Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

That potential has finally been realized in World War I CE. I don't see how it's disrespectful of anyone to point that out. It's not as if the folks who sold WWI Gold still have any great plans for the game. They certainly haven't cared enough up to now to fix it the way the folks who made CE have.

This totally baffles me. Calvinos supported the game with patches constantly for four years!! If I was Calvinos reading the abve quote I'd be pretty pee'd off. Also I have no crashes or issues with WW!Gold but have had several with he latest WW1 version. SO I'd say some of the issues people had where probably down to their system than the actual game itself.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Queeg

That potential has finally been realized in World War I CE. I don't see how it's disrespectful of anyone to point that out. It's not as if the folks who sold WWI Gold still have any great plans for the game. They certainly haven't cared enough up to now to fix it the way the folks who made CE have.

This totally baffles me. Calvinos supported the game with patches constantly for four years!! If I was Calvinos reading the abve quote I'd be pretty pee'd off. Also I have no crashes or issues with WW!Gold but have had several with he latest WW1 version. SO I'd say some of the issues people had where probably down to their system than the actual game itself.

I don't mean to disparage Calvinus at all - far from it. I always felt he was on an island, struggling to support the game all by himself. I just got the impression that the game was never a priority for AGEOD as a company.

EDIT: I realize I haven't expressed myself well on this point. Calvinus did a fantastic job supporting the game. He managed to fix almost all of the game-play related bugs, and left a mature game that does a uniquely great job of modeling WWI at both the strategic and military level. But it never ran well - which I know was as frustrating for Calvinus as it was for those who loved the game.

AGEOD never really got behind the game as a company - Calvinus seemed always to be on an island, struggling to support the game by himself. I have to think that has to be part of the reason why he ultimately sold the rights to a new developer. The fact that the new guys were able to overhaul the game engine so quickly and so completely just suggests to me that AGEOD could have done the same thing had it been a priority. It's in that sense - being content to let a great game sit there in an unplayable state when it actually was quite fixable - that AGEOD failed to support the game.

Had Calvinus been satisfied with the state of Gold, there wouldn't be a CE.

[Gizuria]

wodin. In my 'other incarnation', I used to get involved in sometimes heated discussions with posters and it basically brings you nothing but grief in the end. I was never going to change their way of thinking. As a result, I've changed my own way of thinking.

I think some folks are inclined to deal with change negatively and require a period of time to calm down before they become comfortable with the new system. The Internet provides us with a remarkably consequence-free path of expressing our frustrations so while they are in their discomfort zone, they don't really consider how insulting some of their remarks might be, good examples being found in this thread and another just further down the page. (That's a really good one[:D]) While they are disappointed or angry they need to lash out, be that at Matrix, AGEOD or the game's beta team. For example, trying to encourage people to purchase other products other than the game whose forum they are posting on. That hurts Matrix/AGEOD, the beta team and fans of the new game all in one.

What I've seen so far, these guys either come around in their own good time and become fans of the new game, or they'll go off to play something else like the Civ IV players who just couldn't stomach 1UPT and never will. There is more chance of the latter happening or of their discomfort zone being extended by challenging them so it's best just to leave them alone and let them get it out of their system with other like-minded posters. Then it all goes way.

There was a patch for WW1 Gold as recently as last year. Patch 1.08Q. IIRC there were a few 1.08 patches before that so the game was very well supported indeed until last year )

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

As much as I like WW1 Gold/CE I have to agree with hattrick1. Promoting a sale of a competing title does seem disrespectful IMO. Comparing them is fine, but to use Matrix' bandwidth to advertise anothers sale seems in bad taste. Not an unique circumstance. It's done quite a bit and to Matrix' credit, they are usually pretty lax about it. But it's something I refrain from participating in.

Personally I havent bought TEAW yet. Still waiting for the smoke to clear on CE first. IMO, there is plenty of room for both.

You have a point. And generally I agree with you. But this is an unusual situation. If the version of the game AGEOD and Matrix sold me actually worked, I wouldn't have a need to talk about someone else's version of the same game. In fact, the only reason CE even exists is because Gold never worked.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

For example, trying to encourage people to purchase other products other than the game whose forum they are posting on. That hurts Matrix/AGEOD, the beta team and fans of the new game all in one.

