My Last AGEOD Game. Period.

[zakblood]

there you go another happy customer [&o]

[Raindog101]

[:D] [:D]

[&o]

[PJL1973]

Well that doesn't work for me. In fact nothing seems to work at all on the settings menu.

I'm using Win7 (64 bit) BTW

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: PJL

Well that doesn't work for me. In fact nothing seems to work at all on the settings menu.

I'm using Win7 (64 bit) BTW

You can always edit Display.opt (default location: ...\To End All Wars\EAW\Settings)

[PJL1973]

Changing the values in there has no effect.

Having said that,the settings folder is very interesting. Already found out you can mod the max zoom factor so you can zoom in further making it easier to separate out units in a region without accidentally merging them back together.

[HHFD50]

For all its shortcomings, the game is good in the sense of its level of detail. No other WWI game ever made comes close. WWI is a tough war to replicate in a game because of all the extenuating circumstances involved, ie. The use of then experimental weapons, the clash of old and new tactics, gas, cavalry, massive amounts of artillery, etc . I think they have done the best of anyone in the genre so far.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: HHFD50
I think they have done the best of anyone in the genre so far.

WW1Gold did that.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: HHFD50
I think they have done the best of anyone in the genre so far.

WW1Gold did that.

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

[Haplo_Patryn]

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

-1. Sorry guys but I've played both games and I can tell you that TEAW is far better game and far better simulation. Playing two PBEM games now, TEAW is like WWI in all aspects.

Doing an AAR here, you can see that the trench warfare is working fine and the fronts are similar to the historical ones. You should play PBEM games, your opinion about it would change.

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=16428

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Haplo_Patryn

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

-1. Sorry guys but I've played both games and I can tell you that TEAW is far better game and far better simulation. Playing two PBEM games now, TEAW is like WWI in all aspects.

Doing an AAR here, you can see that the trench warfare is working fine and the fronts are similar to the historical ones. You should play PBEM games, your opinion about it would change.

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=16428

Very impressive AAR! I just wish the game played anything like that against the AI. I'm a single-play only guy myself, and I can tell you the current AI is a mess and the game presently feels nothing - not even a little - like WWI.

Play both games SP for awhile and see what you think.

[comte]

ORIGINAL: HHFD50

For all its shortcomings, the game is good in the sense of its level of detail. No other WWI game ever made comes close. WWI is a tough war to replicate in a game because of all the extenuating circumstances involved, ie. The use of then experimental weapons, the clash of old and new tactics, gas, cavalry, massive amounts of artillery, etc . I think they have done the best of anyone in the genre so far.

I have to disagree with you, Paths of Glory the board game is the best simulation of the conflict I have ever played. This game isn't even close.

[wodin]

OK single player WW1 beats TEAW if TEAW can't do it single player and requires human input on both sides to make it play properly it hasn't done a good enough job and the mechanics aren't working properly...I have studied WW1 for many years and have an extensive library..I know when a game plays how it should with regards to WW1.

When it comes to WW1 I'd argue with anyone if I thought they where wrong. I no other subject am I as competent.

[vonRocko]

" if TEAW can't do it single player and requires human input on both sides to make it play properly it hasn't done a good enough job and the mechanics aren't working properly"
Well said Wodin, I couldn't agree more. I still think this engine can never model WW1 properly. It feels like ACW in Europe.

[Queeg]

We'll see how it plays after the patch, but I fear they've made some fundamental design choices that make this game a poor model of WWI combat.

For one, there is no command and control system to speak of - the vast majority of the units have no command structure at all. By limiting the command structure to the GHQ-Army level (and limiting it even further by restricting the number of Armies a GHQ can control), the AI is left with a bunch of independent Corps and Armies. And I see little evidence from my play so far that there is anything in the code that tells the AI how to coordinate them.

For example, suppose you have an Army in Province B and independent Corps in Provinces A and C. A human player will coordinate them even in the absence of any formal command linkage among them. But the AI seems to lack that ability. Start a game sometime and just watch the AI. The first thing it does, almost invariably, is to contract its units, moving its Corps back toward its Armies. Eventually, these Corps usually end up being stacked into an uber-stack, often camped in a single province with one or more other uber-stacks. The AI seems at a loss to handle them any other way.

The AI looks almost like a hand contracting into a fist - which makes sense if the only way the AI has to control its units is to stack them - but it means that "offensives" tend to occur at single points instead of across a broad front.

I've never seen anything resembling a Battle of the Frontiers, but I've seen plenty of Sedans. This game plays like the Franco-Prussian War far more than WWI.

[bob.]

Unfortunately, to appreciate the game you need to play against other players.

