GrogHeads Forum

Ageod Press Announcement

For Immediate Release
             
They Shall Not Pass

Ageod's game commemorating WW1 is now available!

Grenoble, France, August 26, 2014.

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war." (David Lloyd George – UK Prime Minister)


One hundred years ago today, Russian and German forces were standing facing each other in East Prussia. This early confrontation on the Eastern Front – known as the Battle of Tannenberg - resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Russian Second Army and the suicide of their main commander, Samsonov. On the German side the battle made Paul von Hindenburg famous for the rest of the war, and proved that moving troops quickly by train could bring a decisive advantage. Technology was an asset that could make all the difference in the years to come...

In To End All Wars - their new Grand Strategy game dedicated to WW1 - Ageod (http://www.ageod.com/) aim to reproduce in detail this conflict that involved all of the main powers of this period. The AGE engine has been especially enhanced in order to cover the specifics of this war. New technologies, trenches, war plans, aerial and armored units, and an original diplomatic system have been implemented to simulate the Great War with a high level of realism.

Today we are proud to announce that the game is finally released! Players can now embrace a new military career by leading the destiny of one the major WW1 alliances that fearlessly fought, not only for Europe, but also for Africa and Asia. The game allows a high degree of freedom in terms of decisions, so battles, diplomatic relations, political events and war production will depend on player's choices.

In order to celebrate the release we are offering a $5 discount to the early adopters during the week of the launch! Note that To End All Wars will be released on Steam as well on August 29th and that this version will also benefit from the launch discount. We are also going to offer a free Steam key to anyone who has a copy the game, wherever they bought it from, once the game is available on this digital platform!


Get more information on To End All Wars from its product page http://www.ageod.com/products/533/details/Ageod%27sToEndAllWars and its official Introduction Video. http://youtu.be/B8R9GURTs0Y


Ageod is part of the Slitherine Group

About the Slitherine Group

The Slitherine Group is the world's leading producer and publisher of digital wargames and strategy games. Under the Slitherine (www.slitherine.com), Matrix Games (www.matrixgames.com) and Ageod (www.ageod.com) brands it has published literally hundreds of games, with many award-winning titles in its portfolio and spanning all digital platforms, from home consoles to modern Smartphone's and Tablets. Slitherine is also involved with book publishing, board gaming and works with a wide array of key licensing partners, such as HISTORY®, MILITARY HISTORY®, Games Workshop®, Horrible Histories™, Showtime, BBC, Osprey, Scholastic, Buzz Aldrin Enterprises and many others to deliver the best blend of historical accuracy in an exciting and entertaining way. Together the Group companies form the world's largest organization specializing in this important and vibrant niche. The Slitherine Group's mission over the coming years is to lead the way in innovation and growth in an ever expanding segment of the entertainment industry.

I buckled. 

It's AGEOD so I'm not concerned about adopting it early.   O0

Looks Booty-ful.



EDIT:  I'm just wondering why the BlueSnap store was running so slowly.  Took a few minutes for it to process my payment and obviously much longer to actually send me the d/l and key via email, which hasn't arrived.  ???

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
I buckled. 

It's AGEOD so I'm not concerned about adopting it early.   O0

Looks Booty-ful.



EDIT:  I'm just wondering why the BlueSnap store was running so slowly.  Took a few minutes for it to process my payment and obviously much longer to actually send me the d/l and key via email.  ???

I did too, but now I'm waiting on an email so I can download...

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 08:37:33 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
I buckled. 

It's AGEOD so I'm not concerned about adopting it early.   O0

Looks Booty-ful.



EDIT:  I'm just wondering why the BlueSnap store was running so slowly.  Took a few minutes for it to process my payment and obviously much longer to actually send me the d/l and key via email.  ???

I did too, but now I'm waiting on an email so I can download...

I just edited.  ;D

They weren't kidding when they said you may have to wait an hour (or more?) to get it.   With the amazing speed of the modern digital world, you gotta wonder what the holdup is.

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 08:39:00 PM
I just edited.  ;D

They weren't kidding when they said you may have to wait an hour (or more?) to get it.   With the amazing speed of the modern digital world, you gotta wonder what the holdup is.

I've never been really thrilled with the Matrix/Slitherine/AGEOD payment processor and order fulfillment providers. They really do seem to be using decade-old technology.

Granted, first-world problem and all that, but it's cruel to c*cktease me with all those beautiful screenshots and that video, and then make me wait to download!

I bought it from Matrix. Processed in about a minute and took about 5 minutes to download. Installation took about 5 minutes. Not bad. I've never had luck with AGEOD the site, but rarely have problems with Matrix or Steam.

I was just surprised that I had to leave the page "processing" for a few minutes.  I've rarely had it take so long.  It finally went through, but there's obviously some slowdown on the side of the 3rd party store they're using.  At least it didn't pop up with some time-out error as I feared it would for taking so long.

Perhaps that "BlueSnap" store had a huge run on To End All Wars tonight.  Or Battlefield Twelve just released and they're the only ones selling it.  ;D  Something is slowing them down.  It's been 45 minutes and no email.  You guys must be running them ragged.

Quote from: mikeck on August 26, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
I bought it from Matrix. Processed in about a minute and took about 5 minutes to download. Installation took about 5 minutes. Not bad. I've never had luck with AGEOD the site, but rarely have problems with Matrix or Steam.

Bought from Matrix as well. Looks like you snuck in under the wire!

I just speculated over at Matrix that BlueSnap is actually an elderly British woman manually processing payment information and sending email. It's late in the UK, Nef and I must have ordered after her bedtime! :)

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:02:55 PM
I was just surprised that I had to leave the page "processing" for a few minutes.  I've rarely had it take so long.  It finally went through, but there's obviously some slowdown on the side of the 3rd party store they're using.  At least it didn't pop up with some time-out error as I feared it would for taking so long.

Perhaps that "BlueSnap" store had a huge run on To End All Wars tonight.  Or Battlefield Twelve just released and they're the only ones selling it.  ;D  Something is slowing them down.  It's been 45 minutes and no email.  You guys must be running them ragged.

Having the same issue here.

I buckled earlier in the day and got it almost immediately.  I think this Bluesnap is a new processing service for them - all the games I gotten from Matrix this is the first time I've seen the name.  Could be they weren't prepared for the volume.

I also plan to pick up Hannibal: Terror Of Rome sometime soon.  I'll just have to remember to do it in the middle of the day when the gerbil isn't falling off it's wheel from exhaustion.  :))

Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Must've batch processed them.  So did mine.

Quote from: tgb on August 26, 2014, 09:22:41 PM
I buckled earlier in the day and got it almost immediately.  I think this Bluesnap is a new processing service for them - all the games I gotten from Matrix this is the first time I've seen the name.  Could be they weren't prepared for the volume.

Plumes changed their name to BlueSnap

Quote from: challerain on August 26, 2014, 10:23:57 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 26, 2014, 09:22:41 PM
I buckled earlier in the day and got it almost immediately.  I think this Bluesnap is a new processing service for them - all the games I gotten from Matrix this is the first time I've seen the name.  Could be they weren't prepared for the volume.

Plumes changed their name to BlueSnap

So it's still Plimus?  I wonder why they changed their name?  ^-^

No problems buying or downloading from the AGEOD site this morning. Might have been a bottleneck online as everyone purchased at the same time?

Played tutorial. Playing as Western Entente 4 turns. First impressions- It looks beautiful. Feels very deep. Chose plan 17 historical. Went for quick thrust into Germany and took Mulhouse but had a Germany counter-offensive. Brussels has fallen and moving BEF to Ypres.  Had one big naval battle with the Royal Navy against Germany. Liking it so far. Possibly one of the best computer wargames I've bought. Certainly, the classiest.

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:29:51 PM
I also plan to pick up Hannibal: Terror Of Rome sometime soon.  I'll just have to remember to do it in the middle of the day when the gerbil isn't falling off it's wheel from exhaustion.  :))

I have looked at that one as well..... but have not done so yet.  I have a lot of stuff on my drive, but that one has peaked my interest.

PE

ATTENTION ON DECK

STAND BY FOR CONTEST

THAT IS ALL

 Tutorial was easy enough. A little too vague though for the complexity of the game. From what I understand there are more tutorial hints in the actual campaign.

My other main concern is that you cant play the entire Entente. You either can play the East (Russia, Serbia, etc) or the West (France, Britain, Belgium, etc). Hopefully that can be resolved in a patch.

  Quite a few complaints in the forums on the historical OOB of the Belgians, and how it is too easy for the Germans to destroy the Belgian Army.

All in all, I like the game so far. If you have played other AGEOD games, you will feel right at home. Definitely needs some patching though, to bring it up to speed in some areas, which AGEOD has a good track-record of.

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:51:51 PM

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Must've batch processed them.  So did mine.

I'm a bit confused here. When I purchased from the matrix site it instantly took me to another web page on the site with a download link. I clicked on it downloaded it and started it up. I did not have to wait for an email

Quote from: mikeck on August 27, 2014, 10:18:19 AM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:51:51 PM

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Must've batch processed them.  So did mine.