With respect, you're conflating two completely different issues here.

One issue is WWI Gold vs CE. WWI Gold was a brilliant design that never worked. And now it's dead - the one guy who ever had anything to do with it says he's finished supporting it and has sold the rights to another developer. That new developer has released a version that actually works. Sorry, but if I'm supposed to salute and encourage people to continue to buy an inferior product from AGEOD and Matrix, then count me out.

The second issue is EAW. How, by any stretch of the imagination, does talking about CE "hurt" EAW? This isn't a zero-sum game - saying CE is good isn't saying EAW is bad. By that logic, it also "hurts" AGEOD if I say I like WWI Gold. The world is big enough for more than one WWI game, especially when they are are as different from each other as WWI G/CE and EAW. That's why I bought EAW the day it came out. I haven't encouraged anyone to buy CE instead of EAW - my recommendation is people should buy both. I have.

Now, if you're telling me that I can't comment on areas where EAW could be improved - that I have to salute and do nothing but sing its praises - then count me out on that one too.

[temagic]

Which do yu like the more - CE or TEAW?

I own WW1Gold and found it an interesting game. I bought TEAW and found it so far to be the superior game. I love AGEOD's engine and their stunning graphics and eye for details. I just wished they release 1.01 soon, for there are a couple of bugs to be fixed. 1.01 is in RC2 atm, so it shouldn't be long. TEAW is a game I can recommend.

[Gizuria]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

For example, trying to encourage people to purchase other products other than the game whose forum they are posting on. That hurts Matrix/AGEOD, the beta team and fans of the new game all in one.

With respect, you're conflating two completely different issues here.

One issue is WWI Gold vs CE. WWI Gold was a brilliant design that never worked. And now it's dead - the one guy who ever had anything to do with it says he's finished supporting it and has sold the rights to another developer. That new developer has released a version that actually works. Sorry, but if I'm supposed to salute and encourage people to continue to buy an inferior product from AGEOD and Matrix, then count me out.

The second issue is EAW. How, by any stretch of the imagination, does talking about CE "hurt" EAW? This isn't a zero-sum game - saying CE is good isn't saying EAW is bad. By that logic, it also "hurts" AGEOD if I say I like WWI Gold. The world is big enough for more than one WWI game, especially when they are are as different from each other as WWI G/CE and EAW. That's why I bought EAW the day it came out. I haven't encouraged anyone to buy CE instead of EAW - my recommendation is people should buy both. I have.

Now, if you're telling me that I can't comment on areas where EAW could be improved - that I have to salute and do nothing but sing its praises - then count me out on that one too.

Like I said earlier, I have no intention of getting drawn into a debate with you. I suggest you read my post properly before replying to it as you have misrepresented what I said.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: temagic

Which do yu like the more - CE or TEAW?

I own WW1Gold and found it an interesting game. I bought TEAW and found it so far to be the superior game. I love AGEOD's engine and their stunning graphics and eye for details. I just wished they release 1.01 soon, for there are a couple of bugs to be fixed. 1.01 is in RC2 atm, so it shouldn't be long. TEAW is a game I can recommend.

I like them both, but for different reasons. CE is a better strategy war game hybrid, and EAW is a better pure war game.

I prefer the diplomacy and event system of CE. And I enjoy having the option to fight the battles myself. And I like the the Grand Offensive sub-game. As the war progresses, you research and test new combat doctrines - gas warfare, rolling barrages, storm troopers, etc. As you become more proficient in each new doctrine, you can launch a Grand Offensive which coordinates multiple Armies across a front and uses a specific combat doctrine. The whole thing just feels very WWI-like and adds another great strategic combat layer.

Much of my enthusiasm for CE stems from the simple fact that I can now actually play the game WWI Gold was supposed to be. WWI Gold is a mature game system, and Calvinus fixed most of the game-play related issues. But it never ran well. For years, it's been on the top of my list of games I wish I could play but can't (with PON running a close second). Now, suddenly out of the blue, there's a version of the game that actually works. I'm really happy about that.

