So I started posting this analysis on Steam Forums, but I figured I'd copy this here to increase its visibility and offer my help more directly.
steamcommunity.com
Right. Let me just say that I have been watching this game with great interest for a long time. There are essentially no games like this that I am aware of, and I'm a major wargamer and history nerd who outright seeks out games set in WWI and a few others. I'm even undertaking an independent, for-my-own-pleasure translation project of an old game that was never translated out of German or Russian (in spite of speaking neither language). So when I saw there would be a demo here, I jumped on it. And I'm glad I did.
This holds a great deal of promise, and I particularly look forward to fighting my way through to the end of the tutorial to see if I can break Germany in the post-game. I am also slowly but steadily screenshotting every node of the research tree both for curiosity (in case anybody is interested) and so I can provide more feedback.
That said, this isn't perfect by a long shot and while the game feels "almost" right, it doesn't quite. And as a playtester with years of experience and a track record working with some big names (Such as Matrix, Slitherine, Hussar Games, as well as smaller Indie ones) I'd like to throw my two cents in.
Also as a quick note, I tend to focus on things that I feel are lacking or could be improved. This may make what I write come across as more caustic or negative than I intend. But that's not because I think the game is bad (far from it, VERY far from it) but because when I feel something is working without a hitch people still need to know about that and be told how great it is, but you don't have to go too much beyond that besides "Keep doing what you are doing here" while constructive criticism where there are hitches takes longer.
Moreover, I am still playing through the campaign tutorial and have just beaten the first Offensive Battle, though I found my performance disappointing both on its own merits (or lack thereof; I admit I am still very much a greenhorn in this game and so I'll own it) and from how I felt the game features unjustly screwed me over (more on that later for some of what I talk about) and plan to replay it. So this critique will not be all encompassing or complete.
Anyway, with that out of the way...
Let's get out with the easiest.
Graphics/Presentation: Simply very good. Perhaps not the most beautiful stuff on the record, but it works for this game quite well. My machine is still good but is starting to get on in years, but it could run this at max settings very smoothly. Moreover, the mixture is quite effective. From the character art to the archival footage. But the gameplay itself takes the cake, with decently clean UI on the battlefield while also looking beautiful and pretty authentic from the flags to the uniforms to the weapons. It is a joy to behold and it's easy to see why. Moreover the unit cards are clear enough to work at a glance.
The main issues I have with the UI comes down below, around the "lower bar." It's nothing super obscure and the select unit cards is very nice, but the stuff on either ends of it is a BIT too obscure or hard to guess for my tastes, often pressed out of the way (somewhat understandable given this game) and reliant on popup text to interpret rather vague graphics and numbers (the fortifications are probably the biggest offender here). In the sort of pre battle stage that's really nice since there is no time limit, likewise on the campaign map, but it's REALLY not something I'd want to have to do when the shells and shots are firing and men are falling. I'd suggest looking to better explain things like this at a glance.
The other little caveat I'd have is the use of Stars to designate territorial defense/staying power. I just did a screencap of the first tutorial battle at Chateau Thierry, oh so very proud of myself (with some issues) at having beaten a telegraphed tutorial battle, when I noticed the positioning of the stars. It feels pretty off next to "Great Victory" and I imagine it would be similar in the Historical Battles (I haven't completed the one on offer yet beyond dipping in quickly, since I am still dealing with the tutorial, but I did see the intro and opening stages). I can imagine having to explain to neophytes or friends without it how "No no, the victory scale doesn't actually go beyond Great Victory this is how it determines how tightly a region is defended!")
The problem is that I unfortunately don't have a particularly great or easy solution for this. But the idea that comes to mind would be swapping the design a bit. Replace the Stars as they are with something like a portrayal of barbed wire, bunkers, or trenches. Something nasty and forboding and used across both sides to indicate "This is how well defended this is and can be." Then use the stars (if they're used at all) to grade performance on the field from Great Defeat to Great Victory.
I also note there is an issue on the campaign map and to a lesser extent on the battle map making it absolutely painful to try and get at units to see their national traits, making you reliant on the Encyclopedia. This kind of sucks if I want to see how-say- my ANZAC infantry differ from the British differ from the Indian ones. In general the more ways to convey information at a glance, the better.
But if moderate complaints about UI interface and fleshing it out or adding more text to explain it are the biggest issue I have with the graphics, you're doing a superlative job.
Sound Design: Another brilliant and unambiguous strong point. It all feels very nice. I am afraid the music might not be quite as powerful or iconic as Frank's previous works but it is very nice to listen to and fits. It also nicely compliments the sounds of the UI and actual battle, in particular the powerful BOOMS of the artillery, the sound of the planes going about, and orders given to and fro.
If there are a couple issues I had, it would likely be
A: That the sounds of small arms could use a bit more boosting. I realize our vantage point is high in the sky and thus not up close like in a shooter or even most RTS/TBS, but I think it'd be nice.
B: Voice Acting - or specifically the cutscene voice acting - is suitable but could be better. Worth maybe doing a couple over with the staff and maybe expanding it to the other tutorial.
But again, relatively small potatoes. So very good job.
But now let's get to the meat and Potatoes.
GAMEPLAY
But this is gonna be long so I'm going to need to break it down.
