Back to this game after some time...

[paulk205]

Although, I appear as a newbie, I've been around for a while. My old profile (pk205) is associated with a long-dead email address and I've forgotten the password.

Anyway, I've come back to this game after a while and played it under the current patch with Random's Naval and Ascari mods enabled (nice work BTW). The game system is superb (under Army-by-Army), there are very few crashes (non-reproducible, generally after sieges), and really this could be a gem of a game in a period that is disgracefully ignored by games designers.

The problem is, predictably, the AI.

Under Army-by-Army activation mode (which is really the best way to enjoy the game, as it allows full enjoyment of the breakthroughs, reaction, and interception rules) the game is extremely stable and your own forces do what they're supposed to do, BUT the AI is ridiculously timid, even at full Aggressiveness settings. This is a huge shame.

Under WEGO the AI is aggressive enough, even too aggressive perhaps as it still goes for WW2-style deep penetrations which leave its armies isolated (things have improved there though over the years). The problem is that the game system is much buggier and less intuitive than A-by-A mode. It is very frequent to see armies not applying their movement orders and appear the next turn with the movement arrow still drawn but the army not having budged. This applies as much to rail and admin movement as to regular marching/attacking. There is also very often an extra siege phase in WEGO which feels like a bug: one at the end of normal combat as in A-by-A mode, and a second in the new round just before diplomacy. Even if it isn't a bug, it ruins the game as the besiegers get two bites of the cherry and fortresses fall much more quickly than they should (in the absence of Skoda 305s and Krupps 420s I mean).

This is by far the biggest problem still remaining. The AI still allows holes in its front for no reason, but even that is not an issue compared with its lack of aggressiveness. I played the Entente for a change under A-by-A (usually I always pick the CP, for the challenge) and although Germany picked Schlieffen, its armies parked outside Brussels in a haphazard pattern and barely budged afterwards.

The small bug with Turkey's tech screen causing a permanent -1EP investment if you click on it is still there. Turkey can't contribute in tech research at all (perhaps historically so), but why suffer a -1, and why only if you make the mistake of clicking the screen?

BTW, I would love it if there were the option for hotseat (human vs human) play.

[Shri]

Never played in Army-by-Army, found it unnecessarily complicated.

The WEGO errors are part of History- so many times, orders were given- which were not received and armies did not march etc.

As for the AI in WEGO it is very aggressive, suicidal assaults with RESERVE and MOBILISED Corps at times and not protecting flanks - all true.
As TURKEY and RUSSIA- you are not supposed to Research. Only Britain, France and Germany, Austria are supposed to research with Germany giving some subsidy to other countries (CP's).

As ALLIES game is easy- simply because you have read your history and know all those sideshows were useless and the most important thing is to knock out Germany on the western front.. Try some suicidal assaults in Salonika, Gallipoli, Mesopotamia etc as the British and lose 1/2 armies in the process to make it competitive also as Russians you need to lose 2/3 armies attacking Germany in total futility to make the game competitive and not attack Austria alone.

[Random]

I actually enjoy the 1915 Scenario (with the navies modified and corrected) since as the Allies you are already committed to Mesopotamia and Gallipoli and all the flanks on all the fronts are already closed. You're also subject to those nasty social issues like strikes and revolts right from the start.

I find that setting AI aggressiveness at 3-4 is best but have found that "Give AI More Tme" does not work as 'more time' often seems to stretch into infinity.

The small WW1G community seems split on the Army-by-Army or WEGO options. I personally prefer WEGO but the former certainly introduces a different dynamic to the game and I understand why it is popular.

-C

[paulk205]

I actually enjoy the 1915 Scenario (with the navies modified and corrected) since as the Allies you are already committed to Mesopotamia and Gallipoli and all the flanks on all the fronts are already closed. You're also subject to those nasty social issues like strikes and revolts right from the start.

I find that setting AI aggressiveness at 3-4 is best but have found that "Give AI More Tme" does not work as 'more time' often seems to stretch into infinity.

