To End All Wars released today

[Queeg]

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. 

[Queeg]

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.   

[jomni]

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.

[jomni]

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?

[Queeg]

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.

[tgb]

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!

[Queeg]

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!

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?

[tgb]

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!

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.

[Tamas]

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

[tgb]

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

I didn't see that documented anywhere.

[Queeg]

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

That's odd.  Why?

[Nefaro]

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.

[Tamas]

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. :)

[Queeg]

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.

[Tamas]

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"  ;)