Tactical Gameplay: This is the heart of the game without question, being the only thing the player will probably interact with in every mode, be it Campaigns or Historical Battles. And on the whole it does a very, very good job. The units feel decently balanced (for the MOST Part), as does the preparation for it. Units feel appropriately fragile (except for a couple, but I'll get to those later), and it is satisfying - if highly lethal. And in particular it does a very good job at showing the sort of interconnectedness between land and air as well as the tactics. The Supply Balance issue also works well.
However, there are a few issues.
Firstly: Artillery is the best and worst of this system. There is nothing quite like coordinating volleys with your batteries like one of the artillery virtuousos of the historical war, shredding fortifications, steel, and flash. But there's also nothing quite like trying to imitate historical tactics by ordering half a dozen precision bombardments on a single German battery in the demo only to have it be reduced to maybe half strength.
Simply put, artillery is powerful as it should be, and rather unmovable, but it is nowhere near VULNERABLE enough. Precisely identifying the enemy's batteries is crucial even today and was vital in WWI, but in this game it really isn't. A battery doesn't need to be destroyed by a single bombardment of even heavy artillery, but it should go down in 1-3.
Secondly: Infantry feels a BIT too squishy and Suppression feels a bit too weak, even under very favorable circumstances. The reason I feel like I need to replay the tutorial campaign again is because while I did win the offensive battle, it featured things like a giant mine blowing up what turned out to be (this is another issue: the fog of war implying you don't know what you spent weeks and weeks digging towards) the center of the enemy's lines and then shelling the handful of German line troops (already understrength mind) before charging specialized raiders at them.. only to have the first wave melt because of the superb defense of about a third of a unit of shell shocked German conscripts.
This is all the more acute because the historical Battle you decided to highlight as a mode - 2nd Passchendaele- features coordinating infantry and artillery to be vital, meaning this stands out all the worse.
As it stands what feels like an appropriate mortality level for charging intact and well defended fortifications happened to my troops against devastated, weakened German defenses without heavy weapons.
I realize the devs want to highlight the danger of fighting and how many died, and how unfair it was to have to attack. And that's fine. But it needs some more rejiggering.
Thirdly: Tanks feel a bit too fragile. I had two FT-17s get eaten alive by the waves of German infantry at Chateau-Thierry , in spite of facing them and going to town. Maybe some of this has to do with it being late war and those troops having grenades, but it still feels off. Tanks should be formidable for infantry to deal with alone.
Fourthly: Some way for units to gain veterency dynamically in battle or at least between them would help a lot. Elite troops shouldn't just be an unlock on the research tree (more on that later). They should incentivize you to preserve your units so they can rebuild. Historically the forging of veteran units and formations only for them to be bled out or outright destroyed was a major reason for the ebbs and flows of WWI in the West, and in regards to the tutorial itself a major reason why it plays out the way it does is how many of the veteran and elite German units had been ground down in the assaults or outright destroyed by things like the counterattack at the Marne. I imagine a lot of us aren't looking forward to the idea of a conscript infantry unit remaining conscript tier through to the end of the war in spite of living through three years of war and achieving great victories.
Fifth: It seems like the tanks are nowhere near as responsive or alert as they should be. I've had less issues than many others but there are reports they flatly do not fire if you are not singling out targets. Which is a problem since you have other units to micromanage (such as infantry and artillery).
And finally, a bit of a question.
What happens if say during a defense the defender crushes the attacker and then decides to go on the offensive themselves, and even wins and takes the enemy's command post? What will happen on the Campaign Map then? Will the attacker lose a star from the area they attacked from?
World Map and UI : This is specifically talking about the layout of the world map and its Menu rather than the gameplay on it. That'll have its own section.
On the whole this is a beautiful and informative work of art that does most of what it intends to do, with lots of lovely details such as the old fortifications at Liege that were wiped out in the opening stages of the war. The rivers feel a bit small (especially the mighty Rhine that should dominate the Eastern edge of the map) and the "Red Zone" feels rather pristine for this stage of the war (So it'd be nice to see some of the dynamic destruction carry over from the tactical maps to the overarching one), but it is quite nice.
But paradoxically, I think these are where some of the cracks in the game's foundation start to show, both relatively trifling but also serious.
Firstly
Firstly: I'll need to double check the Franco-German border but on the whole it looks fitting, but I noticed that further to the North it seems to use WWII ones. For instance, Malmedy is portrayed as part of Belgium. In reality it'd only become part of that as a result of Germany's defeat in WWI, and its territorial cession. During this war it was a part of the pre-war Reich and its inhabitants were more or less loyal to the Kaiser and OHL.
Secondly: It's not particularly clear at a glance which parts of the map are just cosmetic and which aren't, whether due to being out of the battle zone or in neutral countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands. I'd suggest marking them a bit more, such as outlining the national names for the neutrals and their borders, and maybe giving a toggle option to see the sectors.
Thirdly: more seriously, the map as a whole feels very cramped towards the Northern Edge. Especially around the Channel and what should be the Dutch Border. I'd suggest "stretching" the map North-South (East-West is optional and would be nice but not as important) by a hex or two for a few reasons. in either direction for a couple reasons.
1: This'd make the Atlantic Coast more important for gameplay, and the naval implications. It's kind of bitterly ironic that the Historical Battle showcase in this demo is 2nd Passchendaele when as the game is laid out, Passchendaele would make very little sense strategically, nor the sort of grandiose offensives in Northwestern Flanders.
