TEAW vs CTGW
Moderator: Pocus
TEAW vs CTGW
See that many here have commented on this fairly new game TEAW, are also commenters about CTGW. I was wondering how some of you rate the difference between the games? Quite honestly, I was not crazy about Ageod's (2 x 3) "War between the states", but played it till something else caught my interests. I'll have to admit, I'd like a WW1 game that is scaled down to less than corps size units, but is this it (playability)? Just started following the threads here to get an idea if this game (TEAW) is worth it to buy. Any comparisons I'd appreciate it... Thanks....
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
I am a total fan of Commander: Europe at War as well as AGEOD's new Civil War game, Civil War 2. That might be one lens with which to read my post.
I really like both To End All Wars and Commander: The Great War. The difference is one of scale, size of the maps and number of units. Interestingly, they are both on a two week turn scale. Commander: The Great War is a much smaller treatment. If you have played Commander: Europe at War, you will already know the system.
I play primarily pbem, so my take versus AI would not tell you much.
Both games suffer a bit from too much mobility in 1914 with a really good, aggressive player on either side. Of course many players like this. But otherwise, both are solid historical treatments of this conflict. Both use production, research, and have naval and air components. Both use leaders and have entrenchment. Replacement in CTGW is a mouse click on top a unit, as is upgrading (if you have paid for the research to upgrade). In TEAW you can select auto-upgrade and the computer builds replacement units for you or you can manage replacements yourself. Most players use manual replacements.
CTGW uses about fifteen units on the Western front per side. While TEAW has closer to 800 individual counters; but as these are grouped into Armies and Corps it is more like 40 operational units.
Both games have a diplomacy interface. As you might figure, pretty abstract without much player intervening in CTGW. TEAW has many more player decisions and actions which influence the diplomacy. For instance, Germany submarine warfare impacts USA entry, as well, you can send ambassadors to other nations.
CTGW is a two player game with a web-hosted interface which some players really like. TEAW is a three player game, Western and Eastern Entente and Central Powers.
It takes me about 20 minutes to play a thoughtful turn of CTGW. TEAW as an Entente side takes about 40 minutes, as the Central Powers about an hour and a half.
I am actually in two games of each title at the moment, and enjoying both games equally.
I recently picked up CTGW for the IPad. This is a nice treatment, identical to pc play, except I can play anywhere.
I just started the 1915 start of CTGW. It really has a nice feel of the times.
If you want the chance to exercise choices in alternative history play, TEAW has four historical deployment options for all sides. For instance Austria can mobilize against Russia or Serbia. The Central Powers can cede territory to Italy and buy its neutrality. CTGW pretty much follows history.
Some brief thoughts.
I really like both To End All Wars and Commander: The Great War. The difference is one of scale, size of the maps and number of units. Interestingly, they are both on a two week turn scale. Commander: The Great War is a much smaller treatment. If you have played Commander: Europe at War, you will already know the system.
I play primarily pbem, so my take versus AI would not tell you much.
Both games suffer a bit from too much mobility in 1914 with a really good, aggressive player on either side. Of course many players like this. But otherwise, both are solid historical treatments of this conflict. Both use production, research, and have naval and air components. Both use leaders and have entrenchment. Replacement in CTGW is a mouse click on top a unit, as is upgrading (if you have paid for the research to upgrade). In TEAW you can select auto-upgrade and the computer builds replacement units for you or you can manage replacements yourself. Most players use manual replacements.
CTGW uses about fifteen units on the Western front per side. While TEAW has closer to 800 individual counters; but as these are grouped into Armies and Corps it is more like 40 operational units.
Both games have a diplomacy interface. As you might figure, pretty abstract without much player intervening in CTGW. TEAW has many more player decisions and actions which influence the diplomacy. For instance, Germany submarine warfare impacts USA entry, as well, you can send ambassadors to other nations.
CTGW is a two player game with a web-hosted interface which some players really like. TEAW is a three player game, Western and Eastern Entente and Central Powers.
It takes me about 20 minutes to play a thoughtful turn of CTGW. TEAW as an Entente side takes about 40 minutes, as the Central Powers about an hour and a half.
I am actually in two games of each title at the moment, and enjoying both games equally.
I recently picked up CTGW for the IPad. This is a nice treatment, identical to pc play, except I can play anywhere.
I just started the 1915 start of CTGW. It really has a nice feel of the times.
If you want the chance to exercise choices in alternative history play, TEAW has four historical deployment options for all sides. For instance Austria can mobilize against Russia or Serbia. The Central Powers can cede territory to Italy and buy its neutrality. CTGW pretty much follows history.
Some brief thoughts.
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
Thanks Symple!ORIGINAL: Symple
I am a total fan of Commander: Europe at War as well as AGEOD's new Civil War game, Civil War 2. That might be one lens with which to read my post.
