The Great War: Western Front™

10 hrs in and I think it's over for me. Initially I was so impressed with the scale and the vision, but it shocked me just how quickly it all starts to feel very stale and repetitive. I think the main problems for me are 2 fold: 1) the mechanic whereby, in order to achieve true victory and capture provinces, you have to capture all control points and the command bunker. Every. Single. Time. And I'm playing with the 1 star general mod which lets you take territory after just one great victory. It's still too tedious. 2) others have said this, and I can't confirm necessarily, but it certainly feels like the AI can do things that you just can't. For example, as far as I'm aware you can only field 30 infantry units at any one time: yet as soon as you capture a point off the AI, they can keep all of their trenches manned [i]and[/I] send thousands of men at you to retake the point you just captured, whilst you struggle to reinforce and eventually just succumb to the weight of numbers. It certainly does convey the sense of waste and exhaustion of ww1 warfare; even so, I can't imagine any developer saying to themselves "I hope players [I]sigh[/I] whilst playing my game". It's all so achingly predictable after just a couple of battles that it genuinely feels like a chore to play. I did have some moments of fun: the best battle I fought was defending and I really felt like I was holding with limited manpower and ammunition - it was tense stuff! Also, starting a campaign in 1914 is just a mistake - without anything like gas/smoke rounds, different troop types and armour unlocked, the tactical options are just mind numbingly limited. So i'd say, it is potentially worth investing in on sale [I]if[/I] your tolerance for repetition is extremely high. Mine is not so, I just can't recommend it. But kudos for giving the setting a really well considered and thoughtful go!

Abandonware, never finished.

The Great War: Western Front is a well researched, designed, and executed game that provides players with a meaningful simulacrum of its historical namesake. Unfortunately, though, the Western Front of World War 1 was a terrible, repetitive slog. This provides a bit of a conundrum to anyone who would review, buy, or play this game. On one hand, this game is, though taking some liberties for the sake of gameplay as all historical games must, representing the core dilemmas and strategic ethos of the Western Front in WW1 while giving the player some freedom in what specific avenues or tactics/technologies to employ to break the various stalemates in the theatre. On the other hand, none of those things necessarily make the game fun or engaging to actually play. To be very clear, there is a lot of good here: the choices of where and how to focus resources (soldiers, supplies, and other materials) to find the right positions in the enemy lines to thrust and protect against their counter-attacks, where to focus on defence to try and drain enemy supplies, and how to direct doctrinal and technological advancements to best match your support your style and needs are all engaging and interesting strategic choices. Similarly, the tactical battles have a lot to offer: how to build trenches, position artillery, manage intelligence gathering, and pace attacks to adequately seize and defend ground are all a lot of fun, as well. Few games are better at showing the power of artillery as both offensive and defensive tool. The real problem emerges after six or seven turns, after you have launched some attacks, held firm against enemy counterattacks (or been over-run), you look at the stratgic map, and you realize...that nothing has really changed from turn one. Maybe you have softened an enemy position. Maybe you have taken a piece of ground. Maybe you lost some ground. In any case, unless you have been scoring Total Victory (the game's phrase to describe complete territorial over-runs) after Total Victory, you will see a map on turn seven or ten that looks almost identical the map on turns one or two. You may think to yourself: "I am making slow progress now, but I am about to unlock better siege guns, or better machine guns, or better airplanes, or more supply depots, or tanks, or a new wave of reinforcements from colonial nations. Certainly the tide will turn once I have this new technology/reinforcements!" You may think that, but you will be wrong. Eventually you may make a break through, but it will be because you have exhausted your enemy's supply in a key zone at the right time and exhausted their ammunition or manpower...or national will to fight. This game is indeed a slog, but to represent its subject matter it has to be, and those same hopes of technology or reinforcements or fighting spirit of your men being the key to victory were what drove the real commanders on the Western Front a century ago. Luckily now our disappointment is only measured in fictional blood and corpses. None of this is to say that The Great War: Western Front is an exhaustive historical simulation. Certainly not, and I already gave the caveat that it is quite fun to play, but it might not be fun to play for as long as you have to in order to win a campaign, fighting month after laborious month over the same patch of dirt in northern France. I finished a campaign in this game. I enjoyed it for both the gameplay and for the appreciation of how the game subtly incentivizes in the player the same acts of hubris that doomed so many on the real Western Front so long ago. But, since then I have barely gotten any campaigns to go past 1915, and I am not sure how much more I will play it in the near future. I think this game is worthwhile for what it offers, and I understand why it cannot offer anything more than or different from what it does. As much as it is a thoughtful video game, this game is an illustration of why thematic tactical games set in World War 1 are so rare and difficult to pull off.

