WWI: Centenial Edition

[tgb]

Considered getting this on Gamersgate for $16.99 less 20% off with a coupon I just got from them via email. But after reading the forums on Steam I'm not pulling the trigger.  Broken tutorials that you can't complete,  frequent freeze ups and crashes to desktop.....yikes.

So in other words, pretty much the same as the Ageod release.

[WallysWorld]

I just fired up the Ageod version again and played the small Tannenberg scenario and I remember how much fun I had playing this game.

I know others have had many issues with the game including crashing, but I must have been lucky because I've never experienced a single CTD with the game.

[Nefaro]

Considered getting this on Gamersgate for $16.99 less 20% off with a coupon I just got from them via email. But after reading the forums on Steam I'm not pulling the trigger.  Broken tutorials that you can't complete,  frequent freeze ups and crashes to desktop.....yikes.

So in other words, pretty much the same as the Ageod release.

Sounds like the latest Gold version from AGEOD is more stable.  ;D   All the updates made it quite playable last I checked.  And there was probably one more patch after that.

[JasonPratt]

I feel reasonably sure WW1G already works on Win8, since that's what I was working in when I wrote my Absolute Newbies Guide to it.

I mean, sure it'd be nice to get it on Steam and pay less than at Slitheratrix, with a committed team looking to squash remaining bugs -- though as already noted above it doesn't actually look updated at all yet. But until I see real improvements I'm not updating; and right now WW1G (with its latest official patch) runs relatively fine.

[WallysWorld]

Here is the official website for the 'new' version: http://www.ww1game.com/

WW1 Gold runs great on my computer as well and I would like to know more about what updates have been done to the game before I commit.

[JasonPratt]

If this team can prove on the long haul they're competent at fixing the remaining problems without introducing new ones (seems dubious at the moment), I hope they're willing to take a stab at Calv's other giant board-game-conversion-into-something-like-a-popular-strategy-gaming-engine-at-the-time, Great Invasions. The only game I know of so far to try to seriously game ALL the Dark Ages (from mid-300s before the fall of Rome out to the Norman invasion of Britain.)

[Nefaro]

If this team can prove on the long haul they're competent at fixing the remaining problems without introducing new ones (seems dubious at the moment), I hope they're willing to take a stab at Calv's other giant board-game-conversion-into-something-like-a-popular-strategy-gaming-engine-at-the-time, Great Invasions. The only game I know of so far to try to seriously game ALL the Dark Ages (from mid-300s before the fall of Rome out to the Norman invasion of Britain.)

There was some vague talk on the AGE forums about a Great Invasions sequel always being a slight possibility in the future.  I think it was probably just talk since the original used the EU2 engine (IIRC) so it would probably end up being something different, using the AGE engine if it was actually made.

[WallysWorld]

The Dark Ages are definitely an underused era in gaming. I tried to really like Great Invasions, but the performance (everything on the screen seemed to have stutters), graphics and the low resolution stopped me. An update would be great though.

[JasonPratt]

The original used a cobbled-together approximation of the EU1 engine. Or maybe EU2. It was (and is) rather primitive.

[Nefaro]

The original used a cobbled-together approximation of the EU1 engine. Or maybe EU2. It was (and is) rather primitive.

Yeah.. the UI is painful to mess with these days.  But you can see the great game buried underneath.

[Queeg]

I've played WW1 Gold for years and now have had a chance to try a few scenarios in WW1 Centennial. So far, it's a mixed bag but encouraging.

The Good

The game is MUCH faster. Maps and scenarios load much faster and the game plays much smoother overall.

The new unit artwork is nice, though probably not a huge factor by itself.

The Centennial version seems to use a bigger and clearer font for the tooltips, messages and unit cards. Much easier to read.

The messages in the order screen - the area above the unit window where you are told, for example, if an army succesfully activated - have been rewritten in plain, easy to understand text. (If you've played the Gold version, you'll immediately see what I'm talking about. It's a much clearer presentation now.)

The mods I used in Gold all seem to work fine in this version. The file structure is identical. I've even moved some of the graphics that I prefer from Gold (i.e., the player helmets on the scenario screens) over to the Centennial game and they work fine. You basically can mix and match the graphics to taste.