One of the key reasons for that is fairly simple. The Belgian Atlantic Ports were of great political and military significance, both for the prospect they had of easing Allied supply lines and the humanitarian catastrophe slowly unfolding in the German-occupied areas, but also the presence of German naval forces. The Kaiserliche Marine's furthest Western U-Boat fleet was based in Bruges (a city that is flatly not even on the map in a real fashion, along with the likes of Antwerp), and much of the interest in the Passcehndaele campaigns and other littoral offensives like in the Hundred Days was due to the desire of the Western Allies to
* Deny the ports to the Germans, ESPECIALLY as staging ground for naval forces raiding Allied shipping in the Channel or further afield in the Atlantic.
* Use the ports themselves for resupply and logistics.
* Liberate more of Belgium (and thus the manpower and what industry it had).
* Put pressure on the Dutch.
Of course none of those worked out PARTICULARLY well for most of the war, but Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men. And in the map as it is laid out now there isn't that kind of pressure.
Secondly: to portray the flanks of the war more accurately, and particularly the neutral frontier with the Netherlands (you might even be able to incorporate things like the Wire of Death in and how important maintaining uniform control over landward travel to and from the Netherlands was for Germany).
Thirdly: On the other side of the map it'd make Paris more vulnerable under the system of attack that the campaign game uses, and also history. One of Paris's great vulnerabilities has long been a siege, with entire wars being decided on whether or not encirclement could be successful (as it was under Henri IV, Moltke the Elder in 1870/1, and the Versailles Army in the War of the Paris Commune) or not (such as in the failure of Jeanne D'Arc's campaign, the Spanish led Catholic League fighting Henri IV, and so forth). So the ability to give the German player (or less likely AI) the ability to risk direct assaults on Paris or to settle in for a siege would provide some late game flexibility.
Of course by this point the Central Powers have almost certainly already won the game given the damage they've dealt to the Allies, but it'd be nice., and while Kreuzenach is protected to one degree or another by the Rhine on that front Paris isn't.
Fourthly: I feel like there should be a second sort of "Capitol" for the warring sides beyond Paris and Kreuz to represent other aspects of the overall campaign, maybe in addition to other major centers of importance (for instance, a German conquest of Verdun would be quite significant, likewise Allied liberations of Luxembourg and Brussels). Something that won't end the game in the same way that the Big Two would but will help push things in that direction a great deal.
I'd suggest Étaples for the Western Allies (major transit center and headquarters of the BEF and later the AEF, as well as a junction point in how they meshed with the French).
and
Spa (Seat of the German Theater Headquarters for most of the War in the West and a cultural icon in occupied Belgium).
Make taking these objectives crucial. Not war-ending but possibly war-deciding by giving a major boost to the conqueror and/or a major knock to the defender if they are lost. Perhaps by letting them provide some kind of bonus that can never be regained if they are taken and then retaken, or some bonus to the conqueror that boosts them further.
These'd also provide other shiny late, long term goals to go after than just pushing the Front Back or dreaming of walking your Greycoats down the Champs Elysse or having your troops sun themselves on the banks of the Rhine. It'd also reflect the kind of divides in priorities and schools of thought among both.
In any case, the base of the map is very nice but it could use some more work and refinement.
That's in fairly sharp contrast to
Strategic Map Gameplay: Feels very smooth and nice on the whole. I am still experimenting with it, but on the whole the core feels good. The big issues I see are largely a matter of UI, making it a bit hard to determine which units you have sent where and also making it essentially impossible to do things like examine National Traits outside of the encyclopedia rather than by mousing over the unit flag. But on the whole the strategic gameplay from what I have seen seems functionally complete and nicely polished, outside of tutorial-specific issues.
But it is the nature of the tutorial that makes things fall down a fair bit.
Tutorial Troubles: Simply put, the tutorial feels too iron-gripped. And while I might be personally biased as someone who stared at the map and realized there was a beautiful chance for a double envelopment of the Germans around Chatillon that the game scripting passes up (due to the need to portray things like attacks on multiple fronts and to keep with history), I think there are more fundamental issues. For starters, this is a LONG tutorial, and one I am grateful for given how it lets you play through to the end of the war in post-tutorial freeplay, but that comes with a side problem. Namely how long it takes, and coupled with assorted bugs (mostly tied to the tutorial not knowing when something has happened already) that occasionally bork the thing altogether and require you to exit. All of this demands the ability to save and load. But that isn't present. And while on some level that's understandable because it is a demo, it's still pretty unfortunate.
But problems that are at least as large are how ironclad the AI direction is, especially in the first battle, as well as some issues explaining things. At various points in the battle it becomes impossible to pause, slow down, or play, often without much rhyme or reason or clear point. This is particularly a problem when you deal with the German shelling of your lines, and while I realize that part of this is desiring to teach you about morale and unit casualties as well as the need to retreat, but it is still an issue.
But worse is the extremely lockstep camera perspective coupled with placement issues. The tutorial doesn't tell you how to change the orientation of the object you are placing during battlefield prep, and also doesn't give you the freedom to delete objects you've misplaced (like I did). It also impairs your ability to see what you are placing near the front lines (such as a French MG emplacement near the left flank of the attacked trench at Chateau Thierry that I would have liked).
But another problem is that the game doesn't really show you what you are placing the giant mine sap underneath, meaning you are forced to guess. Implying that your armies have spent valuable weeks digging towards the German lines and filling it with huge amounts of explosives without knowing exactly what they are trying to blow up. That's jarring, and I'd suggest at least being able to see what the Recon Balloon would let you see while doing that.
I'd say that the demo works but, especially for the first mission, on the whole can do with a bit more freedom and a bit more explanation. The freedom to remove misplaced objects, to modify the lines more, and to pause or unpause the game once combat starts. And a bit more explanation such as how to change the orientation of what you are placing and how they fit.
Tech Tree: A bit early to tell as of yet but it looks very promising, with a few caveats. If anyone is interested I am considering screenshotting all the tech tree notes as they currently exist and posting them so that people can have a good idea of what they are like. On the whole it looks very good, as do the mechanics and balancing (and while the completionist in me regrets the idea of not being able to complete all the tech by game's end it does make a LOT of sense.
That said, I do feel a few choices felt "off." For instance, the base technology for the Aerial Side of things is (if I remember Correctly) Fighter Planes I. Doing that unlocks the rest of the tree, as well as things like Observation Balloons. This feels very wrong way around. Lighter than Air balloons had been around for centuries by this time and by the time of WWI had been used for the role of observation for a century or so (since the French Revolution) and had been institutionalized since the middle of the 19th century, and saw a lot of use in the 1914 prelude to the game's campaign (which starts in 1915 by default). So I feel the first rung of Observation Balloons should be the base tech there, and then let you unlock the first fighter planes.
I haven't checked about half of the tech trees as thoroughly as that so there might be some others that will come to me, but that does stand out.
But that's more of an issue with implementation. Conceptually the system is sound, and most of what is around its implementation also works very well.
I'd also suggest using the tech tree as a vehicle to get certain rare nations or units in, such as perhaps making American entrance into the war a tech, or at least varying up some of the reinforcements to - say - rather than just give you German, British, or French Units (though most should) maybe have the Third Reinforcement Tech for the Germans give you One Elite German Division and Two Austro-Hungarian ones, or for the Allies 1 elite Italian, 1 elite Canadian, and 1 elite American division? To sort of add some possible novelty to the game where it'd be unrealistic to have the factions get them through regular recruitment.
But that's just an idea.
Nation/Faction Traits: Too soon to tell for me but it FEELS really fitting on the whole, sans for some. The Nation Stacking rules and Command Disjunction issues and how the different factions bunch up feels very accurate, and nicely recreates a lot of the pressures that led to the triple headed hydra of British, French, and American commands in the West as well as the different roles the nations and sub-factions played in that (for instance Canadians and Indians fighting under the BEF).
I'm less sold on the traits though, at least in some cases. In particular the Americans getting better morale effects from encounters with tanks feels rather niche and too contextual to be particularly helpful, while others like the British Accuracy Bonus feels a bit too broad (though others fit right IMHO like the Indian issues with the climate in this part of the world but skill at Trench fighting, and French replenishment bonus). For the Americans I'd suggest something like giving them either larger unit sizes (to reflect the different org structure of the US Military at the time) and/or a morale boost that will make them better at pressing the attack, to represent how green but durable the units were and force the Central Powers to pummel them harder.
But on the whole this is definitely one of the better and more diverse presentations of the War. I'd KIND OF be interested in seeing this expand further, though I realize it isn't a priority.
A few changes I'd suggest...
A: Renaming "Australians" to ANZACs or adding in New Zealanders besides them. A bit anachronistic in the former case since the ANZAC Corps was broken up by the time most units reached the Western Fronts but it would get the idea. And unsurprisingly they'd stack with the British in the Nationality Rules. Likewise with Newfoundlanders (who would probably fit with Canadians).
B: Adding in Italians on the Allied side. Perhaps with the National Trait "Win or Die" representing either a strong morale buff (though nowhere near the Belgian unbreakable) or skill in trench fighting. Would stack with the French.
C: Adding the Austro-Hungarians to the Central Powers (and thus truly making them the Central Powers) to pay homage to their role on this front. Stacking with the Germans (not surprising). The bigger issue I see is on National Trait, since I wouldn't want them to be flatout inferior. Perhaps their infantry are more fragile in terms of morale, but their artillery is gifted and heavy hitting (sort of like historical)?
D: This is WAAAAAY down the line of possibilities than the above (or other concerns), but one idea that might be interesting to see is to add a "Bavarian" Nation to the Central Powers. While the Western Front was thoroughly dominated by Germany and Germany was fairly united, Bavaria was something of an important asterisk because of their role as the largest kingdom in the empire besides Prussia, pretenses to autonomy, and closeness to the front (with ideas like trying to transfer the occupation of Alsace-Lorraine and parts of France to themselves). But they'd also make up a large portion of the German Army, and with their Crown Prince Rupprecht being both an immensely gifted commander and influential political force, and unhappily "defeatest" for High Command.
I figure they would be less different in terms of Traits per se so much as politics. Forcing the player to balance their role in the Empire and occupation authority (such as how much prominence to give the Bavarian Army in the occupation and in command decisions) to avoid undermining the war effort. But as far as National Traits go, I'd probably go with "The Kronprinz's Chosen" giving them a boost if they are fighting alone without other German units (roughly like an inverted version of Command Disjunction for the Allies), but perhaps greater brittleness on the defense.
But this post is long enough as it is, and is just my feedback as of the first offensive battle. Doubtless experience will teach me more.
But I offer this to provide my thoughts for whatever help they might give, and offer any assistance I can give to you going forward.
In any case, thank you so much for the game and the demo.