I'm a bit confused here. When I purchased from the matrix site it instantly took me to another web page on the site with a download link. I clicked on it downloaded it and started it up. I did not have to wait for an email

Same here. Or you could download from the email.

I've played the tutorial and messed around with it while reading the manual.  I like the fact that the Entente has been split into two separate playable factions - it makes the game more manageable.  I also like that Aegeod is attempting to introduce diplomacy and a tech tree.  While not as deep as the rest of the game, it's a move in the right direction, imo.

Quote from: tgb on August 27, 2014, 10:54:41 AM
it's a move in the right direction, imo.

It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

GO ENTER TO WIN A STEAM KEY FOR YOUR OWN COPY OF THE GAME (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?board=73.0)

Quote from: tgb on August 27, 2014, 10:54:41 AM
I've played the tutorial and messed around with it while reading the manual.  I like the fact that the Entente has been split into two separate playable factions - it makes the game more manageable.  I also like that Aegeod is attempting to introduce diplomacy and a tech tree.  While not as deep as the rest of the game, it's a move in the right direction, imo.

Curious....what are the two Entente factions you can play?

Quote from: Rayfer on August 27, 2014, 11:46:12 AM

Quote from: tgb on August 27, 2014, 10:54:41 AM
I've played the tutorial and messed around with it while reading the manual.  I like the fact that the Entente has been split into two separate playable factions - it makes the game more manageable.  I also like that Aegeod is attempting to introduce diplomacy and a tech tree.  While not as deep as the rest of the game, it's a move in the right direction, imo.

Curious....what are the two Entente factions you can play?

East (Russia,Serbia,Etc) or West (France Britain,Etc)

Mine downloaded this morning as well.  Took a while for the e-mail.  Good sign for the popularity of the game.  Not terribly surprising, I've been itching to see Ageod do WW1 for a long while. 

Quote from: mikeck on August 27, 2014, 10:18:19 AM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:51:51 PM

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Must've batch processed them.  So did mine.

I'm a bit confused here. When I purchased from the matrix site it instantly took me to another web page on the site with a download link. I clicked on it downloaded it and started it up. I did not have to wait for an email

Not the case for us, in the evening.

I clicked a link regarding purchase status, and it was listed as "processing".   No d/l or key listed.  Had to wait about an hour on the email.

It all got done without any need for extra effort.  It's the first time I'd seen it process so slowly there, however.  I was initially concerned that it wouldn't completely process on the "don't leave or reload this page" part.  It sat there just short of ten minutes.  I've had that screw up once before elsewhere when it sat on that 'processing' part for too long, charging me but not completing my order.  All worked out though.

Quote from: Ian C on August 27, 2014, 11:32:09 AM

Quote from: tgb on August 27, 2014, 10:54:41 AM
it's a move in the right direction, imo.

It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

:tickedoff:
Please god no.... Lol

Quote from: Nefaro on August 27, 2014, 12:17:15 PM

Quote from: mikeck on August 27, 2014, 10:18:19 AM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 26, 2014, 09:51:51 PM

Quote from: panzerde on August 26, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
Download email just showed up. Took about two hours, total.

Must've batch processed them.  So did mine.

I'm a bit confused here. When I purchased from the matrix site it instantly took me to another web page on the site with a download link. I clicked on it downloaded it and started it up. I did not have to wait for an email

Not the case for us, in the evening.

I clicked a link regarding purchase status, and it was listed as "processing".   No d/l or key listed.  Had to wait about an hour on the email.

It all got done without any need for extra effort.  It's the first time I'd seen it process so slowly there, however.  I was initially concerned that it wouldn't completely process on the "don't leave or reload this page" part.  It sat there just short of ten minutes.  I've had that screw up once before elsewhere when it sat on that 'processing' part for too long, charging me but not completing my order.  All worked out though.

Well you aren't the only one having this issue, that's for sure. I got lucky I suppose. Hopefully it gets worked out soon

In the opinion of those who are playing, how likely is it you're able to change or alter the historical outcome or is this more a game on rails?

Also for those playing, how does it compare to Making History - WWI? I am honestly heartened to just hear there is a tutorial. Downloading my copy tonight.

Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

Quote from: Gusington on August 27, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Quote from: bboyer66 on August 27, 2014, 11:51:20 AM

Quote from: Rayfer on August 27, 2014, 11:46:12 AM

Quote from: tgb on August 27, 2014, 10:54:41 AM
I've played the tutorial and messed around with it while reading the manual.  I like the fact that the Entente has been split into two separate playable factions - it makes the game more manageable.  I also like that Aegeod is attempting to introduce diplomacy and a tech tree.  While not as deep as the rest of the game, it's a move in the right direction, imo.

Curious....what are the two Entente factions you can play?

East (Russia,Serbia,Etc) or West (France Britain,Etc)

Thanks, this is a big plus for me in considering a purchase. I like the idea of being able to play one or the other.

Quote from: Sir Slash on August 27, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
In the opinion of those who are playing, how likely is it you're able to change or alter the historical outcome or is this more a game on rails?

There are two grand campaigns - one is 100% historical as far as the opening goes, and can be said to be as much "on rails" as any other war game.  There's an "alternate history" campaign where all the players (human and AI) start by selecting a war plan from 4 alternatives.  The war plan selected determines the initial deployment of forces and initial targets.

For example, one of the German war plans calls for focusing on the Eastern front and saving France for later.  Do that, play your cards right, and Great Britain probably won't enter the war until much later than in history - may not enter the war at all, in fact

QuoteAlso for those playing, how does it compare to Making History - WWI?

TEAW is a war game with a bit of diplomacy and political decision making thrown in, but 90%  of the time you're pushing stacks around the map. You can only play as a member of the Entante or the Central Powers.   Making History is more like a Paradox game, except it is turn-based. You can play any country in the world, and spend most of your time building up your infrastructure, conducting diplomacy, trading for resources, etc.  It's possible to play from beginning to end without ever taking part in a battle.

^Thanks tgb. It sounds like the basics, like a manual and tutorial, make TEAW a bit easier to get into. Is that the case?

Quote from: Gusington on August 27, 2014, 06:26:37 PM
^Thanks tgb. It sounds like the basics, like a manual and tutorial, make TEAW a bit easier to get into. Is that the case?

Perhaps a bit but it's still essentially CW2 tweaked to model WWI.  You're still building units and combining them into armies and pushing them into combat by province.  The game does add a layer of diplomatic and political decisions, mostly borrowed in concept from the earlier AGEOD World War One Gold game, but they aren't particularly fleshed out in some respects.  For example, what were choices in the earlier game are here sometimes just predetermined events. 

I'm just getting into the game, but I'm not sure how well the game will model trench warfare.  The games adds a mechanic where armies with generals can "march to the sound of the guns" to reinforce adjacent provinces, but there's some confusion over on the AGEOD boards about whether the player can control this (in particular, prevent it) and how units moving out of their sector will impact the overall integrity of the front.  I'm skeptical that the AGEOD engine can really model trench warfare convincingly.  But we'll see.   And I'm sure AGEOD will tweak things along the way.

So basically EAW is CW2 with a light strategy overlay.

I find this easier to get my head around than the Civil War games, largely because unless you're playing at the CP, you only have to deal with one front.

Dealing with multiple fronts always gets chaotic for me too. Just ask Shelldrake how poorly I play Commander: The Great War...haven't won one game yet, PBEM or SP :/

I've only played the tutorial so far, but it feels very much like other AGEOD games I've played. For me that's a good thing since I like their games, but YMMV. It doesn't (so far) feel as complex as WWI Gold.

I didn't pick up CW2, so I don't know how much of the UI for giving units orders is new to EAW, but I definitely like it over the UI of the older games. It feels much more polished. Overall it's graphically much nicer then any of their previous games. I quite like the unit and leader counters.

I like that I can do things like send a cavalry division behind the lines and tear up rail lines. I like what I'm seeing so far of how they've implemented reconnaissance.

I'm also not sure how well the AGEOD engine will handle trench warfare. WWI Gold handled it by dividing the war into phases and actually changing how units behaved and how combat was resolved. Complicated, but it generally worked. I can see how the engine will handle 1914 pretty well, but that "ride to the sound of the guns" behavior could wreak havoc 1915-1917.

I'm happy they put a little artistic effort back into the UI this time.  That silver MS Office 2000 styled UI background in CWII sucked.

