To End All Wars released today

[Sir Slash]

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?

[Gusington]

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.

[Kushan]

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.

[Rayfer]

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.

[tgb]

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

Also 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.

[Gusington]

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

[Queeg]

^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.

[tgb]

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.

[Gusington]

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 :/

[panzerde]

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.

[Nefaro]

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.

[mikeck]

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

[panzerde]

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.

[bboyer66]

 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.

[Queeg]

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.