![]() Don't bother if you want a quickly resolving tactical battle game like Frontline. As I've already mentioned, this is a long game, and you NEED to be in it for the long game. There are a lot of variables in CTGW, and a lot to experiment with- just don't expect a quick payoff. What will be next in the production queue, what is coming up in the research queue. The English may be the best power on Water but that superiority doesn't necessarily last forever- and what about buying transports and more infantry, you know, to help those Allies out somewhere?Īnd this is where you get feedback from your decisions, each turn. The Germans will be tempted to spend it on better airplanes and artillery to force a result on the Western Front. Sure, they are crap troops- but they are great for moving vast distances without railroads fairly quickly, and can cut off troops nicely. For instance, Russia could use those cheap cavalry units. You also have to consider what the major front you are working on needs- not just now, but in three turns. So that "Cheap Infantry now versus expensive Tanks later" equation doesn't really work there, but it will for, say, Germany or England. The Serbian/Austrian front at the start of the war is pretty much a doomed confrontation, so the Serbians need to do what they can do to stall the Triple Entente until the other powers can get engaged. When you play a side, depending on the campaign you're playing, you are playing multiple fronts and multiple nations, with multiple national priorities. ![]() What can Serbia research this early in the war? Well, I'd choose barbed wire. In game terms, 19 become a real challenge for the Triple Entente player as more and more military technologies are present at start of the game (tanks, better airplanes, better artillery, armored trains, better ships, and etc). This can get a little confusing on the Ipad, as one furiously swipes across the map to see what the enemy units are doing during his opponent's turn.Įchoing the course of the Great War, the Triple Entente (Germany, Austria, Turkey) are favored in the first two scenarios and somewhat in 1916. That is a lot of hexes and a lot of ground to cover, especially in the grand campaign games after 1916, when so many fronts are opened up. The setting for Commander the Great War is vast playing out on a hex map of Europe from North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula up to the North Sea, East to the Ural mountains, West to the Atlantic and French coast. To End all Wars (also published by Slitherine) looks similar in scope but is mechanically very different (being developed by Aegeon), but I have no experience with it. In terms of computer games, Matrix Games' own Guns of August (PC version) is roughly similar in scope, but not mechanics. I just don't know of any that fill the same niche set in the First World War era- certainly not Guns of August. If I were to draw an analogy to a boardgame, CTGW relates to Advanced Third Reich and/or World in Flames the most, in that the player has to operate on the same grand strategic scale in a major theater of war, and there's a similar diplomatic and research element to those games. Game Start and setup- with some nice multimedia bits For 6.99 plus a pittance for the IGPs, I certainly think there is plenty of value for the retail price. In Summary, Kermorio has had a very decent first outing with WARS AND BATTLES- which is a mix of old and new ideas that will appeal to hard core wargamers and newcomers alike. I remain unconvinced the scales of those two eras will work in this engine, but I'd be willing to give them a try. Kermorio has high hopes of porting the same approach to many different battles, including Napoleonic or ACW era battles. The modular "game engine" approach is somewhat new for wargames on the IOS. That's neither here nor there- a campaign really needs some form of structure or it is difficult to execute, and the PG template works as well as anything. ![]() ![]() In this respect I was reminded, strongly, of several other games I've played in the last year that use a similar progressive campaign structure- in particular and variation of Panzer General or its various incarnations over time, or near-knockoffs. Players will accrue experience over time and replacement units to fill in for casualties. The campaign structure is logical and sensible. I found it to be overly defensive and not as aggressive as it could have been, but if you factor in that Normandy actually is a defensive campaign for the Germans I guess that makes sense. More of the Wars and Battles in tutorial modeĪrtificial Intelligence in this game is decent to moderate and the decisions being made were okay, though predictable at times. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |