To End All Wars - First Impressions

[bob.]

Yeah, the AI doesnt really capitalize on its strength advantage. It is really easy to retreat back. And Russia is so huge! No important city actually fell yet (turn 12). The humongous railway capacity I have every turn allows me to move troops back with easy, my army is still intact apart from one army and a few corps that got destroyed in Kovno.

The Serbians meanwhile can advance, I have chosen a careful advance and only taken a few Austrian provinces but Festung Peterwardein fell, so Belgrade seems to be safe for the moment. I have a continous front line from Montenegro to Bazias with entrenched Serbians.


It was infuriating to see after turn 5 the losses: Central Powers 100.000, Eastern Entente 200.000, Western Entente: 5.000
THANKS FRANCE FOR HONOURING OUR TREATY WHERE WE WOULD BOTH ATTACK GERMANY AT THE SAME TIME TO DIVIDE THEIR FORCES!

But now it has changed, the Germans seem to have railed a lot of their forces back to the French border and there seem to be really large border "skirmishes" there. No territory actually changed hands, but now 150.000 WE forces have died. I don't really know for what gain. But hey, we're talking about WW1 here!

I think I will restart the game with huge AI bonuses. Maybe that will help them a little more.

[Tamas]

Yeah, the AI doesnt really capitalize on its strength advantage. It is really easy to retreat back. And Russia is so huge! No important city actually fell yet (turn 12). The humongous railway capacity I have every turn allows me to move troops back with easy, my army is still intact apart from one army and a few corps that got destroyed in Kovno.

The Serbians meanwhile can advance, I have chosen a careful advance and only taken a few Austrian provinces but Festung Peterwardein fell, so Belgrade seems to be safe for the moment. I have a continous front line from Montenegro to Bazias with entrenched Serbians.


It was infuriating to see after turn 5 the losses: Central Powers 100.000, Eastern Entente 200.000, Western Entente: 5.000
THANKS FRANCE FOR HONOURING OUR TREATY WHERE WE WOULD BOTH ATTACK GERMANY AT THE SAME TIME TO DIVIDE THEIR FORCES!

But now it has changed, the Germans seem to have railed a lot of their forces back to the French border and there seem to be really large border "skirmishes" there. No territory actually changed hands, but now 150.000 WE forces have died. I don't really know for what gain. But hey, we're talking about WW1 here!

I think I will restart the game with huge AI bonuses. Maybe that will help them a little more.

It is not that easy for the Germans to capitalise on their strength advantage with such big territory to cover. At least that has been my experience going Russia First as Central Powers.

[bob.]

It is not that easy for the Germans to capitalise on their strength advantage with such big territory to cover. At least that has been my experience going Russia First as Central Powers.

Yeah, I understand that. It's more about the fact that they moved hundreds of thousands of troops to an area where one army would have sufficed and never really attacked the most sensible location - Warsaw!

[02Pilot]

I've only just scratched the surface of the game, but the discussion immediately above raises a question: Why is the player told which war plans all the other major powers have selected? It seems something that the player should have to deduce, adding to the fog of war, particularly for the Central Powers. After all, if I know from Turn One that France has chosen an aggressive strategy and Russia a defensive one, that has potentially significant effects. Shouldn't players be forced to evaluate the situation on their own rather than being handed an unrealistically perfect strategic intelligence assessment?

[Ace]

Every country intelligence had a rough knowledge about other country plans.

[HerrDan]

I've only just scratched the surface of the game, but the discussion immediately above raises a question: Why is the player told which war plans all the other major powers have selected? It seems something that the player should have to deduce, adding to the fog of war, particularly for the Central Powers. After all, if I know from Turn One that France has chosen an aggressive strategy and Russia a defensive one, that has potentially significant effects. Shouldn't players be forced to evaluate the situation on their own rather than being handed an unrealistically perfect strategic intelligence assessment?

