov and leave his stack to another else, to "kiss Grand Duke ring" as you have said it, but immersion wise I simply endure these first few turns without an Amry for Samsonov until STAVKA GHQ is unlocked, then I rail STAVKA to the Armies in question and form them. To have all those commanders railed back to STAVKA GHQ just to get an Army commander I wouldn't do. It is called gaming the system. There has to be some benefit for GHQ personally overseeing a part of the front.

[le Anders]

Going to buy it on Steam tomorrow (sorry, AGEOD-store, but I find it's normally cheaper on Steam), but in the mean time I have a few questions:
-Artillery: Inside divisions, or loose in the corps?
-Support units: same question.
-Will the Revolution trigger in any country during the war?

~A

[gekkoguy82]

Going to buy it on Steam tomorrow (sorry, AGEOD-store, but I find it's normally cheaper on Steam), but in the mean time I have a few questions:
-Artillery: Inside divisions, or loose in the corps?
-Support units: same question.
-Will the Revolution trigger in any country during the war?

~A

Pretty sure it's the same price on Steam and Ageod. Steam gets their pricing cues from Matrix/Slitherine/Ageod.

[Nico165]

Pretty sure it's the same price on Steam and Ageod. Steam gets their pricing cues from Matrix/Slitherine/Ageod.

This. And I think AGEOD gets more money out of it if you buy the game on Matrix/Slitherine/AGEod than on Steam. Which is good, because they need more money than Steam do

[Doctoxic]

This. And I think AGEOD gets more money out of it if you buy the game on Matrix/Slitherine/AGEod than on Steam. Which is good, because they need more money than Steam do

what happens if you buy from matrix and then activate the steam key - do matrix have to pay steam the full steam fee as if it was bought direct from steam?

[Nico165]

what happens if you buy from matrix and then activate the steam key - do matrix have to pay steam the full steam fee as if it was bought direct from steam?

That is out of my competence, we will need some official response about that !

[le Anders]

The game itself is a bit cheaper on Matrix, but they add VAT, so the game's about 10% or more expensive than on Steam for me.

[H Gilmer3]

One thing that bugs me and someone brought it up on my AAR thread. I am playing the Western Entente and I get almost nothing in reports on what is going in Russia. Surely they got more information than "Hey, this city was taken"? No?

[fred zeppelin]

One thing that bugs me and someone brought it up on my AAR thread. I am playing the Western Entente and I get almost nothing in reports on what is going in Russia. Surely they got more information than "Hey, this city was taken"? No?

Agreed. If lifting the FOW on the main map is too much, perhaps they could lift it on the strategic map (in the ledger). You also can use the political map filter to at least show where the lines are.

[Huskalator]

Combining armies then splitting them up destroys one of the armies, LOL. So now one my generals who provided full command points now only provides half. Was this game even playtested? The command system needs to be reworked ASAP. Not only is it wildly ahistorical it's not fun at all for the player. I can't believe someone actually thought shipping the GHQ around the entire theater, or shipping generals to the GHQ, was preferable to any other way of representing command and control problems. I don't think I could conceive of a worse way of doing things.

I'm putting this game back on the shelf for now. There's too many baffling design decisions even if there appears to be a good game hiding underneath it all.

[fred zeppelin]

Combining armies then splitting them up destroys one of the armies, LOL. So now one my generals who provided full command points now only provides half. Was this game even playtested? The command system needs to be reworked ASAP. Not only is it wildly ahistorical it's not fun at all for the player. I can't believe someone actually thought shipping the GHQ around the entire theater, or shipping generals to the GHQ, was preferable to any other way of representing command and control problems. I don't think I could conceive of a worse way of doing things.

I'm putting this game back on the shelf for now. There's too many baffling design decisions even if there appears to be a good game hiding underneath it all.

I think this is a legacy of their CW games, where Armies were less common and Corps-sized units often acted independently. In any event, the system doesn't fit WWI and results in far too much idiotic busywork.

The solution is simple and obvious: You ought to be able to create an Army anywhere you want, so long as you have the appropriate general. The Army will operate at a penalty, however, unless it is with command range of the GHQ. If you want to model other factors - organizational delays, nation-specific command weakness, distance problems, etc. - then do it through additional command penalties.

Cardinal principle of game design: Penalize the silicon people in the game, not the actual human playing the game. Amazing how often this seems to escape so many so-called game designers.

[bob.]

Just started my first game of TEAW, obviously immediately into the Grand Campaign with war plan selection! Thought I'd start with Russia so I could make some huge mistakes and still survive (after all, that's what they did historically, right?)

- Austria-Hungary chooses to focus on Russia, dealing with Serbia later.

- Germany chooses the Moltke Plan, focusing their initial offensive on Russia

Well, at least France will attack Germany unhindered now...

- France chooses to stay back behind its forts and let the enemy come to them

Thanks a lot, AGEOD! On the upside, it's a damn exciting game already at turn 4! ...and I am losing everywhere on the Russian front.

[Tamas]

Just started my first game of TEAW, obviously immediately into the Grand Campaign with war plan selection! Thought I'd start with Russia so I could make some huge mistakes and still survive (after all, that's what they did historically, right?)

- Austria-Hungary chooses to focus on Russia, dealing with Serbia later.

- Germany chooses the Moltke Plan, focusing their initial offensive on Russia

Well, at least France will attack Germany unhindered now...

- France chooses to stay back behind its forts and let the enemy come to them

Thanks a lot, AGEOD! On the upside, it's a damn exciting game already at turn 4! ...and I am losing everywhere on the Russian front.

Unlucky with the French choice, but they will go on the attack eventually, but not as recklessly as they would have with their historical option.

If you can avoid the Germans wiping your forces out you can cause them trouble later, as they will have increasingly bigger territories to cover and longer supply lines to maintain. However, if you feel you can spare the troops, you can actually try and hold ground against the Austrian part of your front, they much less effective on the attack than Germans.