EAW is still in in early stages but is already a good game. I love the art and map. The AI still needs work, though. And, at the moment, it still feels like a 19th century combat engine tweaked for WWI and doesn't yet really capture the feel of the trenches. I'm sure they'll get there, though, given the support team they've dedicated to the game. It's already the best pure WWI war game on the market and will only get better. I'm glad I bought it.

[vonRocko]

WW1 fans will probably buy both games. Discussing CE brings publicity to TEAW also. Nothing wrong with comparing the games, it's done all the time.

[Gizuria]

Now, suddenly out of the blue, there's a version of the game that actually works. I'm really happy about that.

Didn't you pick it up back at the start of July? You'd even made some counter mods for it before the end of July. That's nearly two months before the release of TEAW. Not exactly 'Now, suddenly, out of the blue', is it? [:D]

When I look around the net at other boards where folks are discussing TEAW, I see you posting heavily, and at great length, about how you prefer WW1 CE over TEAW. You come across as being WW1 CE's most enthusiastic advocate. You even posted earlier in this thread that you should 'tap the breaks' on your enthusiasm a bit but here you are, still lauding the merits of WW1 CE on Matrix's TEAW board in response to a post by someone who says they prefer TEAW. [8|]

As you stated in your first post in this thread, TEAW is also a strategy-wargame hybrid as is almost every AGEOD wargame. It's just not as strategy-rich as WW1 CE. Calling it a pure war game is deliberately misleading as there are strategy elements in the game.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Now, suddenly out of the blue, there's a version of the game that actually works. I'm really happy about that.

Didn't you pick it up back at the start of July? You'd even made some counter mods for it before the end of July. That's nearly two months before the release of TEAW. Not exactly 'Now, suddenly, out of the blue', is it? [:D]

By "suddenly out of the blue," I'm referring to the years that WWI Gold didn't work versus the sudden and unexpected appearance of CE.

When I look around the net at other boards where folks are discussing TEAW, I see you posting heavily, and at great length, about how you prefer WW1 CE over TEAW. You come across as being WW1 CE's most enthusiastic advocate. You even posted earlier in this thread that you should 'tap the breaks' on your enthusiasm a bit but here you are, still lauding the merits of WW1 CE on Matrix's TEAW board in response to a post by someone who says they prefer TEAW. [8|]

I'll admit to being CE's biggest fan. I think it's finally the game Calvinus always imagined. Had Gold been that, there would be no CE and I'd be talking about Gold.

Perhaps you noticed, too, the topic of this thread?

As you stated in your first post in this thread, TEAW is also a strategy-wargame hybrid as is almost every AGEOD wargame. It's just not as strategy-rich as WW1 CE. Calling it a pure war game is deliberately misleading as there are strategy elements in the game.

This, in the end, is what bugs people - the idea that somehow any mention of Gold/CE is a knock on EAW. I guess the comparisons were inevitable, especially given the unexpected appearance of CE on the eve of EAW's launch and the fact that EAW borrows so much from Gold. Perhaps that explains the unprecedented level of defensiveness among some of the EAW team. I've followed AGEOD since Birth of America - and own the vast majority of their games - and I've never seen this level of defensiveness about the launch of one of their games. I'd like to discuss EAW on its merits - but there are, at present, too many people who paint you as some kind of traitor if you suggest that the game falls short in some area, especially if it's an area where Gold/CE excels.

[Aurelian]

What about Frank Hunter's Guns of August?

Two games away from owning all of the SPW series, Yay!!!!

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

What about Frank Hunter's Guns of August?

Good game but ultimately just too old-school for my current attention span. I played the heck out of his CW game back in the day, and loved it then, but I couldn't go back there now when I have CW2 as an alternative. Pretty much the same with GoA.

[Gizuria]

Isn't it strange how nobody has anything bad to say about WW1 Gold/CE when asked to compare it to TEAW? That's quite impressive. WW1 Gold was my first-ever AGEOD game and it was a dog to learn but once I did, I really enjoyed it and I picked up ROP and AJE shortly afterwards. While I've turned my back on WW1 Gold for good now with no regrets, I have nothing bad to say about it and it appears neither does anyone else. If only all our relationships ended on such amicable terms...