The Bad

I couldn't get past the Initializing Map phase on my first several tries. Went back the Configuration screen and unchecked "Load entire map at startup" option. No problems since. (This option was necessary in Gold to make the map scroll better. In Centennial, the game is so much smoother that I saw no difference with the option unchecked.)

Had a crash in the Tannenberg scenario in the same spot I sometimes got one in the same scenario in Gold. So an old problem not fixed.

Tried the first bit of the Grand Campaign (4 player) and had several errors. The game never asked me to select a warplan. Instead, I got a bunch of message screens filled with gibberish - like, "nanananaaannna." Then the game announced a warplan for me. Seemed to run fine after that but still a serious problem.

On the Breakthrough screen (where you select which province your armies will advance into), the Gold version had a tooltip which told you the name of the province. Centennial doesn't, and it's a fairly important omission. It's often hard to tell just by looking at the small map in the Breakthrough screen which province is which. They need to fix this ASAP.

The Unclear

Can't tell yet about the supposedly improved AI. The game does seem to play a bit different, but it's hard to put my finger on how and whether it's really better. May just be a placebo effect. So the jury's still out there.


Overall, I'm encouraged to see the game getting a second life. There are very clear improvements in the game engine in terms of performance - pretty much night and day. But there are still some bugs - including some I never saw in the Gold version - that still need attention. If the new guys stick with the game, then they will have a winner on their hands. This is still the best WWI game on the market - by far.

[Nefaro]

Thanks for the initial impressions Q.

[fabius]

I've played WW1 Gold for years and now have had a chance to try a few scenarios in WW1 Centennial. So far, it's a mixed bag but encouraging.

The Good

The game is MUCH faster. Maps and scenarios load much faster and the game plays much smoother overall.

The new unit artwork is nice, though probably not a huge factor by itself.

The Centennial version seems to use a bigger and clearer font for the tooltips, messages and unit cards. Much easier to read.

The messages in the order screen - the area above the unit window where you are told, for example, if an army succesfully activated - have been rewritten in plain, easy to understand text. (If you've played the Gold version, you'll immediately see what I'm talking about. It's a much clearer presentation now.)

The mods I used in Gold all seem to work fine in this version. The file structure is identical. I've even moved some of the graphics that I prefer from Gold (i.e., the player helmets on the scenario screens) over to the Centennial game and they work fine. You basically can mix and match the graphics to taste.

The Bad

I couldn't get past the Initializing Map phase on my first several tries. Went back the Configuration screen and unchecked "Load entire map at startup" option. No problems since. (This option was necessary in Gold to make the map scroll better. In Centennial, the game is so much smoother that I saw no difference with the option unchecked.)

Had a crash in the Tannenberg scenario in the same spot I sometimes got one in the same scenario in Gold. So an old problem not fixed.

Tried the first bit of the Grand Campaign (4 player) and had several errors. The game never asked me to select a warplan. Instead, I got a bunch of message screens filled with gibberish - like, "nanananaaannna." Then the game announced a warplan for me. Seemed to run fine after that but still a serious problem.

On the Breakthrough screen (where you select which province your armies will advance into), the Gold version had a tooltip which told you the name of the province. Centennial doesn't, and it's a fairly important omission. It's often hard to tell just by looking at the small map in the Breakthrough screen which province is which. They need to fix this ASAP.

The Unclear

Can't tell yet about the supposedly improved AI. The game does seem to play a bit different, but it's hard to put my finger on how and whether it's really better. May just be a placebo effect. So the jury's still out there.


Overall, I'm encouraged to see the game getting a second life. There are very clear improvements in the game engine in terms of performance - pretty much night and day. But there are still some bugs - including some I never saw in the Gold version - that still need attention. If the new guys stick with the game, then they will have a winner on their hands. This is still the best WWI game on the market - by far.

Thanks

After a crash can you load a save and play through the crash points?

[JasonPratt]

I've been so fixated on trying to figure out whether anyone currently owning WW1G should think about updating to the Steam version yet, that I've kind of ignored a possibly pertinent claim being made upthread.

Look, I love Ageod's WW1Gold. And until recently I would have agreed 100% that even with its warts it was the most detailed, in-depth version of the war available on computer.