The small WW1G community seems split on the Army-by-Army or WEGO options. I personally prefer WEGO but the former certainly introduces a different dynamic to the game and I understand why it is popular.

-C

The problem I have with the later starts (1916 as CP is a lovely challenge) is the opening redeployment phase under which the AI moves its armies around and weakens its front. I played the 1916 scenario and did not move either offensives or forces. Both Verdun and the Austrian Strafexpedition versus Italy succeeded easily, as the AI had weakened those points of impact to ridiculous levels. I can buy Germany having a chance in Verdun if lucky and if they pressed their advantage early on (attacked on both banks of the Meuse etc), but Austria breaking through in the Trentino is silly.

BTW, I've only ever played SP but I would love a human opponent if PBEM or Hotseat were possible. Any ideas? I guess only strict turn based would work in this case, and then again interceptions and reactions don't work well in a traditional PBEM sense. The Multiplayer thing looks very strange and I've never tried it.

A-by-A gives a great WWI feel to it - generally non-communicating fronts (Russian NW and SW Fronts were notorious in their bad cooperation all through the war), and it allows feints to draw reserves away before one launches the big effort elsewhere. You generally get lots of passive or locally bickering fronts, and one big "show", with 2-3 armies cooperating - if your generals are any good.

[Random]

The problem I have with the later starts (1916 as CP is a lovely challenge) is the opening redeployment phase under which the AI moves its armies around and weakens its front. I played the 1916 scenario and did not move either offensives or forces. Both Verdun and the Austrian Strafexpedition versus Italy succeeded easily, as the AI had weakened those points of impact to ridiculous levels.

Points well taken but I think there is enough randomization in the initial response of the AI to make the 1915 and 1916 scenarios quite replayable while the political actions and events may vary the game considerably. These are a great strength in the WW1G system but there are still some issues with a few events and actions that can detract from the game.

I would love WW1G with a hotseat mode! My experience's with multi-player anything via the Internet; either live or PBEM have been discouraging enough so I have little interest in pursuing PBEM opponents. That said, I too impose house rules and some aspects of role-playing into my gaming. For example, Grand Offensive objectives will be selected partially by chance. For example in my current game as the Entente, several possible objective provinces and start-months are be listed after the November-December turn and the final objective and start date determined by die rolling after the January-February turn. This represents the high-level political conferences that featured in the Allies war effort but were conspicuously absent in the Central Powers.

-C

[Shri]

I actually enjoy the 1915 Scenario (with the navies modified and corrected) since as the Allies you are already committed to Mesopotamia and Gallipoli and all the flanks on all the fronts are already closed. You're also subject to those nasty social issues like strikes and revolts right from the start.

I find that setting AI aggressiveness at 3-4 is best but have found that "Give AI More Tme" does not work as 'more time' often seems to stretch into infinity.

The small WW1G community seems split on the Army-by-Army or WEGO options. I personally prefer WEGO but the former certainly introduces a different dynamic to the game and I understand why it is popular.

-C

1915 Scenario gives the CP a better chance than 1916, Reasons as below-

1. All artillery of CP (Germany is mfg, in 1914 you do not have enough money for this.
2. All units mfg (again not enough money)
3. Mackensen Offensive bound to succeed and Warsaw falls easily to Hutier
4. Gallipoli can be neutralised by Liman's Army easily.
5. Russians, Italians, French and British Offensives bound to fail.

With 1916, you have-
1. Rumania stabbing in the back
2. Brusilov Offensive
3. Forced to attack Verdun, big chance of heavy losses.
4. No major advantage in terms of Men/Guns.
5. Turks and Austrians ripe for mutiny.

[Shri]

Points well taken but I think there is enough randomization in the initial response of the AI to make the 1915 and 1916 scenarios quite replayable while the political actions and events may vary the game considerably. These are a great strength in the WW1G system but there are still some issues with a few events and actions that can detract from the game.