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

WW1 Gold was my first-ever AGEOD game and it was a dog to learn but once I did, I really enjoyed it and I picked up ROP and AJE shortly afterwards. While I've turned my back on WW1 Gold for good now with no regrets,

I was never able to play Gold. It was always on the top of my list of games I wanted to play, and I tried numerous times, but the performance was just unbearable.

That's probably why I'm such a fan of CE. It's like someone just gave me the game I always wanted - and it actually works. For me, it's a whole new game. I'll admit to being something of a zealot on the game.

[Rosseau]

I have something bad to say about WWI Gold - it doesn't work and Matrix shouldn't be selling it. And I'm not the only one to experience this. Please someone upload a 1917 or 1918 save game somewhere so I can see what it's like to get past 1914. WW1 + WW1 Gold upgrade was not cheap either.

So someone took Calvinus' brilliant design and made it work as CE. I paid $26 U.S. for it and GamersGate was/is selling it for $10. You'd be crazy not to pick it up. When I saw EAW for $30, I immediately purchased it as a bargain. CE still requires patience to play and the mouse is a bit slow. The fighting also seems to bog down by mid-1915, but this is my first playthrough. 1914 was great though.

After EAW is patched a bit, I am pretty sure I'll enjoy it more than CE. The dragging and dropping of units in CE is still clunkier than in any Ageod game. But it has some features that Queeg mentioned that are innovative. I guess I just need to get over being ripped off on WWI and WWI Gold by Matrix [;)]

[Gilmer]

I don't think it is wrong to ask which game you like better between 2 games that Matrix/Ageod published. Even if one has gone on to be bought by another publisher. A lot of us paid for that game when the rights to it was owned by Matrix/Ageod.

I don't think there is any comparison between EAW and WW1 Gold. I like EAW much better. So, when someone says, "Hey, WW1 CE is on sale." or "WW1 Gold is on sale". I think, "Hmmm, that's nice." and then click on the EAW icon to start the game.

[Gilmer]

Additionally. I find it fascinating that my post count here and my post count on Ageod are within about 10 posts of each other.

[Gizuria]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

I don't think it is wrong to ask which game you like better between 2 games that Matrix/Ageod published. Even if one has gone on to be bought by another publisher. A lot of us paid for that game when the rights to it was owned by Matrix/Ageod.

I don't think there is any comparison between EAW and WW1 Gold. I like EAW much better. So, when someone says, "Hey, WW1 CE is on sale." or "WW1 Gold is on sale". I think, "Hmmm, that's nice." and then click on the EAW icon to start the game.

I don't think anyone has said in this thread that it is wrong to ask or answer which is better. [;)] This is quite a normal discussion for gamers to have on boards like these.

However, I'm not so sure that it is right to promote a game on another game's dedicated board. Sure, if someone prefers game A, fine, say so and then move on. But don't go on, and on, and on about game A in that thread. Especially if someone has stated that TEAW is not the game you wanted it to be or that those 'so-called game designers' at AGEOD should seek outside help to improve and optimize their games. That's just bitterness and not enthusiasm.

I'm sure game A has its own dedicated discussion boards. Those are the best place to rhapsodise over how wonderful it is. [:D]

I've enjoyed reading your AAR. I look forward to seeing how you get on in your next game without easy supply rules. Me, I'm going to wait until the first patch comes along before getting down to a serious campaign. Once I know that something is not working properly, it makes it harder for me to play the game knowing that fixes are just around the corner

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

After EAW is patched a bit, I am pretty sure I'll enjoy it more than CE. The dragging and dropping of units in CE is still clunkier than in any Ageod game. But it has some features that Queeg mentioned that are innovative.

When I first played EAW, I missed some of the strategy-game features from Gold/CE. And the AI needs work and there's a patch coming out, so I set it aside and went back to CE.

So I'm playing CE yesterday, and it's fun, but in the back of my mind I'm thinking...I sure hope the patch for EAW doesn't take too long because it would be great to play that game again. The combat model in CE, while very fun in its own way, definitely lacks the detail of EAW.

So there's plenty to enjoy about both games - they compliment, more than compete with, each other.