I think you will find that it models trench warfare pretty well. units have always had the ability to entrench automatically the longer they remain in the area. What they did with this game was increase the power of entrenchment and increase the amount of entrenchment you can do. so if you have units string from province to province that have been there for several turns, they will automatically create a trench network which gives them an incredible defense of bonus against an enemy attack. entrenchment always has

At the same time, I did not like how world war one gold basically forced you to go into trench warfare at a certain point in the game if you had not won yet. This, again as with most a AGEOD games at least gives you the possibility and opportunity to create a different type of war than World War I turned out to be. maybe it didn't have to devolve into trench warfare... maybe there was another way to conduct the war and this game allows it instead of simply forcing you to get entrenched and fight each other for four years

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 07:17:55 AM
I think you will find that it models trench warfare pretty well. units have always had the ability to entrench automatically the longer they remain in the area. What they did with this game was increase the power of entrenchment and increase the amount of entrenchment you can do. so if you have units string from province to province that have been there for several turns, they will automatically create a trench network which gives them an incredible defense of bonus against an enemy attack. entrenchment always has

At the same time, I did not like how world war one gold basically forced you to go into trench warfare at a certain point in the game if you had not won yet. This, again as with most a AGEOD games at least gives you the possibility and opportunity to create a different type of war than World War I turned out to be. maybe it didn't have to devolve into trench warfare... maybe there was another way to conduct the war and this game allows it instead of simply forcing you to get entrenched and fight each other for four years

Good points. It sounds like AGEOD has come up with a system that it superior to WWI Gold. I agree that the flexibility is to be desired.

 Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

Trench warfare definitely still needs some work.  The way units build trenches is fine - they increase in strength as the unit stays in place (like in CW2 - but the rest is still a bit of a mess. 

First, the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanism - by which any unit commanded by a general may leave its province and march to reinforce a battle - means that front-line units engage in lateral movement that the player can't entirely control.  A battle in Province B can cause all your units in Provinces A and C to abandon their trenches and march to Province B.  Which might be fine if they win (it appears that winning units return to their original positions after the battle).  If they lose, though, they all retreat and the single battle thus opens a huge multi-province hole in your lines.   

Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like.

Third, the mechanisms for making a unit stay home and defend in place are unclear and not especially satisfactory.  You can give a unit the Evade Combat order, but the order may fail if the general in inactive (weird that an inactive general would make a unit more likely to move).  Or you might be able to make a unit stay put by not giving it a general at all (so it won't MTSG) but that weakens it as a defensive force.

An on/off switch per unit for MTSG seems to be the obvious solution.  This is a prime example of an area where the CW2 engine doesn't necessarily work for WWI.  Hope they fix it.

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 09:16:59 AM
Trench warfare definitely still needs some work.  The way units build trenches is fine - they increase in strength as the unit stays in place (like in CW2 - but the rest is still a bit of a mess. 

First, the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanism - by which any unit commanded by a general may leave its province and march to reinforce a battle - means that front-line units engage in lateral movement that the player can't entirely control.  A battle in Province B can cause all your units in Provinces A and C to abandon their trenches and march to Province B.  Which might be fine if they win (it appears that winning units return to their original positions after the battle).  If they lose, though, they all retreat and the single battle thus opens a huge multi-province hole in your lines.   

Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like.

Third, the mechanisms for making a unit stay home and defend in place are unclear and not especially satisfactory.  You can give a unit the Evade Combat order, but the order may fail if the general in inactive (weird that an inactive general would make a unit more likely to move).  Or you might be able to make a unit stay put by not giving it a general at all (so it won't MTSG) but that weakens it as a defensive force.

An on/off switch per unit for MTSG seems to be the obvious solution.  This is a prime example of an area where the CW2 engine doesn't necessarily work for WWI.  Hope they fix it.

Sounds like WW1 Gold does a better job.

Quote from: panzerde on August 28, 2014, 07:41:33 AM

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 07:17:55 AM
I think you will find that it models trench warfare pretty well. units have always had the ability to entrench automatically the longer they remain in the area. What they did with this game was increase the power of entrenchment and increase the amount of entrenchment you can do. so if you have units string from province to province that have been there for several turns, they will automatically create a trench network which gives them an incredible defense of bonus against an enemy attack. entrenchment always has

At the same time, I did not like how world war one gold basically forced you to go into trench warfare at a certain point in the game if you had not won yet. This, again as with most a AGEOD games at least gives you the possibility and opportunity to create a different type of war than World War I turned out to be. maybe it didn't have to devolve into trench warfare... maybe there was another way to conduct the war and this game allows it instead of simply forcing you to get entrenched and fight each other for four years

Good points. It sounds like AGEOD has come up with a system that it superior to WWI Gold. I agree that the flexibility is to be desired.

EAW is more flexible in that trench warfare doesn't occur on a more-or-less fixed schedule (there was some flexibility in WWI Gold, but not much).  But in many other ways, it is much less flexible.

Probably the biggest difference is the way WWI Gold handles reserves.  In that game, reserves are committed on an Army or GHQ basis, so reserves can be fed selectively into any battle across the entire front.  One of the nice strategy decision points in WWI Gold is "Do I commit my reserves to this battle or save them for the next one down the line?  Or do I save them for a counter-attack?"  The system allows for a strong front line with a flexible defense in depth, all within the player's direct control.

EAW, by comparison, is much less flexible.  Reserves will march (or not) pretty much wherever they want, even laterally, based on factors you really don't have great control over.  Hopefully, they'll fix some of this, but the system probably won't ever be as flexible as WWI Gold.  The mechanics for player choice just aren't there.

Quote from: Ian C on August 27, 2014, 11:32:09 AM
It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

Nothing would make me happier than an AGEOD WW2 game -- although I understand why lots of folks (like mikeck) would not be thrilled at yet another game devoted to the most over-represented conflict in history.  But the mere thought of what AGEOD could do with detailed OOBs in a ww2 context makes me giddy.   :smitten:

Quote from: Kushan on August 27, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: Gusington on August 27, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Whilst I recognise the issue of commincations and national self interest, I raised the issue of single entente with Slitherine just before release and got the response - "Hardcore mode indeed :p Played by 0.3% of the players" I think the concern is that as it's very complex a lot of players might be overwhelmed with the complexity of the game to cope with the full entente. It's very understandable, but not what I wanted to hear.

So, if like me you're into hardcore mode then the way forward has to be grassroot support for it. WHO'S WITH ME!!! O0

Quote from: sandman2575 on August 28, 2014, 10:34:42 AM

Quote from: Ian C on August 27, 2014, 11:32:09 AM
It also shows it's now possible for AGEOD to make a strategic WW2 game, and I'll look forward to that greatly.

Nothing would make me happier than an AGEOD WW2 game -- although I understand why lots of folks (like mikeck) would not be thrilled at yet another game devoted to the most over-represented conflict in history.  But the mere thought of what AGEOD could do with detailed OOBs in a ww2 context makes me giddy.   :smitten:

IIRC from my time at HOW14, it is something that both Phil Thibaut, and Phil Malacher have thought about, and may yet revisit in the future. This release really may not be To End All Wars (if you'll excuse the pun ;)). 

Quote from: bboyer66 on August 28, 2014, 08:33:32 AM
Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

Agreed. In the meantime you can leave them on a defensive posture I believe. This prevents them from marching off. Any enemy army entering territory you hold automatically switches to offensive so they will still be forced to attack you. From the manual:

Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege.

So in other words: that unit won't leave it's trench to march to the sound of the guns.
It will sit where it is until attacked.

What I like is that you don't HAVE to end up in trench warfare. wW1 gold forced you to do it. EAW allows you to try something else. You may still end up hitting enemy units in level 5 trenches in which case, you better dig in. I hated that I'm 1915 (WW1 gold) I had to revert to trench warfare.

I did prefer other aspects of WW1 such as the handling of reserves

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 09:16:59 AM
Trench warfare definitely still needs some work.  The way units build trenches is fine - they increase in strength as the unit stays in place (like in CW2 - but the rest is still a bit of a mess. 

First, the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanism - by which any unit commanded by a general may leave its province and march to reinforce a battle - means that front-line units engage in lateral movement that the player can't entirely control.  A battle in Province B can cause all your units in Provinces A and C to abandon their trenches and march to Province B.  Which might be fine if they win (it appears that winning units return to their original positions after the battle).  If they lose, though, they all retreat and the single battle thus opens a huge multi-province hole in your lines.   

Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like.

Third, the mechanisms for making a unit stay home and defend in place are unclear and not especially satisfactory.  You can give a unit the Evade Combat order, but the order may fail if the general in inactive (weird that an inactive general would make a unit more likely to move).  Or you might be able to make a unit stay put by not giving it a general at all (so it won't MTSG) but that weakens it as a defensive force.

An on/off switch per unit for MTSG seems to be the obvious solution.  This is a prime example of an area where the CW2 engine doesn't necessarily work for WWI.  Hope they fix it.

Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I 100% agree with this comment though:

"Second, if your all units move out of a province at the end of a turn, all the trenches disappear and have to be completely rebuilt from scratch if you regain the province.  So you can have a front line composed not of a trench network, but of trenches in perpetual reconstruction.  Not very WWI-like."

On the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 11:00:40 AM


Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I'm not sure that's correct.  I think folks are reporting that even units set to Defensive posture are MTSG if a unit in an adjacent province is attacked.  They are "defending" but across a broader front - I suppose in an attempt to mimic trench warfare, but with unintended consequences. 

QuoteOn the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

Correct.  But "reinforcement" is also modeled by units in adjacent provinces MTSG, which creates the problem.  If reinforcements worked only via the GHQ (or perhaps at the Army level via units designated as reserves), that would be fine.  With the MTSG mechanic, though, you see too many battles morph from a one-province skirmish into a front-wide free-for-all, with the possibility of a resulting multi-province gap in the front.

Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

Quote from: W8taminute on August 28, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

John Tiller games offer this. OK, the trench/improved positions might degrade for lack of maintenance, but are usually repairable. It's certainly the case in the WW2 Panzer Campaigns, and I'm pertty sure it operates the same in First World War Campaigns. I say "pretty sure" because my games in France, and East Prussia '14 have all been pretty mobile with me playing the Germans on the attack, so defence has not been the priority.

Quote from: Boggit on August 28, 2014, 12:04:00 PM

Quote from: W8taminute on August 28, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Why can't any WW1 games solve the trench problem like a cardboard wargame?  Unit A arrives at hex location and spends it's turn building trench level 1.  Chit is placed on the hex representing trench level 1.  Unit A leaves hex.  Chit trench level 1 remains.  It can be captured and used by the enemy.  Unit B arrives in hex and continues buildup of trench system to trench level 2.  Replace chit of trench 1 with chit of trench 2.

John Tiller games offer this. OK, the trench/improved positions might degrade for lack of maintenance, but are usually repairable. It's certainly the case in the WW2 Panzer Campaigns, and I'm pertty sure it operates the same in First World War Campaigns. I say "pretty sure" because my games in France, and East Prussia '14 have all been pretty mobile with me playing the Germans on the attack, so defence has not been the priority.

The Tiller games do a nice job of it, but with all the other baggage that comes with Tiller games.  Definitely a matter of taste.

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 11:56:37 AM

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 11:00:40 AM


Use "defensive posture". Units will not leave to attack and will stay in place

"Defensive: Your Stack won't engage enemy Units. If attacked, it will defend with the benefit of the region's terrain bonus, if any. It will continue an ongoing siege."

I'm not sure that's correct.  I think folks are reporting that even units set to Defensive posture are MTSG if a unit in an adjacent province is attacked.  They are "defending" but across a broader front - I suppose in an attempt to mimic trench warfare, but with unintended consequences. 

QuoteOn the issue of deployment of reserves, that decision made by the commander who has control of them. So if 1st Army attacks, then the GHQ (at group) commander will send in the reserves he has in his stack to assist. If you don't want him to, don't put any corp in his stack. If you want him to have a lot, put a lot in. As army group GHQ, that general will send in reserves assigned to him whenever a subordinate army is attacked. Now, we may want to decide whether he deploys the reserves or not, but that's his decision. You are playing as the overall war commander

Correct.  But "reinforcement" is also modeled by units in adjacent provinces MTSG, which creates the problem.  If reinforcements worked only via the GHQ (or perhaps at the Army level via units designated as reserves), that would be fine.  With the MTSG mechanic, though, you see too many battles morph from a one-province skirmish into a front-wide free-for-all, with the possibility of a resulting multi-province gap in the front.

What Queeg said. Even units in a defensive posture will support nearby units by "MTSG".   Works good in the Civil War game because it accurately models the corp support style of warfare at the time, where one corp would fix the enemy and every other corp in the nearby area would get there ASAP to help. WWI not so much.

Quote from: Boggit on August 28, 2014, 10:43:28 AM

Quote from: Kushan on August 27, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: Gusington on August 27, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Whilst I recognise the issue of commincations and national self interest, I raised the issue of single entente with Slitherine just before release and got the response - "Hardcore mode indeed :p Played by 0.3% of the players" I think the concern is that as it's very complex a lot of players might be overwhelmed with the complexity of the game to cope with the full entente. It's very understandable, but not what I wanted to hear.

So, if like me you're into hardcore mode then the way forward has to be grassroot support for it. WHO'S WITH ME!!! O0

The people buying this game are hardcore players. This aint tiddlywinks, you know what I am saying.

Quote from: bboyer66 on August 28, 2014, 08:33:32 AM
Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

I thought they were supposed to return to the location they had "marched" from, in previous games.  Maybe this was always the case when they're routed, but I'd say it's definitely an issue for all AGE games if this is the case and even more so for WW1. 

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 02:18:39 PM

Quote from: bboyer66 on August 28, 2014, 08:33:32 AM
Big problem needs resolved.

The March to the sound of the guns, which happens when units in the same army move to help other units at a different location automatically.  Whats happening is that units will leave their areas on the trench line to help, but if defeated, they retreat with the units they helped, which in turn can leave huge breakthroughs in the trench line.

They need an on/off switch to keep units from "Marching To the Sound of the Guns" so units will stay in place on the trench line, and you can set up units behind the trench line to reinforce areas that are under attack.

I thought they were supposed to return to the location they had "marched" from, in previous games.  Maybe this was always the case when they're routed, but I'd say it's definitely an issue for all AGE games if this is the case and even more so for WW1.

That would make the situation a little more tolerable. But reports are that the supporting units are just retreating with the defeated units they supported.

Quote from: Boggit on August 28, 2014, 10:43:28 AM

Quote from: Kushan on August 27, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: Gusington on August 27, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
Also like the idea of two Entente factions...I wish Commander - The Great War would have done that.

I wish they had included the option to do both. Play as a single or split entente.

Will be downloading my copy of it tonight.

Whilst I recognise the issue of commincations and national self interest, I raised the issue of single entente with Slitherine just before release and got the response - "Hardcore mode indeed :p Played by 0.3% of the players" I think the concern is that as it's very complex a lot of players might be overwhelmed with the complexity of the game to cope with the full entente. It's very understandable, but not what I wanted to hear.

So, if like me you're into hardcore mode then the way forward has to be grassroot support for it. WHO'S WITH ME!!! O0

I started a campaign as the Central Powers, to see how much of a load it would be.  After trying to keep track of everything, even in 1914, I can definitely say I'm in no hurry to attempt running the whole Entente at once. 

Just running Germany and A-H at this point is workload enough.  Not necessarily for the amount of units involved, but planning of the overall 'big picture' and translating it down to the individual units is difficult, due to the size of the (damn beautiful) map.  There just aren't any tools to assist the information transition from when you look at dots on the mini-map or map screen (F7 IIRC?) and try to translate that down to the mostly zoomed-in main map view where you must get all the unit information and interface functionality to put your grand plan into action. 

It is often a problem in grand strat games with a huge map and many units but few extra tools to assist in translating strategy from the grand scale to the regional or local ones.  I believe an HOI3 expansion had those drawing tools, which would be a good start for such an issue.  Otherwise, you must try to memorize what you wanna do in the big picture and attempt to actually implement it in small chunks at a smaller scale.  Thus having to refer back to a small mini-map with indeterminate dots that tell you nothing of what's actually there in order to recall what you were trying to do.  I think some of these larger AGE games could use some kind of tool to help with this, such as the drawing tool example (at least on the mini-map) or some kind of editable filter mode where you could manually set your own highlighted blobs of regions, perhaps. :))

I had always found that units in defensive posture will not MTSG...at least that's how it used to be. At any rates, armies do return...but not entrenched( which is a problem I agree)

"Army GHQs also have a greater chance to reinforce a battle and get reinforcements themselves. You can then use the Army GHQ as a sort of reserve, to pack some punch in case of need. Reinforcing Armies will return to their original region after the battle."

On the trench issue....I'm a bit confused over the concern about how this and other games model it. What I mean is that just because WW 1 was fought the way it was fought, why does that mean it had to be fought that way. Why do I have to be hiding in trenches by 1915? Why do these trenches have to be huge and expansive?

If your unit is entrenched, that should provide defensive bonuses (which it does)...but why should I be concerned that I am not forced into trench warfare?

Units leaving trenches to join the fight is a problem....particularly because when they return, they have to start over. I agree.
But I love the fact that with this game I don't have to end up fighting that way.

I have always been an AGEOD fanboy though so.....

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
I had always found that units in defensive posture will not MTSG...at least that's how it used to be. At any rates, armies do return...but not entrenched( which is a problem I agree)

My understanding is that they changed MTSG for this game to make it more universal.  Probably an effort to accommodate the two-week turn length - so you get enough bang for the buck per turn.  It appears that units in Defensive stance definitely will bail on their trenches.

QuoteOn the trench issue....I'm a bit confused over the concern about how this and other games model it. What I mean is that just because WW 1 was fought the way it was fought, why does that mean it had to be fought that way. Why do I have to be hiding in trenches by 1915? Why do these trenches have to be huge and expansive?

Well, you can always use this argument to rationalize not modeling something that happened historically but is hard to recreate in a game. 

Bottom line is that WWI without trenches is like WWII without tanks.  Could it have happened?  Sure.  But why go there?

I agree that trenches should be modeled well...I just don't like it when games force me to adopt trench warfare.

Either way, I own and play EAW and WW1 gold. I like them both and both do things the other doesn't. I prefer the AGEOD game but that's me and I am familiar with the engine. I can certainly understand why someone may prefer another game

They are having the same discussion over the problems created by MTSG over at AGEOD. Best solution I have heard is a switch turning it on or off and even better, allow the unit to retain it's entrenchment level that it had when it left

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36905-MTSG-needs-to-be-changed

Anyway, it's an issue.

Quote from: mikeck on August 28, 2014, 03:46:53 PM
I agree that trenches should be modeled well...I just don't like it when games force me to adopt trench warfare.

Either way, I own and play EAW and WW1 gold. I like them both and both do things the other doesn't. I prefer the AGEOD game but that's me and I am familiar with the engine. I can certainly understand why someone may prefer another game

I see your point.  In WWI Gold/CE, trench warfare is more or less imposed by late-1914/early-1915 unless one side has achieved a breakthrough.  I agree that's a bit forced.  But the trench warfare of the WWI Western Front is a very tough thing to model and I think the game does a very good job of doing that - albeit at the cost of perhaps imposing it more forcefully than some would like.

I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 07:02:03 PM
I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Diplomats are located in the Regional Decisions window.  The shortcut is the middle small button at the top left of the screen. (IIRC?)


I've not really played much yet.  Think I've issued all the first turn orders needed, but haven't even resolved a full turn.  ;D  Been chillin' and reading the rules for Fire In The Lake, A Most Dangerous Time, and Bloody April.  Which isn't going very quickly, either.  ???

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 07:02:03 PM
I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Diplomats are located in the Regional Decisions window.  The shortcut is the middle small button at the top left of the screen. (IIRC?)

That's correct. 

MTSG is pretty well borked.  However, I am very, very excited about the future of this game after playing it for a while.  It is significantly better than the debacle that was World War One.  Please note, I never got to play WWIG and I really wish I'd bought WWICE.  My danged advanced degree was in this era, and I've been waiting beyond all comprehension for a good game to represent it.  I really want this to work out.

I like the idea that you are not forced to do trench warfare but I also want the option to do effective trench  warfare.

I like that you aren't forced to do trench warfare as well.  However, based on the technology of the day, I insist that trench warfare was inevitable.  Therefore, in the game, at least on some level, it should be inevitable as well.  So far it pretty much is, however, the MTSG mechanic, while magnificent for Napoleonic/Civil War warfare, is not quite appropriate for post 1914 WWI. 

I can game it out currently by putting my generals  and armies behind the line and putting independent units and corps on the front.  My worry is abusing the AI who can't.

Yes. So if the opponent is able to build an effective trench system, then it will just chew up your "maneuver" formations and force you go defensive as well.

Are trenches unit traits or terrain features in the game?
Are there engineer units?

Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 28, 2014, 07:31:31 PM
MTSG is pretty well borked.  However, I am very, very excited about the future of this game after playing it for a while.  It is significantly better than the debacle that was World War One.  Please note, I never got to play WWIG and I really wish I'd bought WWICE.  My danged advanced degree was in this era, and I've been waiting beyond all comprehension for a good game to represent it.  I really want this to work out.

I'm enjoying EAW but it's not a major departure from CW2.  I didn't expect it to be - and CW2 is a great game.  But there is a lot of deja vu there.

I'll confess to having become something of a WWI CE zealot.  WWI Gold was a game I desperately wanted to love when it first came out but it was an undeniable train wreck.  Having CE turn up out of the blue was sorta like having an old reprobate friend show up fresh out of rehab.  I now have the game I always wanted WWI Gold to be.  If you like the era as much as I do, it might be worth giving CE a try.  It's still for sale at MMOGA and Games Rocket.

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 08:21:07 PM

Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 28, 2014, 07:31:31 PM
MTSG is pretty well borked.  However, I am very, very excited about the future of this game after playing it for a while.  It is significantly better than the debacle that was World War One.  Please note, I never got to play WWIG and I really wish I'd bought WWICE.  My danged advanced degree was in this era, and I've been waiting beyond all comprehension for a good game to represent it.  I really want this to work out.

I'll confess to having become something of a WWI CE zealot.  WWI Gold was a game I desperately wanted to love when it first came out but it was an undeniable train wreck.  Having CE turn up out of the blue was sorta like having an old reprobate friend show up fresh out of rehab.  I now have the game I always wanted WWI Gold to be.  If you like the era as much as I do, it might be worth giving CE a try.  It's still for sale at MMOGA and Games Rocket.

Is that the version that was mysteriously pulled from Steam?  I thought it was broken?

Quote from: jomni on August 28, 2014, 08:19:54 PM

Are trenches unit traits or terrain features in the game?
Are there engineer units?

Trenches, as such, don't show up on the map.  It's exactly the same mechanic as in CW2 - units entrench if they remain stationary, and the entrenchment level increases the longer the unit sits there.  But, like in CW2, they aren't permanent, so if all the units leave a province, the entrenchments disappear.  Which is one of the problems MTSG creates, since units tend to wander off.  So you can end up with a front line composed of perpetually half-built entrenchments.

Yes, there are engineer and pioneer units. 

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 08:36:08 PM

Is that the version that was mysteriously pulled from Steam?  I thought it was broken?

CE runs great - night and day better than Gold.  It was pulled from Steam because of a dispute over ownership.  The guy (or one of the guys, depending on the version of the story) who owned Gold sold it to a new developer who somehow managed to fix all the performance problems that AGEOD swore for years were insoluble.  When the new developer released CE, someone (I assume AGEOD or Slitherine) suddenly rediscovered a love for the game and initiated a legal action in the UK.  So it's a lovers' spat.

The game sold on Steam included all the patches to Gold, plus a new 1917 scenario and some graphical changes.  But the big difference is the performance - really an amazing improvement.  I assume the game for sale on the other sites is the same version - can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.   

Yeah thats the big flaw that I suspect. A solution is to have engineer units which don't leave the province via the auto reinforce rule. But it may be gamey as well.

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 08:36:08 PM

Is that the version that was mysteriously pulled from Steam?  I thought it was broken?

CE runs great - night and day better than Gold.  It was pulled from Steam because of a dispute over ownership.  The guy (or one of the guys, depending on the version of the story) who owned Gold sold it to a new developer who somehow managed to fix all the performance problems that AGEOD swore for years were insoluble.  When the new developer released CE, someone (I assume AGEOD or Slitherine) suddenly rediscovered a love for the game and initiated a legal action in the UK.  So it's a lovers' spat.

The game sold on Steam included all the patches to Gold, plus a new 1917 scenario and some graphical changes.  But the big difference is the performance - really an amazing improvement.  I assume the game for sale on the other sites is the same version - can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

But with the dispute,  all future patching of CE is put on hold?

Quote from: jomni on August 28, 2014, 08:57:38 PM

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 08:36:08 PM

Is that the version that was mysteriously pulled from Steam?  I thought it was broken?

CE runs great - night and day better than Gold.  It was pulled from Steam because of a dispute over ownership.  The guy (or one of the guys, depending on the version of the story) who owned Gold sold it to a new developer who somehow managed to fix all the performance problems that AGEOD swore for years were insoluble.  When the new developer released CE, someone (I assume AGEOD or Slitherine) suddenly rediscovered a love for the game and initiated a legal action in the UK.  So it's a lovers' spat.

The game sold on Steam included all the patches to Gold, plus a new 1917 scenario and some graphical changes.  But the big difference is the performance - really an amazing improvement.  I assume the game for sale on the other sites is the same version - can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

But with the dispute,  all future patching of CE is put on hold?

That's probably true, but the game is in pretty good shape as is.  The problems with Gold were less with the game mechanics than with the engine performance, and CE completely overhauls the latter.  It's a mature game that now actually works. 

EDIT:  I should add that CE had some crash and installation problems when it was first released (the latter related to adapting to the Steam format) but the developer released a patch to fix them.  I've had a couple of crashes loading a scenario but none while playing the game since the patch was released.  I don't want to claim the game is perfect - some of the events don't seem to work as they should, for example - but the game is much more playable now than it ever was before.  And, for my tastes at least, it offers the freshest approach to WWI of any game on the market.

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 07:02:03 PM
I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Diplomats are located in the Regional Decisions window.  The shortcut is the middle small button at the top left of the screen. (IIRC?)

I'm aware of that. Here's my Regional Decisions window - no Diplomats!

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1355.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq711%2Fhbernstein%2Fteawbug_zpsf4b49a7c.jpg&hash=9246495100aee5b3220c1ce1f37c2a1edb98180c)

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 09:44:10 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 07:02:03 PM
I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Diplomats are located in the Regional Decisions window.  The shortcut is the middle small button at the top left of the screen. (IIRC?)

I'm aware of that. Here's my Regional Decisions window - no Diplomats!

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1355.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq711%2Fhbernstein%2Fteawbug_zpsf4b49a7c.jpg&hash=9246495100aee5b3220c1ce1f37c2a1edb98180c)

Weird.  Perhaps Russia is penalized for some reason and has no diplomats for a turn or two?  (Not sure why that would be the case, though.)  Otherwise, I assume it's a bug. 

EDIT:  Or maybe Russia's diplomats are already committed for a turn?  Are the icons on any of the nation flags your guys?

Quote from: Queeg on August 28, 2014, 09:47:24 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 09:44:10 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on August 28, 2014, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: tgb on August 28, 2014, 07:02:03 PM
I started the non-historical campaign as Eastern Entente. On turn 3 (late August)I got the diplomatic tutorial, but when opening the menu at the bottom for diplo actions, there were no Ambassadors available.