I would love WW1G with a hotseat mode! My experience's with multi-player anything via the Internet; either live or PBEM have been discouraging enough so I have little interest in pursuing PBEM opponents. That said, I too impose house rules and some aspects of role-playing into my gaming. For example, Grand Offensive objectives will be selected partially by chance. For example in my current game as the Entente, several possible objective provinces and start-months are be listed after the November-December turn and the final objective and start date determined by die rolling after the January-February turn. This represents the high-level political conferences that featured in the Allies war effort but were conspicuously absent in the Central Powers.

-C

The CP was Germany + Dependents, in contrast Allies were- Russia+ France+ UK, each strong on its own. The CP did whatever Falkenhyn and Ludendorff wished simply because they had to as all CP members were totally dependent on the Germans, look at History of all Offensives carried out by CP.. also top level Ottoman leadership was dominated by Germans. Machine Gun Squads, Navy, Coastal Guns and Heavy Artillery in Gallipoli, Serbia, Rumania were all German handled.
In contrast, Britain while supreme on sea was loath to concede inferiority on land to Russia and France, anyway Russia was too far away and Italy had its own goals.

[GLENN G]

This may be a stupid question but having played both the American Civil War and the Napoleonic game both are great when as a single player you can control the movements of both sides, I have been unable to do this for the World War One game, seem to be only to play one side and the AI plays the other, is there no way to play both or is this not in the game

Glenn

[Random]

This may be a stupid question but having played both the American Civil War and the Napoleonic game both are great when as a single player you can control the movements of both sides, I have been unable to do this for the World War One game, seem to be only to play one side and the AI plays the other, is there no way to play both or is this not in the game

Glenn

I do not know of any method to single-play both sides in WW1G.

-C

[GLENN G]

Thanks for the reply, looks like yet another Game thrown into the cupboard never to see light of day again, I'm fed up with games that are always telling you what to do all the time.

Glenn

[Random]

Thanks for the reply, looks like yet another Game thrown into the cupboard never to see light of day again, I'm fed up with games that are always telling you what to do all the time.

Glenn

Well, as I see it WW1G is something of a hybrid, not really an AGE-Engined game and clinging very closely to the La Grande Guerre board game. So some of the neat features found in other AGEOD games are not present. It had a horrible initial release, there were all sorts of issues with stability and some official reviewers panned it as an alpha product entirely unready for commercial sale and worse. However, the WW1 team performed a massive makeover and eventually released the [color="#FFA500"]Gold [/color]version but I suspect that the target audience had mostly moved on.

It's a shame as in my opinion WW1G has become outstanding; I have learned to love the game for what it is and what it does while tolerating its remaining issues. If there is another game out there that covers off as many of the salient features of the Great War as does WW1G, I am certainly unaware of it.

Calvinus, the developer has expended considerable effort fixing things and still shows up here to help assist Players' so I would not say that the game has been abandoned entirely or thrown into the cupboard. Besides, many of the aspects of the game are defined with user-configurable text and *.csv files and so tweaking the game to taste is merely a matter of doing.

-C

[paulk205]

This game is by far the best depiction of WW1 that I know. Granted, there are not too many of these around, other that Guns of August (a totally different conception, and a far less complex game) and the excellent WW1 scenarios of the Operational Art of War that however only deal with the military aspects of the war. This game system has a brilliant approach to the diplomatic/political game, and makes a very good attempt at the economic one as well. I find that the naval game (Random's excellent mod notwithstanding) is less well done, ditto for the U-Boat campaign that is too abstracted. The air game also feels like a total sideshow even in later war years, and the air interface is also quite clunky. But the land campaign system is excellent, particularly under Army-by-Army activation.

The computer game is now quite stable, and the problems with the map are a thing of the past. I'd love if Calvinus can help some more with the AI (correcting the problems that we mentioned in our post re: AI non-aggressiveness in A-by-A mode).

BTW, has anyone ever tried the Multiplayer mode? Is it worth investigating?

[Shri]

I find it hard to understand how much better can the studio have made the game (GOLD) esp. seeing the resources base of the studio and the limited target audience. It is not a mass product like FIFA series or NFS series and will only attract a certain historical bent, strategic thought player. It does not have first person action and really cannot have; you are more like-
LUDENDORFF or FOCH sitting in a cold dark room surrounded by a few telephones, large scale maps of sectors and several staff officers with plans for movement, attack, retreat jostling for favor.
Add to that you cannot actually see the combat for yourself and rely on conflicting reports from army commanders and intelligence.

Of course, there are some bugs and flaws, but the Developers have done a tremendous job in recreating the complexities.

As for AIR WAR- this is not WW2, hence- Air is secondary.
NAVAL- only use of the navy was to - BLOCKADE or Break the Blockade. Germany had a LUXURY fleet as said by some critics and it is more or less true, except for morale loss; loss of the fleet wouldn't have done great damage to GERMANY or CP.
U-BOAT-- Well shown maybe some random modifiers could be there but overall good. (loss of an odd capital ship or DD once in a while), 'RANDOM's good mod also allows Austria to build a few U-Boats making it even better and more historical.

[GLENN G]

I hear what you say but I think that there is a huge gap between Game players and Game makers, all I would like is the option to play American civil war or ww2 or ww1 games as I wish just give us the maps, troops, and equipment and let the Game player make it as easy or as hard as we wish, instead of being told no you can't do that or that's an illegal move, gets very frustrating at times. I love Military History, but there have been games that drove me mad like Midway or Sudden Strike that kept controlling the gamer all the time.

Glenn

[paulk205]

Well, after all this time I tried the 1916 scenario under A-by-A with the current patch as the CP again. There are too many EPs in Germany's treasury, and you can simply build everything - no "hard choices" here as in 1914. I guess this can be easily modded.

Nothing much has changed with respect to the AI. The initial redeployment phase is absolutely disastrous for it. My Verdun GO succeeded against almost no opposition - in fact the bombardment was enough to destroy the 2 corps the AI had left there. No main reserves were rushed in. This is ridiculous.

I did not move at all during the January move, waiting for the GO to open on the following turn and I left all my initial dispositions unchanged. The AI made 3 penny-packet attack on each turn (it won the March inititative roll) with 2 corps each on various areas of the West and Eastern front line with predictable results. It did not make an effort against Turkey at all. Romania entered the war in March, and just a single corps painted two hexes on the Bulgarian side. No move was made towards A-H.

This is a problem. I am not a programmer, but a WW1 algorithm during the firepower period seems to be easy enough for me: stay idle throughout the main fronts keeping the line as continuous as possible, mass huge quantities for the Grand Offensives, make those with overwhelming (as much as possible) weight, keeps lots of corps in reseve. Randomise with a couple of feints (with more than 2 corps each) on other parts of the line now and then to keep things honest. Use scripting for the peripheral fronts (Mesopotamia, Palestine, Romania) based on history. I mean, there are not many things the British could do after the end of the Dardanelles campaign other than steadily push forward . Vary perhaps by sending more force to one or the other front, but always try to attack with massive force. This is WW1 after all, this is what generals thought they needed to do.

The multiplayer game seems like it's an online thing, though there are predictably no players. I will look in the manual to see how this can be set up, and perhaps play "online" from the desktop against myself on the laptop. I want to truly test the game system which I suspect is excellent when a human is on the other side rather than an AI.

[Random]

German EP (and RP) levels for the 1916 Scenario are easy to adjust and can be found in the Nations.csv file of the ...DB\GoldScenarios\1916 folder.

The 1.08Q patch supports a PBEM option but have never attempted a PBEM game and there are some threads around that point to issues. Your Manual folder should include WW1_PBEM_Manual.pdf.