First Impressions from a History Nerd and Beta Tester (EDITED) :: The Great War: Western Front™ General Discussions
EDIT: After looking back on things I realized this was a bit rambly for me and didn't get to the gameplay fast enough, so I redid the organization. Right. Let me just say that I have been watching this game with great interest for a long time. There are essentially no games like this that I am...
Right. Let me just say that I have been watching this game with great interest for a long time. There are essentially no games like this that I am aware of, and I'm a major wargamer and history nerd who outright seeks out games set in WWI and a few others. I'm even undertaking an independent, for-my-own-pleasure translation project of an old game that was never translated out of German or Russian (in spite of speaking neither language). So when I saw there would be a demo here, I jumped on it. And I'm glad I did.
This holds a great deal of promise, and I particularly look forward to fighting my way through to the end of the tutorial to see if I can break Germany in the post-game. I am also slowly but steadily screenshotting every node of the research tree both for curiosity (in case anybody is interested) and so I can provide more feedback.
That said, this isn't perfect by a long shot and while the game feels "almost" right, it doesn't quite. And as a playtester with years of experience and a track record working with some big names (Such as Matrix, Slitherine, Hussar Games, as well as smaller Indie ones) I'd like to throw my two cents in.
Also as a quick note, I tend to focus on things that I feel are lacking or could be improved. This may make what I write come across as more caustic or negative than I intend. But that's not because I think the game is bad (far from it, VERY far from it) but because when I feel something is working without a hitch people still need to know about that and be told how great it is, but you don't have to go too much beyond that besides "Keep doing what you are doing here" while constructive criticism where there are hitches takes longer.
Moreover, I am still playing through the campaign tutorial and have just beaten the first Offensive Battle, though I found my performance disappointing both on its own merits (or lack thereof; I admit I am still very much a greenhorn in this game and so I'll own it) and from how I felt the game features unjustly screwed me over (more on that later for some of what I talk about) and plan to replay it. So this critique will not be all encompassing or complete.
Anyway, with that out of the way...
Let's get out with the easiest.
Graphics/Presentation: Simply very good. Perhaps not the most beautiful stuff on the record, but it works for this game quite well. My machine is still good but is starting to get on in years, but it could run this at max settings very smoothly. Moreover, the mixture is quite effective. From the character art to the archival footage. But the gameplay itself takes the cake, with decently clean UI on the battlefield while also looking beautiful and pretty authentic from the flags to the uniforms to the weapons. It is a joy to behold and it's easy to see why. Moreover the unit cards are clear enough to work at a glance.
The main issues I have with the UI comes down below, around the "lower bar." It's nothing super obscure and the select unit cards is very nice, but the stuff on either ends of it is a BIT too obscure or hard to guess for my tastes, often pressed out of the way (somewhat understandable given this game) and reliant on popup text to interpret rather vague graphics and numbers (the fortifications are probably the biggest offender here). In the sort of pre battle stage that's really nice since there is no time limit, likewise on the campaign map, but it's REALLY not something I'd want to have to do when the shells and shots are firing and men are falling. I'd suggest looking to better explain things like this at a glance.
The other little caveat I'd have is the use of Stars to designate territorial defense/staying power. I just did a screencap of the first tutorial battle at Chateau Thierry, oh so very proud of myself (with some issues) at having beaten a telegraphed tutorial battle, when I noticed the positioning of the stars. It feels pretty off next to "Great Victory" and I imagine it would be similar in the Historical Battles (I haven't completed the one on offer yet beyond dipping in quickly, since I am still dealing with the tutorial, but I did see the intro and opening stages). I can imagine having to explain to neophytes or friends without it how "No no, the victory scale doesn't actually go beyond Great Victory this is how it determines how tightly a region is defended!")
The problem is that I unfortunately don't have a particularly great or easy solution for this. But the idea that comes to mind would be swapping the design a bit. Replace the Stars as they are with something like a portrayal of barbed wire, bunkers, or trenches. Something nasty and forboding and used across both sides to indicate "This is how well defended this is and can be." Then use the stars (if they're used at all) to grade performance on the field from Great Defeat to Great Victory.
I also note there is an issue on the campaign map and to a lesser extent on the battle map making it absolutely painful to try and get at units to see their national traits, making you reliant on the Encyclopedia. This kind of sucks if I want to see how-say- my ANZAC infantry differ from the British differ from the Indian ones. In general the more ways to convey information at a glance, the better.
But if moderate complaints about UI interface and fleshing it out or adding more text to explain it are the biggest issue I have with the graphics, you're doing a superlative job.
Sound Design: Another brilliant and unambiguous strong point. It all feels very nice. I am afraid the music might not be quite as powerful or iconic as Frank's previous works but it is very nice to listen to and fits. It also nicely compliments the sounds of the UI and actual battle, in particular the powerful BOOMS of the artillery, the sound of the planes going about, and orders given to and fro.
If there are a couple issues I had, it would likely be
A: That the sounds of small arms could use a bit more boosting. I realize our vantage point is high in the sky and thus not up close like in a shooter or even most RTS/TBS, but I think it'd be nice.
B: Voice Acting - or specifically the cutscene voice acting - is suitable but could be better. Worth maybe doing a couple over with the staff and maybe expanding it to the other tutorial.
But again, relatively small potatoes. So very good job.
But now let's get to the meat and Potatoes.
GAMEPLAY
But this is gonna be long so I'm going to need to break it down.