I think it's ok as it is. All the sides had an idea about most of the enemies planning in case of war, and after little time it would be obvious what the other side was aiming, still that doesn't mean I know exactly where and when they are going to attack, besides it's a plus to immersion.

[fred zeppelin]

Why is the player told which war plans all the other major powers have selected? It seems something that the player should have to deduce, adding to the fog of war, particularly for the Central Powers.

I just try really hard to not read those messages.

[02Pilot]

I'm by no means an expert on Great Power military intelligence estimates in this period, but I have read several of the relevant texts (among them Paul Kennedy's War Plans of the Great Powers, Ernest May's Knowing One's Enemies, and Terence Zuber's The Real German War Plan) and do not recall getting the impression that any side had the level of detailed understanding of their opponents' war plans that a player gets from these messages. In fact, there were apparently some rather significant gaps in their knowledge and some serious misapprehensions about where major formations would be located at the outbreak of war.

Personally, I don't find it adds to immersion; to my point of view, it detracts. The opening stages of a war - any war - is characterized by uncertainty and confusion. I would suggest that peeling that away by artificially improving the player's understanding of events undermines the immersive nature of the game.

[HerrDan]

I just try really hard to not read those messages.

Good point...

[Taciturn Scot]

Well, I have to say that this game is absolutely HUGE! I've just been looking through the CP set-up positions for the historical campaign and I can tell that it's going to take a lot of time to get a handle on what's good to do and what's not at the start. I'll stick with the historical campaign for the time being until I really know what works before going on to alternative set-ups.

Now, the sheer size of this game begs at least one one-front campaign to help players to swallow it in reasonably easy stages. I'm not really a big fan of the small scenarios although they do help to give you some idea what to do at the start of the game in Eastern Prussia and Serbia for example. I hope it won't be too long before we get a one-front campaign to play with. Either front will do for me but my preference would be Western Front first

A 1914 start is, of course, what would be expected but it's also the most ambitious to pull off as it requires the CP AI to be able to do a good job driving through Belgium and handle the transition from mobile operations to the static front. 1916 would have been a better start as the fronts are both well defined and a lot of interesting equipment starts appearing.

[Ace]

Until one front Campaign is release, I would advise to try game concepts playing Russia. They have less units to manage, and virtually nothing to do with their Navy bottled up in ports.

[animalshadow]

Finally, yesterday I've tried it for about 4 hours playing as Western Entente. That's brilliant!
I like how naval warfare is implemented in this game, it really feels that navy plays as big role as ground warfare.
That was really surprising to see how mobile warfare step by step going into trench warfare, didn't expected that this will be so natural.
Got lot of emotions yesterday and looking like will have much more later.

What's disappointing is that you have a lot of units under your control and don't have proper OOB/Hierarchy to manage such big forces.
Would be nice to see some tab where you can see all units with C&C lines, this would really ease unit management.

Personally, best of wargames about WW1 so far.

[Kensai]

Personally, best of wargames about WW1 so far.

That's good to know. If you have bought this game on Steam and have some time to spare, please do review it as well!
I am really wondering how the game is faring so far given that it has been quite a smooth release, generally.

[animalshadow]

That's good to know. If you have bought this game on Steam and have some time to spare, please do review it as well!
I am really wondering how the game is faring so far given that it has been quite a smooth release, generally.

Already did it yesterday

[ERISS]

Every country intelligence had a rough knowledge about other country plans.

But sometimes it is not enough. See the next war, and the start of invasion of France...

[Templer]

Still my first impression.
I like the cover picture very well this time. It affects adult and suggests a 'challenging' experience.
I also like the music selection.

[wodin]

Some aspects I do like. Love the detailed reports and chrome you can read through at the end of each turn. I also like the combat and all the modifiers. However as a game supposedly being about WW1 I have to say WW1Gold comes out well ontop. WW1Gold mechanics which changed from movement warfare to static was perfect. A game covering the whole of WW1 really needs to have two games in there one with mechanics for move warfare and the other for static. End of War fails here I think.