-C

[paulk205]

It seems like a very odd PBEM procedure, since both players must specify a live host. I imagine this is because the game is not really turn based, which is the obvious PBEM setup.

Is it possible to make the game "truly" turn based for the purpose of PBEM? That would eliminate reactions and interceptions I guess, but I really can't see any other way to make it like e.g. War In The Pacific, which has such a huge PBEM following.

[Random]

It seems like a very odd PBEM procedure, since both players must specify a live host. I imagine this is because the game is not really turn based, which is the obvious PBEM setup.

Is it possible to make the game "truly" turn based for the purpose of PBEM? That would eliminate reactions and interceptions I guess, but I really can't see any other way to make it like e.g. War In The Pacific, which has such a huge PBEM following.

I would think not since the game requires some player interaction in land combat with managing reserve forces to and from the front-lines. Somebody from the development team would have to weigh in and my (admittedly limited) understanding is that Calvinus wrote the current PBEM routines to make them as user-friendly as the game's architecture allowed.

I know that I spent many, many hours trying to write a mod to change the game from a 9-turn year to a 12-turn year (in other words monthly turns) but was never able to succeed and eventually gave up the effort. There are a lot of things to like about WW1G but for some people there are still game breaking issues and I suppose that multi-player might be one of those.

-C

[paulk205]

I generally don't ask for multiplayer if the AI/game setup is tough enough (hence my usual choice of the CP in WW1). This AI is however too feeble to pose much of a challenge, which is a shame.

[Shri]

@paul

I have not played much in Army-By-Army and mostly play in WEGO, but i would not comment on the AI as feeble in WEGO.
In WEGO 1916 starts, it is a crippling issue for the CP,
Lawrence of Arabia and Arab revolts are usally played against turkey and also the desertion events hits turkey.
Mutinies are often played against Austria and Rumania goes on a land grabbing spree against Austria.
France and Italy of course launch senseless and futile attacks on the Western Front and Isonzo front as usual but the Russian 'Brusilov' offensive is quite back-breaking(historically) for Austrian reserves.. esp. coupled with Rumania and Italy's minor offensives.

All this results in Germany holding almost the entire Eastern Front and Western front and also sending one army to Italy to breakthrough at caporetto or asiego.. in 1916 itself.. Rumania is easily knocked out once my Eastern Front Stabilises.. i Usually just take Verdun and stop the GO as i need to shift reserves to the east double quick.. this is again Historical (More than the Somme as claimed by British Writers it was the Brusilov Offensive which stopped Verdun).

[paulk205]

I generally don't ask for multiplayer if the AI/game setup is tough enough (hence my usual choice of the CP in WW1). This AI is however too feeble to pose much of a challenge, which is a shame.

Well, I experimented a bit with multiplayer and I may have found the answer to my AI problems. It's a bit strange, but the desktop vs the laptop on normal internet head-to-head seems like it's working well, and it's also A-by-A/strictly turn based which is the way I like. Reactions and interceptions appear like they're working too, so basically here's my hotseat mode. It makes for a rather weird situation to play on two machines in quasi-real time (I haven't reached a battle stage yet as Early August 1914 is all admin with most armies locked) and of course you have to play with strict home rules since there's no real FOW if you're playing both sides, but for What-if roleplaying scenarios it's ideal.

I tried this with the vanilla setup, now I will load up Random's excellent mods and with alternative campaign plans and revert

[paulk205]

OK, I've found a bug in this head-to-head mode. Both computers run the latest patch.

After Warplans CP get Italy in via Diplo Poker
After Early August Diplo 1, Britain joins the Entente BUT ONLY ON MY MASTER COMPUTER (which runs the CP)
After Early August Diplo 2, Turkey joins the CP, Romania joins the Entente. Again, on my master CP machine the CP belligerents are correct, while I can see the EP ones also having the right diplomatic levels (to be at war). On my slave machine which runs the EP, the CP setup is correct, but my new cobelligerents are still shown with their old, pre-war diplo levels and are therefore inaccessible.