Yes, against the AI it is no WW1 at all and I also had not much fun.

But once you start playing with 2 other players, it is a fantastic WW1 game.

I know it is annoying to hear "just play against other people" when you want to play against the AI! I often prefer sitting down and playing for a few hours instead of always having to wait for the next turn as well. Still, you really can't judge the game by playing against the AI.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: bob.

Unfortunately, to appreciate the game you need to play against other players.

Yes, against the AI it is no WW1 at all and I also had not much fun.

But once you start playing with 2 other players, it is a fantastic WW1 game.

I know it is annoying to hear "just play against other people" when you want to play against the AI! I often prefer sitting down and playing for a few hours instead of always having to wait for the next turn as well.

My schedule is too unpredictable for me to be a reliable PBEM opponent. I just end up with my computer foes wanting to kill me in real life.

Still, you really can't judge the game by playing against the AI.

True, but TEAW is unique in this regard. AGEOD's other games all offered an AI and game engine that were plausible for the conflict being modeled. Yes, the human is better than the AI in CW2, but the game engine there at least feels like the CW and AI acts in a manner that is plausible and consistent with that setting.

Here, at present, neither the game engine nor the AI resemble WWI.

I'm pulling for them on the patch, though.

[bob.]

Don't expect any miracles from the patch. It may fix some individual big problems, but it won't make the AI "good".

The game engine really is better at simulating WW1 than you may think at first.
I assume you are referring to the trench warfare part of WW1 because I think the movement war in 1914 works excellent, even against the AI you can see that it produces very believable results.
And the trench warfare part is where the AI really shows its problems from my experience.

Against humans, the trench warfare develops quite naturally when (or, if) neither side is able to decisively beat the other (as it happened in reality!).
I am actually really happy that the game does not have any kind of hardcoded "TRENCH WARFARE STARTS NOW" event or something. It just develops from the game once neither side is able to advance anymore.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: bob.

The game engine really is better at simulating WW1 than you may think at first.
I assume you are referring to the trench warfare part of WW1 because I think the movement war in 1914 works excellent, even against the AI you can see that it produces very believable results.

My experience with the AI is very different. I've started half a dozen historical campaigns as the WE, using a variety of activation and detection bonuses for the AI, and played each one into the spring-summer of 1915. In all but one of the games, the AI never even tried to advance out of Belgium; it just parked all its units in Brussels or Sedan and sat there. The one exception was a single game where von Kluck's First Army made a suicide dash to Paris, where it sat isolated and out of supply until it all but vanished - it finally retreated after being out of supply for nearly six months.

I actually stopped trying in the first game, just to see if the AI would do anything if I just sat there and let it try to win. In the last few games, I didn't even move a single unit - I just hit next turn over and over. Still, the AI didn't do anything except attack Sedan on the first turn - it would win, but never follow up - and sometimes chase the remnants of the Belgian Army. Frankly, I was stunned to see the AI in an AGEOD game behave so poorly.

I also tried 3-4 historical campaigns as the CP, mostly to watch how the AI handled the opposite side of my early games. The French AI, despite having a war plan calling for an attack along the frontier, basically just did the mirror image of the CP AI - the first turn was always a big battle in Sedan followed by....nothing.

I offered over on the AGEOD board to post my save games, but no one seems interested. The betas there seem more interested in extolling the game's virtues for MP than in really looking hard at the AI. I can't believe they missed what I'm seeing in testing.

I fear this game is quickly headed for the MP-only heap - which is a shame considering AGEOD's other games.

[bob.]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
My experience with the AI is very different. I've started half a dozen historical campaigns as the WE, using a variety of activation and detection bonuses for the AI, and played each one into the spring-summer of 1915. In all but one of the games, the AI never even tried to advance out of Belgium; it just parked all its units in Brussels or Sedan and sat there. The one exception was a single game where von Kluck's First Army made a suicide dash to Paris, where it sat isolated and out of supply until it all but vanished - it finally retreated after being out of supply for nearly six months.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say there. Although, it propably wasn't all that clear.
I was referring to your comment that the game engine doesn't simulate WW1 well.

Yes, the AI is absolutely shit if you are looking for a historical war[:D]

What I meant was that the battles themselves produce very believable results. And as the battles themselves produce believable results, and the forces in the game are more or less historically accurate, I would say the game is a pretty good simulation of WW1.

... just not against the AI[:(]

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: bob.

What I meant was that the battles themselves produce very believable results. And as the battles themselves produce believable results, and the forces in the game are more or less historically accurate, I would say the game is a pretty good simulation of WW1.

I agree the battles themselves are fine - the number-crunching works well.

It's the how and where the battles happen (or don't) that are the problem.