Tactical Gameplay: This is the heart of the game without question, being the only thing the player will probably interact with in every mode, be it Campaigns or Historical Battles. And on the whole it does a very, very good job. The units feel decently balanced (for the MOST Part), as does the preparation for it. Units feel appropriately fragile (except for a couple, but I'll get to those later), and it is satisfying - if highly lethal. And in particular it does a very good job at showing the sort of interconnectedness between land and air as well as the tactics. The Supply Balance issue also works well.
However, there are a few issues.
Firstly: Artillery is the best and worst of this system. There is nothing quite like coordinating volleys with your batteries like one of the artillery virtuousos of the historical war, shredding fortifications, steel, and flash. But there's also nothing quite like trying to imitate historical tactics by ordering half a dozen precision bombardments on a single German battery in the demo only to have it be reduced to maybe half strength.
Simply put, artillery is powerful as it should be, and rather unmovable, but it is nowhere near VULNERABLE enough. Precisely identifying the enemy's batteries is crucial even today and was vital in WWI, but in this game it really isn't. A battery doesn't need to be destroyed by a single bombardment of even heavy artillery, but it should go down in 1-3.
Secondly: Infantry feels a BIT too squishy and Suppression feels a bit too weak, even under very favorable circumstances. The reason I feel like I need to replay the tutorial campaign again is because while I did win the offensive battle, it featured things like a giant mine blowing up what turned out to be (this is another issue: the fog of war implying you don't know what you spent weeks and weeks digging towards) the center of the enemy's lines and then shelling the handful of German line troops (already understrength mind) before charging specialized raiders at them.. only to have the first wave melt because of the superb defense of about a third of a unit of shell shocked German conscripts.
This is all the more acute because the historical Battle you decided to highlight as a mode - 2nd Passchendaele- features coordinating infantry and artillery to be vital, meaning this stands out all the worse.
As it stands what feels like an appropriate mortality level for charging intact and well defended fortifications happened to my troops against devastated, weakened German defenses without heavy weapons.
I realize the devs want to highlight the danger of fighting and how many died, and how unfair it was to have to attack. And that's fine. But it needs some more rejiggering.
Thirdly: Tanks feel a bit too fragile. I had two FT-17s get eaten alive by the waves of German infantry at Chateau-Thierry , in spite of facing them and going to town. Maybe some of this has to do with it being late war and those troops having grenades, but it still feels off. Tanks should be formidable for infantry to deal with alone.
Fourthly: Some way for units to gain veterency dynamically in battle or at least between them would help a lot. Elite troops shouldn't just be an unlock on the research tree (more on that later). They should incentivize you to preserve your units so they can rebuild. Historically the forging of veteran units and formations only for them to be bled out or outright destroyed was a major reason for the ebbs and flows of WWI in the West, and in regards to the tutorial itself a major reason why it plays out the way it does is how many of the veteran and elite German units had been ground down in the assaults or outright destroyed by things like the counterattack at the Marne. I imagine a lot of us aren't looking forward to the idea of a conscript infantry unit remaining conscript tier through to the end of the war in spite of living through three years of war and achieving great victories.
Fifth: It seems like the tanks are nowhere near as responsive or alert as they should be. I've had less issues than many others but there are reports they flatly do not fire if you are not singling out targets. Which is a problem since you have other units to micromanage (such as infantry and artillery).
And finally, a bit of a question.
What happens if say during a defense the defender crushes the attacker and then decides to go on the offensive themselves, and even wins and takes the enemy's command post? What will happen on the Campaign Map then? Will the attacker lose a star from the area they attacked from?
World Map and UI : This is specifically talking about the layout of the world map and its Menu rather than the gameplay on it. That'll have its own section.
On the whole this is a beautiful and informative work of art that does most of what it intends to do, with lots of lovely details such as the old fortifications at Liege that were wiped out in the opening stages of the war. The rivers feel a bit small (especially the mighty Rhine that should dominate the Eastern edge of the map) and the "Red Zone" feels rather pristine for this stage of the war (So it'd be nice to see some of the dynamic destruction carry over from the tactical maps to the overarching one), but it is quite nice.
But paradoxically, I think these are where some of the cracks in the game's foundation start to show, both relatively trifling but also serious.
Firstly
Firstly: I'll need to double check the Franco-German border but on the whole it looks fitting, but I noticed that further to the North it seems to use WWII ones. For instance, Malmedy is portrayed as part of Belgium. In reality it'd only become part of that as a result of Germany's defeat in WWI, and its territorial cession. During this war it was a part of the pre-war Reich and its inhabitants were more or less loyal to the Kaiser and OHL.
Secondly: It's not particularly clear at a glance which parts of the map are just cosmetic and which aren't, whether due to being out of the battle zone or in neutral countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands. I'd suggest marking them a bit more, such as outlining the national names for the neutrals and their borders, and maybe giving a toggle option to see the sectors.
Thirdly: more seriously, the map as a whole feels very cramped towards the Northern Edge. Especially around the Channel and what should be the Dutch Border. I'd suggest "stretching" the map North-South (East-West is optional and would be nice but not as important) by a hex or two for a few reasons. in either direction for a couple reasons.
1: This'd make the Atlantic Coast more important for gameplay, and the naval implications. It's kind of bitterly ironic that the Historical Battle showcase in this demo is 2nd Passchendaele when as the game is laid out, Passchendaele would make very little sense strategically, nor the sort of grandiose offensives in Northwestern Flanders.