BTW, any ideas if I can fix this via a configuration file? I'd like to continue this game if possible.

[paulk205]

I got it. The .SAV file in the slave machine does not get properly updated when the game is saved and still shows the old belligerent list. I'll try to change the list manually. I hope it doesn't affect the diplomatic game in general because that would suck.

EDIT: I copied the .SAV file from the master to the slave machine and it now works ok again. I'll check what happens in future diplomatic phases.

[paulk205]

There are too many bugs unfortunately. The Early August CP turn went on OK, but there is no much to do with most armies locked. The Entente turn starts with the French I Army attacking in Alcace (and some fleet movements to catch Spee) but it never reached the battle stage as it just hang there. Not frozen, just never fired the battle screen. When I quit the slave session, the game tried to put on the AI instead and a spectacular graphical crash ensued.

I'll try again, but I fear that this is not feasible either. Then I will try to PBEM with myself and see whether that's better behaved.

It's such a shame that such an excellent game system was beset by bugs and weak AI since release. It's by far the best WWI simulation out there, and deserved better luck.

[Person of Interest]

I think that all that can be done for the game has about been done. I just wish AGEOD would release a new WWI game with dedicated pbem support. I feel like there is plenty of interest in such a game.

[paulk205]

Well, I tried again, saving pretty much on every pulse and I managed to get through Early August 1914. The battles were resolved properly, both computers getting the chance to send reinforcements/reserves and the like. The game is immense fun this way and roleplaying a hypothetical all-out French attack on the frontiers while Germany had adopted Moltke was a total bloodbath. This felt like proper WW1 for once. Bits of success, followed by bloody failure for each side. The French Med fleet came out to meet the joint Austro-Italian one off Corsica (the rationale is that both sides wanted to protect the flanks of the Nice front), and the French totally whipped the CP. The Italian fleet never reinforced, and the Austrians got hammered, losing Teggethoff (plus Horthy in command) and a couple of pre-dreadnoughts in the process. The French attack on the frontiers though, against only 4 armies, was a total bloodbath although a weak breakthrough at Morhange. Similarly, the Russians failed everywhere against the Austrians apart from smashing the Third Army around Tarnopol.

There was one more bug (the slave machine playing the EP never moved to the Breakthroughs stage after the Tarnopol victory), but I solved it once again by saving on the master (CP) machine and then passing the .SAV file to the slave one. On reload the game had resynchronised.

It's clumsy and awkward at times, but for once I can see the massive potential of this game system in action.

[Jolly Roger]

Thanks, Paulk for drawing my attention to this thread. I´ve used to play massive online battles over the years. Mainly we played SES Jutland with participants from USA, Canada, Europe and Australia.
Experienced only a few problems with sychronisation. So there is no reason to be disencouraged at all. Most important, you need a reliable platform. We usually used Hamachi for MP online games, which is very reliable, but doesn´t work for every game. A good alternative is Gameranger, in case you can convince the guys to add WW1 to the list of supported games. Maybe Steam would be a 3rd chance to get it running.

Enjoy X-mas. Klaus ( Hamburg/Germany)

[paulk205]

I've got to October 1914 and the game is heaps of fun. The desynchronisation bug between Military and Breakthrough phases is frequent, though there occasions when the game handles it properly. There's no obvious causal link on what is causing it. Anyway, it requires moving the .SAV file to the client machine and then reloading and everything works well again, so it's more of a (big) annoyance than a game breaker.

The war so far: the Entente + Romania already has the full RL CPs plus Italy arrayed against it. The big diplomatic battle is now over Greece.

France suffered terribly in the battle of the frontiers and its armies are shells of themselves. They broke through in the centre and made a dash for the Rhine, but the spearheads got isolated as the flank attacks were bloody failures, and they barely got back in time. The only reasonably intact French formation is the 3rd now besieging Metz. The German Fifth Army also suffered badly and was routed all the way to Mainz, but all the others are in reasonably good shape and will attack to push the French back over the border. The BEF is plugging the gaping hole in the Allied centre at Nancy. along with the 5th French Army.

