AGEOD Forums

The map appears to be very similar to the one used in World War I Gold and World War I Centennial Edition, to the point of including some of the geographical distortions that came from the original (the one before Gold) weird map orientation.

Are there differences of substance in the way the game works, and to what extent are the changes cosmetic?

And is naval warfare the same in the new game as in the old game (i.e. does it include any of the features of Random's naval mods), and do overseas troops in the African colonies behave in an historically credible manner?

Having bought the original, the Gold, and the Centennial, it's hard to be enthusiastic about spending yet again on this if it's just going to be more of the same with different window dressing.

For a start, TEAW uses the standard system of unit organization in other titles that World War One didn't use. Also, you don't control the flow of units into and out of battles, but you do select plans of attack and defense.

EAW is a "standard" AGEOD title, in that the engine used is the same one used in CW2, AJE, RUS, etc. WW1-Gold/Centennial used a very different (and heavily modified) engine.

There are some similarities, but it's a very different game.

Aside from parts of the map, where some geographical data from the old World War One were used, I would say that on the contrary everything else is different. All the graphics and portraits are brand new, all the gameplay is based on the internal AGEOD engine.

Centennial edition is not even sold by us by the way.

On my earlier point, we have drawn on inspiration from several WW1 titles, books and references so there may well be similarities with some of our older games and other similar titles such as CTGW. There are not too many ways to vary the borders and other factors that existed at the start of World War 1, but our main focus has been on the improvement to the GUI in the AGE engine, a general graphical upgrade. Our main intention was to use the AGE engine to its strengths to create a operational game that dealt with the complexities of trench warfare, and the innovation of airpower. We also focused a lot of attention on our new diplomacy and research systems to create what we think is a wholly unique experience for gamers in this setting.

Philippe wrote:Are there differences of substance in the way the game works, and to what extent are the changes cosmetic?

Phillippe

They are, indeed, different games. While EAW borrows some concepts and art from WWIG, it plays very differently. EAW is much more similar to AGEOD's other games; it basically plays like CW2 tweaked for the WWI era. That's not a bad thing; CW2 is a great game. One of the things I most like about WWIG, however, is that it's not really like any other game; it's completely unique.

It's still early, of course, but I am enjoying EAW. It's easily the most polished game AGEOD has released, and I think they've done a nice job of tweaking the CW2 engine to model some of the nuances of WWI. I still want to see how trench warfare plays out (I'm a bit concerned things will be more fluid than they ought to be) and I haven't yet played enough to see how things like Research, Politics and Submarine Warfare play out. But I'm confident that EAW already is one of the two best WWI games on the market.

There are things that I prefer in WWIG, however:

First, and foremost, I prefer the hands-on approach to combat in WWIG. There's just something about selecting and sending individual units "over the top" that just works for me. I never tire of it. The EAW model, like that in CW2, is highly detailed but mostly a spectator affair. The addition of battle plans certainly helps, but it's still a hands-off model. My guess is that if you really enjoy poring over the data after each battle, then there's plenty to love in the battle reports in EAW, but I'm not a big fan of having to look too deeply under the hood to figure out what happened. For me anyway, the WWIG battles just are more interesting.

Second, and related, the unit data in EAW is more obscure than in WWIG. Units in EAW have a macro "power" number that is both of central importance and completely indecipherable - it just is; accept it and move on. Unit data in WWIG is much more straightforward but no less complex - I can look at a rested 5.4.2 elite unit and immediately know just from the unit figures, background color and flag exactly how it will compare to another unit. I don't even have to stop and think about it. In that respect, I think WWIG is a model of conciseness and clarity.

Third, I really like the way reserves work in WWIG, especially once the war enters the trench warfare phase. Reserves are committed at the Army or even GHQ level, which means that battles play out more focused on fronts than individual provinces. And with breakthroughs and counter-attacks, you're forced to think and plan across multiple provinces in a single battle. And in trench warfare especially, combat tends to be brutal at the point of emphasis but without breaking the cohesion of the front. Combat in EAW, like CW2 (and even BOA2), is still fundamentally province-focused. I understand the rule that units with a general can MTSG, but the effect is still to aggregate power in a single province. What happens after that, though? Do they go back to their assigned provinces, thus maintaining the overall line? I'm not sure, but I'm skeptical that it will work as it should or as well as WWIG. The reserve model in WWIG, for my tastes anyway, does a wonderful job of simulating WWI combat.

Fourth, so far anyway, the Diplomacy game in WWIG is much more interesting. You seem to have far more diplomatic options in WWIG and can achieve some ahistorical, yet plausible, results (which some may not like). EAW seems more limiting. I was surprised, for example, to discover that diplomacy is impossible in the July 1914 turn of the Grand Campaign - I would have thought that's exactly what you should be doing that turn. In the Historical Campaign, things seem to be largely deterministic, at least early on - for example, Great Britain will join the Entente or not apparently based on factors completely beyond your control. You get the Gold to Turkey/Ships to Turkey events, but apparently not as choices, but as a predetermined result. There is no Diplomatic Poker option (at least that I saw) for Germany as in WWIG. Again, this is pretty consistent with CW2 - events are there but not as robust as they could be - which reflects the fact that the core AGEOD game engine has been tweaked, not overhauled, to portray WWI. Which makes EAW fun, but not especially fresh, at least for my tastes.