Also I found the tutorial to be terrible and the manual was OK but still tough on someone new to the engine.

All in all though I really do love some aspects WW1Gold is still for me the WW1 Grand Strat game to beat. I wish WW1Gold had the events box and the detailed combat that this has though.

[fred zeppelin]

All in all though I really do love some aspects WW1Gold is still for me the WW1 Grand Strat game to beat.

Agreed. WWI Gold is a richer experience on the strategic side. That doesn't make EAW a bad game at all - it just doesn't aspire to be as deep a game on the strategic side, instead emphasizing AGEOD's tried and true war game engine. In that sense, EAW is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Again, that's not a bad thing necessarily - EAW is just a different game than I had hoped it would be.

I wish WW1Gold had the events box and the detailed combat that this has though.

While the EAW combat model is more like a traditional war game, I do have a fondness for the hands-on approach to battles in WWIG. There's just something about sending units, one by one, "over the top," that just perfectly fits this era, at least for my tastes. While EAW has a great wealth of data to sift through after each battle, I just prefer the ability to actually influence the battles while they happen. Just a matter of taste.

[Taciturn Scot]

EAW is just a different game than I had hoped it would be.

Then it is most fortunate for you that you can continue to play WW1 Gold to your heart's content for a considerable time to come. For me, there is no going back to WW1 Gold. It is the only 'AGEOD' sold game that I have uninstalled from my hard drive. TEAW is the future for me.

While the EAW combat model is more like a traditional war game, I do have a fondness for the hands-on approach to battles in WWIG.

I don't happen to think there was a lot of depth to the old combat resolution. It was fun while it was the only game in town but not anymore. For some folks, the old will be better.

WW1Gold mechanics which changed from movement warfare to static was perfect.

Indeed, it was. But TEAW uses technology to freeze or free up the fronts. A different approach but it still does the same thing.

[fred zeppelin]

Then it is most fortunate for you that you can continue to play WW1 Gold to your heart's content for a considerable time to come. For me, there is no going back to WW1 Gold. It is the only 'AGEOD' sold game that I have uninstalled from my hard drive. TEAW is the future for me.

I tried off and on for years to play WWI Gold but never was able to make it even to Christmas 1914 because of crashes and performance issues, so I finally uninstalled it too. It's been only since WWI CE came out recently that I've actually been able to play the game - so it's really a brand new game for me. And, you're right, I am enjoying it.

But I do plan to play EAW, too. I've said here and elsewhere that it's the best pure WWI war game available. I believe that. But, for me at least, it doesn't offer the mix of strategy I'd hoped for. Again, I don't believe, and have never said, that makes it a bad game.

[Taciturn Scot]

it's the best pure WWI war game available.

I would agree with that too and that's why WW1 Gold is finished for me. The actual war game is by far the most important aspect of the fun of playing for me and, as we both agree, TEAW's war game is better than WW1 CE's.

WW1 Gold was a great game too. It was my very first AGEOD game because I was looking for a deep immersive WW1 wargame. But it's had its day for me if not for you so let's both move on and play the games we enjoy so much.

[Templer]

Something that no longer even notice because it is so natural for AGEOD games...the artwork.
Again, exceptionally beautiful!

[Ganbatte]

Hello,

I own the game since the release of 26/08/2014.
I'm still for hours on studying the game.
You have to grow with the game.
A great game title.
I have only played 2 rounds,
I still check out everything.
The variety of opportunities and events,
just great.
A game titles that inspires me.

Regards

Michael

[H Gilmer3]

Finally, yesterday I've tried it for about 4 hours playing as Western Entente. That's brilliant!
I like how naval warfare is implemented in this game, it really feels that navy plays as big role as ground warfare.
That was really surprising to see how mobile warfare step by step going into trench warfare, didn't expected that this will be so natural.
Got lot of emotions yesterday and looking like will have much more later.