Bug or am I missing something?

Diplomats are located in the Regional Decisions window.  The shortcut is the middle small button at the top left of the screen. (IIRC?)

I'm aware of that. Here's my Regional Decisions window - no Diplomats!

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1355.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq711%2Fhbernstein%2Fteawbug_zpsf4b49a7c.jpg&hash=9246495100aee5b3220c1ce1f37c2a1edb98180c)

Weird.  Perhaps Russia is penalized for some reason and has no diplomats for a turn or two?  (Not sure why that would be the case, though.)  Otherwise, I assume it's a bug. 

EDIT:  Or maybe Russia's diplomats are already committed for a turn?  Are the icons on any of the nation flags your guys?

No.  Tooltips say they were placed by CP and the Western Entente.

Entente diplomacy is handled by the Western Entente, so Russia cannot send diplomats.

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 04:36:01 AM
Entente diplomacy is handled by the Western Entente, so Russia cannot send diplomats.

I didn't see that documented anywhere.

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 04:36:01 AM
Entente diplomacy is handled by the Western Entente, so Russia cannot send diplomats.

That's odd.  Why?

Quote from: Queeg on August 29, 2014, 07:02:35 AM

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 04:36:01 AM
Entente diplomacy is handled by the Western Entente, so Russia cannot send diplomats.

That's odd.  Why?

May be an engine limitation but I don't think Russia did much of the diplomatic heavy lifting when it came to pulling further allies into the war.  Romania, maybe, but the rest..?   ???  Nevertheless, they needed to agree on the terms IIRC, like the concessions to Italy.

The Central Powers have one faction, while the Entente has two. So, having both Western and Eastern Entente has its own full pool of diplomats was basically out of question as that would double that side's efficiency.
And having all Entente diplomats with one faction so they can be applied with the same efficiency as Central Powers one also made sense.

History-wise, I think it was the Western Entente powers that made most of the diplomatic promises and dealing, so it also seemed to make sense in that regard. :)

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 07:31:51 AM
The Central Powers have one faction, while the Entente has two. So, having both Western and Eastern Entente has its own full pool of diplomats was basically out of question as that would double that side's efficiency.
And having all Entente diplomats with one faction so they can be applied with the same efficiency as Central Powers one also made sense.

History-wise, I think it was the Western Entente powers that made most of the diplomatic promises and dealing, so it also seemed to make sense in that regard. :)

Still an odd decision.  Would have made more sense to disable diplomacy on whichever Entente side the player is not playing.

Or better yet, do like WWI Gold and let each side have separate diplomats for each of its allied nations (i.e, CP gets diplomats for Germany, A-H, Turkey, etc.)

I know EAW is mostly a war game, but I had hoped that the strategy elements would be a bit more detailed.  It's sort of strategy lite at present.

You are conducting diplomacy via Regional Decisions. If you do not have Diplomat Regional Decisions to send to the Diplomacy track, all the Diplomacy information on that track is doing is giving you information on the diplomatic state of the various countries, and I don't think we should disable that for Russia.

I would argue that having diplomatic efforts concentrated in one hand is better, especially since the Western Entente WAS the real driving force behind the diplomatic efforts portrayed in the game. So I am not seeing the issue, really.

The diplomacy model while might seem simple as it is pretty easy to handle (drag and dop diplomats to the target countries), it does take several historical factors into account. Beside the diplomatic efforts, countries drift toward their "stance", so either neutral, pro-CP, or pro-Entente, while there is a big number of events and decisions influencing the diplomacy level of countries, including the joining of their rivals to any of the factions. Plus this whole system allows for a-historical outcomes (eg. Bulgaria joining the Entente).

On the other strategical fronts we have tech research, blockade and submarine warfare, and production/economy, plus national politics with a national morale level and options to influence it.  Hardly "strategy lite"  ;)

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 10:57:47 AM
You are conducting diplomacy via Regional Decisions. If you do not have Diplomat Regional Decisions to send to the Diplomacy track, all the Diplomacy information on that track is doing is giving you information on the diplomatic state of the various countries, and I don't think we should disable that for Russia.

I would argue that having diplomatic efforts concentrated in one hand is better, especially since the Western Entente WAS the real driving force behind the diplomatic efforts portrayed in the game. So I am not seeing the issue, really.

The diplomacy model while might seem simple as it is pretty easy to handle (drag and dop diplomats to the target countries), it does take several historical factors into account. Beside the diplomatic efforts, countries drift toward their "stance", so either neutral, pro-CP, or pro-Entente, while there is a big number of events and decisions influencing the diplomacy level of countries, including the joining of their rivals to any of the factions. Plus this whole system allows for a-historical outcomes (eg. Bulgaria joining the Entente).

On the other strategical fronts we have tech research, blockade and submarine warfare, and production/economy, plus national politics with a national morale level and options to influence it.  Hardly "strategy lite"  ;)

Posted this over on the. Matrix forums in response to the same rationalization:

QuoteRussia had it's own strategic aspirations and diplomatic goals - there was no universal strategy. Yes, each of the Entente nations shared the common goal of winning the war. But each had very different ideas about what victory would achieve.

Russia actually had significant diplomatic success early in the war. For example, despite the fact that Britain and France had both strenuously opposed the Russian goal of gaining access to the Bosporus and the Dardanelles throughout the 19th Century (even fighting the Crimean War over it), both agreed in the spring of 1915 to Russia's postwar acquisition of them, the city of Constantinople, and the adjacent littoral.

While those goals are difficult to translate into game terms, they illustrate that the goals of a Russian-focused diplomacy might look very different from a more western-focused one. For example, would Russia benefit most from the USA or Romania entering the war? From Belgium or Bulgaria remaining neutral? And who's to say Russia would not have had greater diplomatic success later in the war had they had better success on the battlefield?

If the decision was truly one of game design, then it's a poor one - removing options is never the best idea for gameplay. More likely it was made for coding reasons - too much work to do it right - and the explanation now is just rationalization. As it stands now, you can play the WE and kinda play the EE. Hard to argue that makes it a better game. 

The point is that (1) an EE player reasonably might want to emphasize different diplomatic objectives than a WE player and (2) even if you assume both would do exactly the same thing, it's more fun and a much better game if you let the actual human - you know, the guy who bought the game from you - be the one who gets to play the game.  Surely you can see the difference?

You said over on the AGEOD boards that you want EAW to be the best WWI strategy/wargame on the market.  Good.  But these sorts of shortcuts won't get you there. 

It is not a shortcut. There was nothing stopping us from dividing up the diplomats among the two Entente factions. It was a deliberate design decision. I am sorry it is not to your liking, but we found it to be more realistic than having Russia with the same say in Entente diplomacy as the West.

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 11:43:34 AM
It is not a shortcut. There was nothing stopping us from dividing up the diplomats among the two Entente factions. It was a deliberate design decision. I am sorry it is not to your liking, but we found it to be more realistic than having Russia with the same say in Entente diplomacy as the West.

Thanks for the explanation.  So you consciously decided to design the game to give the player fewer choices than, say, your other WWI game (WWI Gold).   Hence my description of EAW as "strategy lite." 

On the spectrum of the available games on the Great War, I would most definitely not put TEAW on the "lite" section. :) And applying historical limits (ie. keeping the historical balance between CP and Entente diplomacy) is not the same as limiting options.

I guess it depends on what you like. AGEOD games have always been about operations. Basically unit organization, supply, campaign planning, etc. They have never really been strategy games which rely on production, diplomacy, etc.  It's not to say that EAW doesn't have those things, just that-to me- it's natural that it won't do them as well as a game like WW1 gold.

On the other hand, army organization, supplies, all of the factors going into combat, etc are "lighter" in WW1 gold. So I agree that EAW is "strategy life" because it is concentrating on operations. Other games do strategic decisions like diplomacy better.  But what the AGE engine does do...it does it better than any other game as far as I am concerned and that's organization of campaign operations.

If you are looking for deep diplomacy, production choices, etc, that's not what these games are. They do that stuff well enough for me, but maybe not for others.

Just as Queeg is a proponent of WW1G (which I like very much), I am for AGE engine games.

Queeg, on another note, I DID buy WW1CE before it got pulled but have not tried it. Will steam let me run it if I already bought it?

I can tell you that having started as Russia, I have no interest in continuing if I don't have the same range of options as other factions.  I understand your point from an historical standpoint, but at the very lease you could have put it into the descriptions when choosing which faction to play.

Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2014, 01:07:18 PM
On the spectrum of the available games on the Great War, I would most definitely not put TEAW on the "lite" section. :) And applying historical limits (ie. keeping the historical balance between CP and Entente diplomacy) is not the same as limiting options.

There you go again - you agreed earlier that you could have achieved the proper historical balance while still giving the EE player something to do.   Instead you decided to let the AI have all the fun.  When you remove a player choice - let the AI have the fun instead of the poor human slob who paid for the game - then you really need to have very good reason for it. That's the difference between a game and a program.  I know you can see the difference. 