I obviously need to spend more time with EAW, and I'm sure they'll improve it over time - though whether they will really change the game in any major way seems unlikely. But, to answer your original question, there still are many reasons to play WWIG (and WWICE if you're lucky enough to have it) - EAW will compliment the earlier game but doesn't really try to replace it.

Thanks to all for the illuminating replies. What I'm getting from all of this is that TEAW plays like an Ageod-engine game, whereas World War I Centennial Edition and World War I Gold do not.

There were things in the WW I Gold/World War I Centenial Edition that I never cared for. I didn't like not being able to play out the opening moves of August and September 1914 because the system wouldn't let me set war plans on both sides to historical. People who don't play wargames often complain about being handcuffed to history, but what they don't understand is that one of the reasons hard core wargamers want their games to follow history as closely as possible is precisely so they can explore what-ifs. In this case one of the great what-ifs of history is whether the failure of von Schlieffen's wheel and its subsequent defeat at the battle of the Marne was due to poor tactical handling of the outer right flank. If one of the sides doesn't use the historical plan, you'll never know if you could have done any better.

The other thing about WW I Gold/ World War I Centennial Edition that bothered me was the length of the turns, especially during the opening months. I'm a big fan of simultaneous movement, and have been using it in one form or another since playing Avalon Hill's 1914 back in 1969. But in that game turns were only two days long, which is about the amount of time that would elapse before you realized that your opponent hadn't moved his troops to where you had expected him to. The problem in WW I Gold/ World War I Centennial Edition is that it seemed too easy for armies to go whizzing past each other, and be thirty or forty kilometers inside enemy territory before anyone noticed. The two week (and eventually one month) turns seemed far too long to handle simultaneous movement properly. Two week or one month IGOUGO (sequential) turns wouldn't be much better, but at least the wheel around the Ardennes would have ended up behaving as it did historically. I'm currently looking at both Strategic Command WW I and Strategic Command WW I Breakthrough, and am pleasantly surprised at how well the Schlieffen wheel works in that system.

I personally don't care for introducing pseudo-tactical elements into strategic games, because they tend to degenerate into games about game systems, rather than about the historical situation. Ageod games already seem to be too fond of acting out their game system rather than showing the final result (sometimes the simplest combat systems are the most realistic), but I believe a move away from World War I Centennial Edition's boardgame-style combat resolution mechanic is an improvement. So while Fred likes the tactical routine in World War I Centennial Edition, I tend to dislike it. One of the reasons may be that I play John Tiller's France 1914 (and as of a few days ago East Prussia 1914), a battalion level game designed by Ed Williams that not only shows you in pornographic detail what actually happened in the first months of World War I, but that really gives you a sense of what it means to move large bodies of men around a (relatively) modern battlefield (some have even suggested that it is a perfect simulator for Napoleonic warfare). Nothing approaches the frustration and joy of discovering that your pre-planned artillery barrage is pounding your own troops to dust, or that after finally getting one of your reserve corps moving down a back road from your left backfield to your far right, you needed it on your left flank after all and have to turn your marching columns around, leading them down roads now choked with traffic jams of artillery trains and baggage wagons.

One thing that disturbs me about TEAW is the surprising lack of scenarios. I make this comment from the perspective of comparing it to Battlefront (and Fury Software's) Strategic Command WW I: The Great War and Strategic Command WW I: Breakthrough. Those games have well over thirty scenarios between them, including scenarios covering Gallipoli, Palestine, Von Lettow-Vorbeck's campaign in East Africa, the Franco-Prussian War, one of the Balkan Wars, and what may be the best strategic game for the European theater of WW II on the market. There are also free downloads of scenarios covering the Anglo-Japanese conquest of Tsingtao in 1914 and the Russo-Japanese War. Even Commander: The Great War seems to have a scenario covering each year of the war, though that game, however good, is not strictly comparable because it tends to be a beer and pretzels game.

Philippe wrote:I personally don't care for introducing pseudo-tactical elements into strategic games, because they tend to degenerate into games about game systems, rather than about the historical situation.... So while Fred likes the tactical routine in World War I Centennial Edition, I tend to dislike it. One of the reasons may be that if I play John Tiller's France 1914 (and as of a few days ago East Prussia 1914), a battalion level game designed by Ed Williams that not only shows you in pornographic detail what actually happened in the first months of World War I, but that really gives you a sense of what it means to move large bodies of men around a (relatively) modern battlefield (some have even suggested that it is a perfect simulator for Napoleonic warfare).

It's definitely a matter of taste. I just find the combat model in WWIG/CE to be a nice compromise between EAW, where combat is mostly a pure spectator sport, and the Tiller games, which can feel too much like getting run over by a truck full of NATO counters.