What's disappointing is that you have a lot of units under your control and don't have proper OOB/Hierarchy to manage such big forces.
Would be nice to see some tab where you can see all units with C&C lines, this would really ease unit management.

Personally, best of wargames about WW1 so far.

Hi and welcome to the forums. Yes, I like the naval warfare as well. Of course, my naval warfare has been successful, so why would I complain?

[H Gilmer3]

Hello,

I own the game since the release of 26/08/2014.
I'm still for hours on studying the game.
You have to grow with the game.
A great game title.
I have only played 2 rounds,
I still check out everything.
The variety of opportunities and events,
just great.
A game titles that inspires me.

Regards

Michael

Hi Michael. I feel the same. Check out my AAR for ideas and hints. I might not be able to provide them except that you might see what I'm doing and think, "That's NOT what I think we should do!"

[Chuske]

Not getting EAW yet due to time/money constraints but hope to in future. I did in the past play "Commander The Great War" and wondered if anyone on here who also played that game and has now bought EAW could comment on how the two games compare? Thanks

[Nico165]

Not getting EAW yet due to time/money constraints but hope to in future. I did in the past play "Commander The Great War" and wondered if anyone on here who also played that game and has now bought EAW could comment on how the two games compare? Thanks

Answer for the same question on steam forum :

I would say there are only two common points : both are set in WW1 and both are published by Slitherine.

Other than that... Commander is a fun, fast game where you can play the whole WW1 in one or two evenings. Interface is very good, lot of things are abstracted so it is very easy to learn. Also more polished because it has receveid a few patches in 2 years.

To End All Wars is the kind of game you have to invest a lot of time into just to learn it. If you have already played another AGEOD title it will help. But be ready for a steep learning curve. Once you have learned enough, it becomes very enjoyable and is a very profound game, especially on the military side of things.

More to read here : http://steamcommunity.com/app/312360/discussions/0/35222218723440280/

[Owl]

Hi Cuske,

I've also played Commander The Great War before and enjoyed it. CTGW and EAW are two very different kind of games, in my experience, first and foremost due to the usage of hexes vs provinces. I've finished my campaign on CTGW in around 15 hours, while you will not be able to finish your campaign in EAW at that pace I think. CTGW is also more streamlined - I wouldn't necessarily say it is simple, but the amount of units is abstracted on a more board-game sort of level as you will know, while EAW is far more in-depth, differentiating between various different kinds of artillery, infantry and so on. In general CTGW is the more readily accessible and easily playable game (and the abstraction level helps for example with the Western Front actually becoming immobile more easily), while EAW is the deeper and longer experience that will require you to commit to learning some of its systems. Both are good at what they are doing, I think.

[Nico165]

CTGW and EAW are two very different kind of games, in my experience, first and foremost due to the usage of hexes vs provinces

One interesting thing : you dont see hexes in EAW, but count the number of neighboring provinces for each provinces

[H Gilmer3]

Not getting EAW yet due to time/money constraints but hope to in future. I did in the past play "Commander The Great War" and wondered if anyone on here who also played that game and has now bought EAW could comment on how the two games compare? Thanks

I would say there is "some" thought on strategy in the Commander Great War version. But as the Entente, you either have a unit or you don't. It's strength is 1-10 points (steps) and that's that. Here you can have strength of 253, or 491, or 712, or 1058, or 1254, and multiple units in regions. You have to worry about depots, and replacements, and scouting, and much, much more. Commander, you have those things but they are much more abstracted. If you want to replace strength in commander, you just select repair button and click unit you want to repair.

It's much more indepth, TEAW. Complexity on scale of 1 to 10, I'd give Commander a 3 or 4. I'd give this one an 8 or 9. Both good games, but this is much more complex and much more thought is needed. Both are good games, it is just what you want out of it. Do you want a good challenge that might take you 2-3 days to play? Then get Command, Great War. Do you want a challenge that takes 1 to 2 weeks of serious amount of playing? To End All Wars is what you would want.