The Nice front broke on first contact under the huge numbers of Italians. The 6th Army was diverted South to help the battered 7th, but the Savoy front is bare and only the fortresses are stopping the two northern Italian armies from breaking through to Burgundy. I can't wait until the winter redeployment phase.

On the plus side for the French, they crushed the Austrian fleet in the first days of the war.

In the East, the Russian assault battered the Austrians, crushing the weak Third and momentarily isolating the powerful Fourth Army. The Austrians recovered and have now formed a reasonably continuous line in Galicia, and have retaken Lvov. The Russians have had huge losses but will get stronger with time.


In the Baltic Front, the 8th and 1st German Armies almost completely destroyed the Russian First, which is now recovering in Riga. There is nothing between the Germans and Vilna/Dvinsk/Blialystok other than the fortress line which should take a couple of months to reduce.

In Poland, the 2nd and 9th Russian Armies were also roughly treated by the reinforced (through the Accrued Mobilisation battle plan) German 2nd and 3rd, but have retreated behind Warsaw in reasonable good order and are resting their right on the fortress line for the couple of months they will hold. I predict a total withdrawal from Poland will be needed in the winter.

In the Carpathians, the Romanians flooded into Transylvania and are now facing down the Austrian 8th Army which has rushed from the Alps after Italy joined the CPs in the start of the war. Taking into account the Bulgarian entry into the war, they will assume a defensive position and see.

In Serbia the three attacking Austrian armies (including the 7th from the Alps) were slaughtered in every attempt they made at the Serbs who are still reasonably intact. These were the most one sided battles of the war so far, excepting the hapless Russian First Army's treatment in the Baltic. The main Serbian force is now redeploying against the Bulgarians near Nish. This should be the big event next month. A Greek entry, if it happens, is still a few turns away, so the Serbs need to win this for their sake.

In the Caucasus, the Russian Tenth Army has to face two Turkish ones, but it's a strong formation. The Ottoman Third Army is now recovering in Erzerum, while the Russians will leave a covering force and redeploy to hit the flank of the Ottoman Second Army now advancing slowly towards Batumi.

The Mesopotamian and Sinai fronts are still idle as the opponents are cautiously closing range with each other.

As I said, this has been massive fun, although it's a bit schizophrenic to play quasi-real time against oneself. But this beats the feeble AI by a huge margin.

[paulk205]

I have experimented with head-to-head MP a bit and there are two semi-random but consistent bugs

1. In Diplomacy phases, the new diplomatic level (after missions etc) is not always harmonised between the two machines, i.e. you end up with different diplo levels in each. The solution is to go and physically alter the text in the .SAV file. Annoying but doable.

The problem is very likely in the first Early August 1914 diplo phase, where there are so many random movements in the diplo level of ambiguous nations like Italy, Britain. Greece etc. I would say about 1 in 2 cases the diplomatic level is not properly harmonised across both machines.

2. Breakthroughs. Sometimes only one machine advances properly to the breakthrough phase, the other one continues to the next Military one. This does not matter if the non-pulsing player is the one under the bug, since the pulsing player can give his Breakthrough orders and continue through the Military phase afterwards (battles are resolved properly). If it's the pulsing player's computer that has the problem, then again you have to go an amend the .SAV file physically.

These effects both seem to imply to me that the bug is in the writing of the .SAV text file. The bug is "random" in that I can't find a precise cause of when it happens. About 60% of the time things proceed properly. I hope Calvinus or someone from AGEOD can see this post and perhaps post a quick fix, as I imagine that it will be fairly easy to do.

There are some rare CTD bugs here and there, generally connected with the old bugbear of a unit moving into the same space with an enemy one and no battle taking place. As I said, they're rare.