We'll agree to disagree. 

Quote from: mikeck on August 29, 2014, 01:17:58 PM

Queeg, on another note, I DID buy WW1CE before it got pulled but have not tried it. Will steam let me run it if I already bought it?

If it shows up in your library, you can download it.   I did it just last night (after borking my files by modding run amok). 

I'm not sure that I'm ready to throw in the towel on this game yet, because from a graphics and UI perspective it is clearly AGEOD's best effort to date, but...the East Prussian campaign is a disaster historically. Due to how the game mobilizes the German Army and handles Von Prittwitz's replacement by Paul von Hindenburg, it is impossible to do anything with the German army in the first turn of the campaign. This means you can not fight the initial frontier battles, and worse, are forced to commit 8.Armee piecemeal rather than a unified whole.

Some of this is due to the two week turn duration. If the German army were mobilized at the start of the first turn, as the Russians are, you could follow history. I'm not sure why this wasn't done, but even at the beginning of the second turn, after Hindenburg takes command, the entire 8.Armee is still not mobilized. It's only a seven turn scenario, for crying out loud.

Granted that I'm a bit focused on this right now because I'm reading about this campaign and playing out a good bit of it via Tiller's East Prussia '14. Unfortunately the way this campaign is set up robs me of any desire to play it. I guess I'll give the larger "historical" campaign a try in the hope that the compromises are a bit less distracting.

Quote from: panzerde on August 30, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
I'm not sure that I'm ready to throw in the towel on this game yet, because from a graphics and UI perspective it is clearly AGEOD's best effort to date, but...the East Prussian campaign is a disaster historically. Due to how the game mobilizes the German Army and handles Von Prittwitz's replacement by Paul von Hindenburg, it is impossible to do anything with the German army in the first turn of the campaign. This means you can not fight the initial frontier battles, and worse, are forced to commit 8.Armee piecemeal rather than a unified whole.

Some of this is due to the two week turn duration. If the German army were mobilized at the start of the first turn, as the Russians are, you could follow history. I'm not sure why this wasn't done, but even at the beginning of the second turn, after Hindenburg takes command, the entire 8.Armee is still not mobilized. It's only a seven turn scenario, for crying out loud.

Granted that I'm a bit focused on this right now because I'm reading about this campaign and playing out a good bit of it via Tiller's East Prussia '14. Unfortunately the way this campaign is set up robs my of any desire to play it. I guess I'll give the larger "historical" campaign a try in the hope that the compromises are a bit less distracting.

Agreed.  The Tannenberg scenario in WWI Gold was set up the same way.  My suspicion is that they copied that setup here.

Using the railroad to shuttle Hindenburg's army to engage the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies, in sequence, on the same turn (as explained in the tutorial) helps.  That's a nice feature actually. 

Yes, that strategy from the tutorial works. I'm just put off that the deployments and mobilization for the campaign are so inaccurate.

And did I see Scheer as admiral of the High Seas Fleet in 1914? Maybe only a minor point.

Just FYI, the new patch is nearing the end of beta (it's in build 7). It included a lot of changes but the biggest are below. I think these will address the problems of trench loss and MTSG issues expressed here:

"Gameplay (4 entries)
Grand Headquarter can have more armies.
TrenchLevel memory: If you have at least 50% military control, you can get the previous trenches of the region!
Improved supply in-stack distribution
Stacks helping others through MTSG will be placed back in their original region, even if in retreat. Posture will be defensive, not passive.
RC7: Stacks assaulting a structure and ordered to retreat will simply stop the attack."

Quote from: mikeck on October 07, 2014, 07:25:03 PM
Just FYI, the new patch is nearing the end of beta (it's in build 7). It included a lot of changes but the biggest are below. I think these will address the problems of trench loss and MTSG issues expressed here:

"Gameplay (4 entries)
Grand Headquarter can have more armies.
TrenchLevel memory: If you have at least 50% military control, you can get the previous trenches of the region!
Improved supply in-stack distribution
Stacks helping others through MTSG will be placed back in their original region, even if in retreat. Posture will be defensive, not passive.
RC7: Stacks assaulting a structure and ordered to retreat will simply stop the attack."

Excellent.

The trench retention & MtSG stuff was much needed.

New patch released:
Fixes the "leaving trenches" issue

Following the release of To End All Wars last summer, the biggest Great War strategy game gets a huge update today! Thanks you the great feedbacks on the game, we have been able dig into the code to create a much improved overall experience for this already solid game. The patch includes a great number of fixes, such as some of the strange naval movements in the Atlantic Ocean, as well as balance changes, including the artillery rework. Further changes include the addition of new generals (with historical pictures!) as well as various AI logic improvements. All of this underlines the developers' continued support for To End All Wars in cooperation with the great community!

The patch will be downloaded automatically as soon as it is available via your Steam client.

Change History v1.01:

Gameplay
•   Grand Headquarter can have more armies.
•   TrenchLevel memory: If you have at least 50% military control, you can get the previous trenches of the region!
•   Improved supply in-stack distribution
•   Stacks helping others through MTSG will be placed back in their original region, even if in retreat. Posture will be defensive, not passive.
•   Stacks assaulting a structure and ordered to retreat will simply stop the attack.

Interface & engine
•   Decision cost added instantly to interface.
•   Fixed negative display loss in resources.
•   Fixed reversed battle plans effect display
•   Fixed bullets display in cityscape
•   Message panel opens on scenario start (allows seeing first red pop up)
•   Fixed resources costs display issue (gui game options)
•   Fixed crash in stack panel
•   Added back random variation in display loss
•   Commander in Chief indicator shown in Stack panel (in yellow and in tooltip on unit)
•   Music sound volume can now be tweaked (yeah!) - need editing a file though:
•   you can alter music volume by adding a value between 20 and 100 in UserInterface.opt
•   inoMusicVolume = 60 // music volume, default is 60
•   Tooltips are shown in hosting if battle report or planner visible
•   Can see up to 20 nation tags in recruit panel
•   Regions list show ammo amounts only in the supply column
•   Supply filter (2) improved
•   Fixed railpool value disappearing if at the low level
•   Flag shown during an ongoing battle will be the one of the Commander in chief.
•   Fixed a display glitch in message panel
•   Battle planner improvements:
o   Day of battle shown
o   Colored, more detailed battle plans description with advice
o   Terrain tooltip shown on terrain icon
•   Up to 3 leaders (the most important ones) per side shown, with tooltip indicating their command
•   % of your troops (and number of elements) in infantry, cavalry, artillery, tank. Same for the enemy.
•   Most preeminent posture shown for you and enemy. If low cohesion, special indicator.
•   In Ledger, Unit List, units under construction are now shown as fixed.
•   Enlarged Event window for better readability
•   New option (Main Menu/Options/Media Tab) to get back the old postures/ROE buttons
•   Equipment captured during battle traced in turn history
•   Can't enter anymore (and erroneously) in structures not designed to handle sieges
•   When doing drag&drop, name of over region appears
•   Added 2 moddings options for script command AlterCuSubUnit : SetSupplyPerc & SetAmmoPerc
•   Can open saved game folder in Load Game Window, if doing a ctrl-click on the game icon
•   Fixed a display bug in region list leading to false infos
•   Ammo trains gauge now displays ... ammos!
•   Innate supply production of a region is now shown in the first structure tooltip when checking structures by ctrl-click.
•   Also corrected supply and assets production not taking into account loyalty/alignment
•   Tooltip background rectangle can have color and opacity changed by modding

Historical setting, data and events
•   Fix for weird off map naval moves in the Atlantic Ocean
•   Events to cover arrival of US forces in France.
•   Added AI events for key landings (Basra, Dardanelles, Riga Gulf, Finland)
•   Exported 2 new scenarios (West 1914, East 1914) for further testing – please provide feedback
•   Spanish translation included: many thanks to Picaron and Haplo for their precious help
•   German translation included: many thanks to Dominic and Gerd for their precious help
•   More ammos on units, revised artillery usage and power
•   Reintroduced the Baltic Shipping box as a shipping/commerce offmap box, for supplies and trade
•   17 new Russian generals (with their pictures) added + fix to 5 other Russian generals
•   Fixed missing RR links in southern Finland (Helsinki-Lovisa-Kotka)
•   Added Events for Japanese siege and assault on Tsingtau (only if Japan joins the entente)
•   Added Events for heavy warships 1914 under construction (GER, FRA, RUS and AUS)
•   Fixed double generals (Artamonov at start, Sarrail when Salonika option taken)
•   All 3*** leaders CombatDeathChance set back to 0, to avoid losing a GHQ commander from a stray bullet...
•   NavalBase / TradePort: SupplyWant & AmmoWant level increased (3 to 8)
•   Islands and off-map regions local supplies increased, should help fix Singapore or Helgoland issues
•   Army_GER_Riemann : file named erroneous, now fixed (added correctly named file)
•   Leader Savov (BUL) missing pictures added + Fixed errors in other portraits
•   Added more corps names for factions to avoid blank names when exceeding the 100 mark.