One of the key reasons for that is fairly simple. The Belgian Atlantic Ports were of great political and military significance, both for the prospect they had of easing Allied supply lines and the humanitarian catastrophe slowly unfolding in the German-occupied areas, but also the presence of German naval forces. The Kaiserliche Marine's furthest Western U-Boat fleet was based in Bruges (a city that is flatly not even on the map in a real fashion, along with the likes of Antwerp), and much of the interest in the Passcehndaele campaigns and other littoral offensives like in the Hundred Days was due to the desire of the Western Allies to
* Deny the ports to the Germans, ESPECIALLY as staging ground for naval forces raiding Allied shipping in the Channel or further afield in the Atlantic.
* Use the ports themselves for resupply and logistics.
* Liberate more of Belgium (and thus the manpower and what industry it had).
* Put pressure on the Dutch.
Of course none of those worked out PARTICULARLY well for most of the war, but Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men. And in the map as it is laid out now there isn't that kind of pressure.
Secondly: to portray the flanks of the war more accurately, and particularly the neutral frontier with the Netherlands (you might even be able to incorporate things like the Wire of Death in and how important maintaining uniform control over landward travel to and from the Netherlands was for Germany).
Thirdly: On the other side of the map it'd make Paris more vulnerable under the system of attack that the campaign game uses, and also history. One of Paris's great vulnerabilities has long been a siege, with entire wars being decided on whether or not encirclement could be successful (as it was under Henri IV, Moltke the Elder in 1870/1, and the Versailles Army in the War of the Paris Commune) or not (such as in the failure of Jeanne D'Arc's campaign, the Spanish led Catholic League fighting Henri IV, and so forth). So the ability to give the German player (or less likely AI) the ability to risk direct assaults on Paris or to settle in for a siege would provide some late game flexibility.
Of course by this point the Central Powers have almost certainly already won the game given the damage they've dealt to the Allies, but it'd be nice., and while Kreuzenach is protected to one degree or another by the Rhine on that front Paris isn't.
Fourthly: I feel like there should be a second sort of "Capitol" for the warring sides beyond Paris and Kreuz to represent other aspects of the overall campaign, maybe in addition to other major centers of importance (for instance, a German conquest of Verdun would be quite significant, likewise Allied liberations of Luxembourg and Brussels). Something that won't end the game in the same way that the Big Two would but will help push things in that direction a great deal.
I'd suggest Étaples for the Western Allies (major transit center and headquarters of the BEF and later the AEF, as well as a junction point in how they meshed with the French).
and
Spa (Seat of the German Theater Headquarters for most of the War in the West and a cultural icon in occupied Belgium).
Make taking these objectives crucial. Not war-ending but possibly war-deciding by giving a major boost to the conqueror and/or a major knock to the defender if they are lost. Perhaps by letting them provide some kind of bonus that can never be regained if they are taken and then retaken, or some bonus to the conqueror that boosts them further.
These'd also provide other shiny late, long term goals to go after than just pushing the Front Back or dreaming of walking your Greycoats down the Champs Elysse or having your troops sun themselves on the banks of the Rhine. It'd also reflect the kind of divides in priorities and schools of thought among both.
In any case, the base of the map is very nice but it could use some more work and refinement.
That's in fairly sharp contrast to
Strategic Map Gameplay: Feels very smooth and nice on the whole. I am still experimenting with it, but on the whole the core feels good. The big issues I see are largely a matter of UI, making it a bit hard to determine which units you have sent where and also making it essentially impossible to do things like examine National Traits outside of the encyclopedia rather than by mousing over the unit flag. But on the whole the strategic gameplay from what I have seen seems functionally complete and nicely polished, outside of tutorial-specific issues.
But it is the nature of the tutorial that makes things fall down a fair bit.
Tutorial Troubles: Simply put, the tutorial feels too iron-gripped. And while I might be personally biased as someone who stared at the map and realized there was a beautiful chance for a double envelopment of the Germans around Chatillon that the game scripting passes up (due to the need to portray things like attacks on multiple fronts and to keep with history), I think there are more fundamental issues. For starters, this is a LONG tutorial, and one I am grateful for given how it lets you play through to the end of the war in post-tutorial freeplay, but that comes with a side problem. Namely how long it takes, and coupled with assorted bugs (mostly tied to the tutorial not knowing when something has happened already) that occasionally bork the thing altogether and require you to exit. All of this demands the ability to save and load. But that isn't present. And while on some level that's understandable because it is a demo, it's still pretty unfortunate.
But problems that are at least as large are how ironclad the AI direction is, especially in the first battle, as well as some issues explaining things. At various points in the battle it becomes impossible to pause, slow down, or play, often without much rhyme or reason or clear point. This is particularly a problem when you deal with the German shelling of your lines, and while I realize that part of this is desiring to teach you about morale and unit casualties as well as the need to retreat, but it is still an issue.
But worse is the extremely lockstep camera perspective coupled with placement issues. The tutorial doesn't tell you how to change the orientation of the object you are placing during battlefield prep, and also doesn't give you the freedom to delete objects you've misplaced (like I did). It also impairs your ability to see what you are placing near the front lines (such as a French MG emplacement near the left flank of the attacked trench at Chateau Thierry that I would have liked).
But another problem is that the game doesn't really show you what you are placing the giant mine sap underneath, meaning you are forced to guess. Implying that your armies have spent valuable weeks digging towards the German lines and filling it with huge amounts of explosives without knowing exactly what they are trying to blow up. That's jarring, and I'd suggest at least being able to see what the Recon Balloon would let you see while doing that.