History lover here. This game is a hidden gem, it is quite sad to see it didn't succeed to the level it deserved. It was made with love and respect for history, and it shows. Fans of Total war will pretty much recognize the gameplay immediately, even though the game differentiates itself quite well from it. As supreme commander of the Entente or Central Powers forces on the western front from late 1914 to whenever the front collapses, you are tasked with choosing which points of the front to reinforce, which to neglect, and when and where to order massive attacks. The comes the tactical battle, in which you order individual infantry units, artillery, planes and tanks. The Good: -Excellent music, which is refreshingly surprising for such a project of that scale; -(almost) Every aspect of WW1 is featured here: massive infantry attacks supported by artillery, smoke, chemical weapons, aviation, snipers, and (admittedly, completely OP) tanks. -(Almost) every ethnic group that actually fought there is represented, with infantry corps from different nations getting different boni (English are good shots, French have good logistics, bavarian troops are great at fighting amidst obstacles, Canadians are scary, etc.) -A very expansive tech tree is available to research during the game. So expansive, in fact, that even in a game that ends in late 1918, you will not have researched even a majority of it. -The game rewards attacking in strategic locations, not just mindlessly attacking wherever: if you surround an enemy region (or several), the enemy armies there cannot fight and will eventually surrender if not delivered. -The AI, while very stupid (it loves big suicidal charges early game), is perfectly capable of using artillery, aviation and tanks to cover its infantry and tear your trenches to shred. early game is easier, but late game, the AI can use its tools effectively. -The game heavily encourages you to use every tool at your disposal: a massive infantry charge, if not supported by artillery, will be slaughtered to the last man. Timing your charges with your bombardments is key. -Great synergy between techs: you can gas the enemy's trenches, which will cause the panicking soldiers to climb out of them, completely exposed, to be shot by your tanks. The less Good: -Biggest point: the game is repetitive, like grind-repetitive. Immense breakthroughs are impossible: even if you decisively beat the enemy in a given battle, the enemy region will only lose 1 star (its hit points, so to speak), so depending on the region, it might take 3-4 decisive victories to just take that region. While this is historically authentic and understandable, on an average evening, I don't have the patience for much more than 1 or 2 big battles. The new techs do bring fresh air, but the principle stays the same all game. -For the life of me, I don't get the point of trench raiders and flamethrowers. They are cool, but super expensive supply-wise, and don't take a trench particularly well...might be skill issue, idk. -Weird balance on some options: the basic light artillery cover fire is dirt cheap and super effective at silencing units, so its rarely worth it to use the much more expensive light options (which are locked behind a tech, no less!). Same can be said for gas attacks and some aerial strikes. Supplies are everything in the game, and late game options are often too expensive to be worth it. Does not help the repetitive feeling. -Some tech branches are clearly much better than others. Infantry and supply techs are great, artillery techs can be good, while intelligence techs are sometimes laughably situational or useless. -The game is easy. The AI, while it can fight, cannot keep up with you in battles and wastes a whole lot of men, so it creates a situation where you know you will win, the question is just how fast can you bring the national will of the enemy down, or capture their capital, which, again, will take some grind. -Since the game is easy, I am pretty sure the AI cheats resources-wise to compensate. Understandable, but: even when you "bleed the enemy white" after several great victories, the enemy still has plenty of money and supplies for tanks, planes and bombardments. Similarly, if you completely surround a big army group, that army group, on surrendering its territories, will return in friendly regions, so impossible to reduce enemy army strength. A great game that would benefit from some more balancing and some ideas to counter repetitiveness, but shows its love for History. Had this game been more successful, I would've loved to see an Eastern Front game, or an Italian Front. I recommend, for history buffs who love studying WW1.

cant recomend as it is about as strategic as warhammer total war games, send men forward win or die 50/50, and you have to guess where they are going to attack from what angle and what flank, get 1 wrong and watch 220 men walk over 600. The comabat is janky as hell ! can only engauge 2 untis vs 2 untis and if your men arent in cover they crack shot kill the 220 men in 5 seconds? The A.I is very good at finding one weak side and sending 12 ranks of men vs 2, reload replace and the A.I almost has no fog of war ! A.I almost cheats, combat is punishing and not really rewarding, even wining a map feels like a loss, a game for sado masochist, no heart no fun.

Great idea but lazy to follow up game, how about eastern front or gallipoli??? Cannot believe developer give up so easy

When the game came out i was pretty stoked about it, i t was fun, challenging but then there hasn't been any support or updates since its released would not recommend

I mean.. the game is good for what it is.. but its not much.

Dead Game

Good game sad that it’s been abandoned.