AI
•   SplitLargeStacks anti doomstack algorithm
•   AI better at buying replacements and units
•   AI Agents will be less predictable
•   Tweaked AI so that commerce ships stay much more in commerce box
•   AI less prone in retreating into structures in regions part of the front.
•   Initial AI agents removed after 4 turns
•   AI Agent infos on stack tooltip (debug mode only)
•   Less recombination per turn
•   AI help to construction of Anzac and Indian troops to Egypt
•   AI will focus less on Antwerp
•   AI will calculate fronts faster

Breaking the Deadlock expansion announced.

Quote
As the advancing central powers got bogged down across Europe and the troops were digging in to their trenches, a stalemate formed and the hopes of a quick victory were dashed on both sides. When all was quiet on the western front however, both the Central Powers and the Entente kept looking for opportunities gain the advantage elsewhere. Seeking out new allies in the Balkan region, launching campaigns in the Middle-East and aiming for breakthroughs on many different fronts. All this was done with only one goal in mind: Breaking the Deadlock.

To End All Wars: Breaking the Deadlock is the first expansion to the most detailed World War One wargame ever created. Adding 5 completely new scenarios, this expansion aims to vastly increase the content in-game, giving players the option to focus on specific campaigns in Italy, the Balkans and even the Middle-East. In addition, the expansion also allows for the grand campaign to be started in 1916, allowing him to seek out his own opportunities to overcome the stalemate and win the War to End all Wars.

Breaking the Deadlock comes with five new scenarios:

SERBIA 1915 - 12 turns

Following the British assaults on the Ottomans in 1915, the Central Powers seek to secure a rail line into Ottoman territory, in order to be able to assist them in sending aid to their struggling ally. As a result,  a new major offensive was launched against Serbia and this time the small Serbian nation is also attacked from the Bulgarian front.

RUMANIA 1916  - 30 turns

Witnessing several hardships of the Central Powers in 1916, the Romanian government considered that now was the time to join the Russians and seize Transylvania. The Romanian army was in high spirits and would be able to quickly deal with the only Austrian army in the area, but how long would it last until German reinforcements would join the fight?

CAPORETTO 1917 - 8 turns

This small auctioned-packed scenario takes place in northern Italy, where a combined Central force sought to deal a decisive blow to the Italian army, forcing a breakthrough and taking them out of the war. The Italian 2nd Army was ill-prepared to deal with the offensive, but military help from their allies was underway.

PALESTINE 1917-1918 - 24 turns

After the Gallipoli Campaign of 1915, veterans were dispatched to the Middle-East on each side, forming the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) for the British, and the Fourth Army in Palestine for the Ottomans, to fight for the Sinai Peninsula. In 1917, the British had moved into Ottoman territory, where they suffered two defeats at the Battles of Gaza. The Brits were determined to push on however and a new offensive was about to take place.

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/557/details/To.End.All.Wars:.Breaking.the.Deadlock

Huh, very interesting. The Palestine one could be a fun time. I'll buy it.  O0

Quote from: panzerde on August 30, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
I'm not sure that I'm ready to throw in the towel on this game yet, ...

  I threw in the towel on Civil War 2 -- I just couldn't stop the Confederates from migrating north and dying slowly in the hills of Pennsylvania.
I had Richmond and was cleaning up the Mississippi, so it was getting kind of depressing.  In the end I've given up on every Ageod game I've ever played except for Rise of Prussia.

  Meanwhile, back in To end all Wars:  I'm having fun as the Russians so far. (It's still August)

IS this game any good? I have World War 1 Centennial Edition which I really liked and TEAW seems less developped... has someone tried both?

That's a really subjective question. I love AGEODS games. After the latest patch, I think the game does a good job of replicating the stagnant warfare. There is a lot more to do (than WW1) relating to supply, army reorganization and there are a ton of events and actions you can choose. I find it a far more "fun" game than WW1 gold. That said, I think WW1 gold is a better "simulation" of the war in terms of planning grand offenses and tech. But yes, it is a good game patched

If you have never liked AGEOD games,  then there's no reason why you would like this

Quote from: kassdhal on February 13, 2015, 06:04:56 PM
IS this game any good? I have World War 1 Centennial Edition which I really liked and TEAW seems less developped... has someone tried both?

I have both. They are at different scales. Centennial Edition is played at the Army level, whereas TEAW plays at the Divisional/Corps level.

Oooh...Rumania...

Quote from: Boggit on February 13, 2015, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: kassdhal on February 13, 2015, 06:04:56 PM
IS this game any good? I have World War 1 Centennial Edition which I really liked and TEAW seems less developped... has someone tried both?

I have both. They are at different scales. Centennial Edition is played at the Army level, whereas TEAW plays at the Divisional/Corps level.

Thanks :)
I think WW1CE is really good as it is, so I'll probably pass on this one then

Now that a little time has gone by, how do people feel about the expansion?

I'm considering throwing the Matrix coupon at it, but I still haven't gotten around to playing the base game yet.

I love what Ageod tries to do (apart from their combat resolution), but they're a very small shop and they seem always to have too many irons in the fire and not enough resources to completely execute their projects. 

I'm a compulsive collector of WW I games.  France '14 is my favorite, Steam and Iron is very, very good,  I rather like Strategic Command Breakthrough (with or without my graphics mods), Commander Great War is ok but not exciting, and I've never been able to get comfortable with the combat resolution system in WW I Gold and the probably superior WW I CE (suspect that the quirky combat system in those two games has more to do with simulating a boardgame combat resolution system than what was actually happening on the ground -- the thing that turned me off to Avalon Hill combat resolution tables 50+ years ago and made me fall in love with Ty Bomba's approach to designing wargames, even when I didn't like the end result).

[I'm not completely comfortable with the Squad Battles system, but First World War is very interesting.  I haven't played East Prussia '14 yet because I want to overhaul my France '14 mod first and I'll do East Prussia at the same time (being forced to stare at hex grids all the time does bad things to immersion).  My original plan was to work on those after I finish my Peninsular War mod, but I'm temporarily burned out on Napoleonics and I'm not going to have an easy time adapting it to one of my mods. ]

Yeah, I'm leaning towards getting this with the sale but there are other tempting choices as well.

Quote from: Philippe on April 03, 2015, 12:30:04 PM
I rather like Strategic Command Breakthrough (with or without my graphics mods)

Any chance you can post some screenshots of you graphic mods with a download link?

All of those mods are at the Battlefront repository.



For WW I, check out the three Marsden Hartley mods.  I use a painting by Marsden Hartley instead of screenshots.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=40&orderby=2&page=3



If you're interested in WW II you might look at the Storm over Europe Historical flags mod for the same game (screenshots in the post). 

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=40&orderby=2&page=4



There's also a mod for Assault on Democracy called World at War Historical Flags

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=55

There is an wilder and more advanced version of that mod sitting on my computer that I rather like the looks of, but I'll need to find time to play about fifteen turns of the game to test out one of its (minor) features.  I'm also struggling to find a new way to represent some of the 2D Nato-style symbols.  The problem I'm having is with the crossed rifle symbol for infantry, and it has more to do with not having fully grown into my new computer than anything else (drawing thick diagonal lines that don't look jagged).  I'm reluctant to finish the mod on my old computer, but I may have to. I really like my ship and airplane symbols, and it's annoying not to use them.

Quote from: Philippe on April 03, 2015, 12:30:04 PM
Now that a little time has gone by, how do people feel about the expansion?

I'm considering throwing the Matrix coupon at it, but I still haven't gotten around to playing the base game yet.

I love what Ageod tries to do (apart from their combat resolution), but they're a very small shop and they seem always to have too many irons in the fire and not enough resources to completely execute their projects. 

I'm a compulsive collector of WW I games.  France '14 is my favorite, Steam and Iron is very, very good,  I rather like Strategic Command Breakthrough (with or without my graphics mods), Commander Great War is ok but not exciting, and I've never been able to get comfortable with the combat resolution system in WW I Gold and the probably superior WW I CE (suspect that the quirky combat system in those two games has more to do with simulating a boardgame combat resolution system than what was actually happening on the ground -- the thing that turned me off to Avalon Hill combat resolution tables 50+ years ago and made me fall in love with Ty Bomba's approach to designing wargames, even when I didn't like the end result).

[I'm not completely comfortable with the Squad Battles system, but First World War is very interesting.  I haven't played East Prussia '14 yet because I want to overhaul my France '14 mod first and I'll do East Prussia at the same time (being forced to stare at hex grids all the time does bad things to immersion).  My original plan was to work on those after I finish my Peninsular War mod, but I'm temporarily burned out on Napoleonics and I'm not going to have an easy time adapting it to one of my mods. ]

I'm not particularly interested in WWI, but France '14 is such a fine game that I gave To End All Wars a try.  I even got the expansion.  I did not find that either TEAW or the expansion held my interest despite all my best efforts.

Sorry if this all sounds irrational, but that's the way I play.

Just saw this mod which looks pretty good

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39807-To-End-All-Wars-Mod-Ultimate-Enhancement-Mod

^This mod looks really good.  Thanks for sharing.   O0