I'd say that the demo works but, especially for the first mission, on the whole can do with a bit more freedom and a bit more explanation. The freedom to remove misplaced objects, to modify the lines more, and to pause or unpause the game once combat starts. And a bit more explanation such as how to change the orientation of what you are placing and how they fit.
Tech Tree: A bit early to tell as of yet but it looks very promising, with a few caveats. If anyone is interested I am considering screenshotting all the tech tree notes as they currently exist and posting them so that people can have a good idea of what they are like. On the whole it looks very good, as do the mechanics and balancing (and while the completionist in me regrets the idea of not being able to complete all the tech by game's end it does make a LOT of sense.
That said, I do feel a few choices felt "off." For instance, the base technology for the Aerial Side of things is (if I remember Correctly) Fighter Planes I. Doing that unlocks the rest of the tree, as well as things like Observation Balloons. This feels very wrong way around. Lighter than Air balloons had been around for centuries by this time and by the time of WWI had been used for the role of observation for a century or so (since the French Revolution) and had been institutionalized since the middle of the 19th century, and saw a lot of use in the 1914 prelude to the game's campaign (which starts in 1915 by default). So I feel the first rung of Observation Balloons should be the base tech there, and then let you unlock the first fighter planes.
I haven't checked about half of the tech trees as thoroughly as that so there might be some others that will come to me, but that does stand out.
But that's more of an issue with implementation. Conceptually the system is sound, and most of what is around its implementation also works very well.
I'd also suggest using the tech tree as a vehicle to get certain rare nations or units in, such as perhaps making American entrance into the war a tech, or at least varying up some of the reinforcements to - say - rather than just give you German, British, or French Units (though most should) maybe have the Third Reinforcement Tech for the Germans give you One Elite German Division and Two Austro-Hungarian ones, or for the Allies 1 elite Italian, 1 elite Canadian, and 1 elite American division? To sort of add some possible novelty to the game where it'd be unrealistic to have the factions get them through regular recruitment.
But that's just an idea.
Nation/Faction Traits: Too soon to tell for me but it FEELS really fitting on the whole, sans for some. The Nation Stacking rules and Command Disjunction issues and how the different factions bunch up feels very accurate, and nicely recreates a lot of the pressures that led to the triple headed hydra of British, French, and American commands in the West as well as the different roles the nations and sub-factions played in that (for instance Canadians and Indians fighting under the BEF).
I'm less sold on the traits though, at least in some cases. In particular the Americans getting better morale effects from encounters with tanks feels rather niche and too contextual to be particularly helpful, while others like the British Accuracy Bonus feels a bit too broad (though others fit right IMHO like the Indian issues with the climate in this part of the world but skill at Trench fighting, and French replenishment bonus). For the Americans I'd suggest something like giving them either larger unit sizes (to reflect the different org structure of the US Military at the time) and/or a morale boost that will make them better at pressing the attack, to represent how green but durable the units were and force the Central Powers to pummel them harder.
But on the whole this is definitely one of the better and more diverse presentations of the War. I'd KIND OF be interested in seeing this expand further, though I realize it isn't a priority.
A few changes I'd suggest...
A: Renaming "Australians" to ANZACs or adding in New Zealanders besides them. A bit anachronistic in the former case since the ANZAC Corps was broken up by the time most units reached the Western Fronts but it would get the idea. And unsurprisingly they'd stack with the British in the Nationality Rules. Likewise with Newfoundlanders (who would probably fit with Canadians).
B: Adding in Italians on the Allied side. Perhaps with the National Trait "Win or Die" representing either a strong morale buff (though nowhere near the Belgian unbreakable) or skill in trench fighting. Would stack with the French.
C: Adding the Austro-Hungarians to the Central Powers (and thus truly making them the Central Powers) to pay homage to their role on this front. Stacking with the Germans (not surprising). The bigger issue I see is on National Trait, since I wouldn't want them to be flatout inferior. Perhaps their infantry are more fragile in terms of morale, but their artillery is gifted and heavy hitting (sort of like historical)?
D: This is WAAAAAY down the line of possibilities than the above (or other concerns), but one idea that might be interesting to see is to add a "Bavarian" Nation to the Central Powers. While the Western Front was thoroughly dominated by Germany and Germany was fairly united, Bavaria was something of an important asterisk because of their role as the largest kingdom in the empire besides Prussia, pretenses to autonomy, and closeness to the front (with ideas like trying to transfer the occupation of Alsace-Lorraine and parts of France to themselves). But they'd also make up a large portion of the German Army, and with their Crown Prince Rupprecht being both an immensely gifted commander and influential political force, and unhappily "defeatest" for High Command.
I figure they would be less different in terms of Traits per se so much as politics. Forcing the player to balance their role in the Empire and occupation authority (such as how much prominence to give the Bavarian Army in the occupation and in command decisions) to avoid undermining the war effort. But as far as National Traits go, I'd probably go with "The Kronprinz's Chosen" giving them a boost if they are fighting alone without other German units (roughly like an inverted version of Command Disjunction for the Allies), but perhaps greater brittleness on the defense.
But this post is long enough as it is, and is just my feedback as of the first offensive battle. Doubtless experience will teach me more.
But I offer this to provide my thoughts for whatever help they might give, and offer any assistance I can give to you going forward.
In any case, thank you so much for the game and the demo.