But that just isn't true anymore, and hasn't been true for a number of years.

There are at least two games about WW1 which are substantially more in-depth than WW1G.

One is Darkest Hour, which has a dedicated WW1 campaign. On every conceivable point (MAYBE except supply), DH is more in-depth. That isn't to take away from depth WW1G has, but choose a topic -- DH will cover it at least as well and almost certainly better. (Supply may be covered a bit less, but it's hard to tell because of how the infrastructure in DH works in regard to supply. It may actually cover supply more, too.) With the introduction of a slight popular mod, the game can even run through WW2 with plot triggers (if appropriately triggered) into the early 1960s or even to 1970.

The other, not surprisingly, is Victoria 2, which although it cannot run up into WW2 (unless into official HOI3 somehow) is actually MORE in-depth than Darkest Hour, because the Clausewitz engine itself is generally more indepth than the Europa engine, and it forces players to work up to WW1 from back in the early 1800s!

Both games aren't quite as gorgeously handpainted as the boardgame-map from WW1G, but they're no slouches either.

Both games are stable and pretty-much bug-free. (Compared to WW1G anyway.)

Both games are widely available in Steam and non-Steam versions, and both games often go on sale. Even when not on sale DH only costs $10 on Steam, and runs just fine on Win8. (Vicky2 is $20 when not on sale.)

Really at this point, unless someone just wants to play with the more boardgamish mechanics of WW1G, there's no reason not to spend less money on a more stable and significantly more detailed version of WW1 already in existence.  :)

[Queeg]

I've been so fixated on trying to figure out whether anyone currently owning WW1G should think about updating to the Steam version yet, that I've kind of ignored a possibly pertinent claim being made upthread.

Look, I love Ageod's WW1Gold. And until recently I would have agreed 100% that even with its warts it was the most detailed, in-depth version of the war available on computer.

But that just isn't true anymore, and hasn't been true for a number of years.

There are at least two games about WW1 which are substantially more in-depth than WW1G.

One is Darkest Hour, which has a dedicated WW1 campaign. On every conceivable point (MAYBE except supply), DH is more in-depth. That isn't to take away from depth WW1G has, but choose a topic -- DH will cover it at least as well and almost certainly better. (Supply may be covered a bit less, but it's hard to tell because of how the infrastructure in DH works in regard to supply. It may actually cover supply more, too.) With the introduction of a slight popular mod, the game can even run through WW2 with plot triggers (if appropriately triggered) into the early 1960s or even to 1970.

The other, not surprisingly, is Victoria 2, which although it cannot run up into WW2 (unless into official HOI3 somehow) is actually MORE in-depth than Darkest Hour, because the Clausewitz engine itself is generally more indepth than the Europa engine, and it forces players to work up to WW1 from back in the early 1800s!

Both games aren't quite as gorgeously handpainted as the boardgame-map from WW1G, but they're no slouches either.

Both games are stable and pretty-much bug-free. (Compared to WW1G anyway.)

Both games are widely available in Steam and non-Steam versions, and both games often go on sale. Even when not on sale DH only costs $10 on Steam, and runs just fine on Win8. (Vicky2 is $20 when not on sale.)

Really at this point, unless someone just wants to play with the more boardgamish mechanics of WW1G, there's no reason not to spend less money on a more stable and significantly more detailed version of WW1 already in existence.  :)

Victoria 2 is a World War One game in the same sense that it's a Civil War game.  And a Franco-Prussian War game.  And a Crimean War game.  And a Spanish-American War game.  Etc.  Yes, the game covers the era when those wars and many others were fought.  But it's not an especially good simulator of any of them.  (I could go on for pages about the problems with Victoria 2 - the game I most wish I could love - but that's not the topic.)

Darkest Hour is a better bet, though it's not a war game per se and suffers from all the problems of the Paradox games where warfare is concerned.  As a grand strategy game in the WWI era, it offers a nice mix of economic, industrial and diplomatic decisions, all leading up to a rather lackluster combat model.  If you enjoy building, equipping and deploying 100 divisions, one at a time, then it's a very good game for that.  But if your interest is more in fighting a war with them, not so much.