I really like both To End All Wars and Commander: The Great War. The difference is one of scale, size of the maps and number of units. Interestingly, they are both on a two week turn scale. Commander: The Great War is a much smaller treatment. If you have played Commander: Europe at War, you will already know the system.
I play primarily pbem, so my take versus AI would not tell you much.
Both games suffer a bit from too much mobility in 1914 with a really good, aggressive player on either side. Of course many players like this. But otherwise, both are solid historical treatments of this conflict. Both use production, research, and have naval and air components. Both use leaders and have entrenchment. Replacement in CTGW is a mouse click on top a unit, as is upgrading (if you have paid for the research to upgrade). In TEAW you can select auto-upgrade and the computer builds replacement units for you or you can manage replacements yourself. Most players use manual replacements.
CTGW uses about fifteen units on the Western front per side. While TEAW has closer to 800 individual counters; but as these are grouped into Armies and Corps it is more like 40 operational units.
Both games have a diplomacy interface. As you might figure, pretty abstract without much player intervening in CTGW. TEAW has many more player decisions and actions which influence the diplomacy. For instance, Germany submarine warfare impacts USA entry, as well, you can send ambassadors to other nations.
CTGW is a two player game with a web-hosted interface which some players really like. TEAW is a three player game, Western and Eastern Entente and Central Powers.
It takes me about 20 minutes to play a thoughtful turn of CTGW. TEAW as an Entente side takes about 40 minutes, as the Central Powers about an hour and a half.
I am actually in two games of each title at the moment, and enjoying both games equally.
I recently picked up CTGW for the IPad. This is a nice treatment, identical to pc play, except I can play anywhere.
I just started the 1915 start of CTGW. It really has a nice feel of the times.
If you want the chance to exercise choices in alternative history play, TEAW has four historical deployment options for all sides. For instance Austria can mobilize against Russia or Serbia. The Central Powers can cede territory to Italy and buy its neutrality. CTGW pretty much follows history.
Some brief thoughts.
Where CTGW is in the midst of doing another patch, I have been considering getting TEAW, however a lot of the comments have not been favorable, except for multiplayer. Yes, CTGW MP is my choice of play, but it does take considerable practice (in SP) to get there, I can only imagine that TEAW would be the same way. Yes, I would like to utilize smaller units than what CTGW has, but keep it UGOWEGO, or whatever the game management is. Played "War between the States", but was not crazy about the battle schemes, for there was not much a player could do within the battles and or movement. I like the idea of being involved with diplomacy.
How did you find the mechanics of the game TEAW, interface? From what I have seen so far, it looks a bit clunky... Have you done any AARs? Would love to review them.
Take care, Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
I just lost my post - forgot to save before sending
More later
More later
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
You saw my solution, I own both, including two versions of CTGW.
Typically, I begin pbem play the day of the game release. To do this you need two things, other players who are willing to learn as they go. This is not for everyone. It is not unusual to discover something really painful you needed to avoid. And, a tolerance for playing a game still in refinement. Both TEAW and CTGW war have really strong post release support. So when things are found like the Austrian Navy floating in the Danube outside Vienna because German provided concession to Italy, the issues has been fixed. I usually run a solo learning game at the same time as doing these pbems, but I do not play verus AI. I play both sides or all three sides myself. If you only play AI you do not learn both sides as quickly. AI play is useful if you are brand new to a system, because AI will often mirror the decision solid players will use.
CTGW uses IGO UGO. It uses a movement system I like, but which can frustrate players who have never seen this kind of system. Once you move a unit you must decide whether or not to attack. You can not change the movement of units which have moved, nor can they attack later. If you have never played Commander: Europe at war, two games of the 1914 scenario, once for each side, and one game of a later scenario against AI, should suffice to gain enough experience to begin pbem play. If you have played Commander: Europe at War, just start playing. The systems are very similar.
TEAW is a WEGO system where orders are created and then execute for all sides at the same time. This does have the advantage that you can change any move you wish up until the point you post your orders. I do not find the TEAW interface so much clunky as involving. If by clunky you mean a bit awkward to play, this would not be my take. TEAW is not the kind of intuitive system found in CTGW, it takes intentional attention. Because the game is played at the corps and army level, the number of playable pieces is about double CTGW. The first turn of any scenario is very involved as you optimize the composition of sub-units in the corps, armies and fleets. The handing of munitions is quite realistic and will frustrate the best Quartermaster General in the first year.
Two suggestions for how to manage learning enough to play multiplayer:
1. Find two other players who also want to learn the game and play. The most fearless player should take the Central Powers as they will be challenged.
2. Patch up the game to the latest patch. This version contains a scenario for each front. Play the Eastern Entente, then play the Western Entente, then play the Central Powers against AI; or play both side versus your self. These smaller scenarios are more manageable and easier to play.
I do not create AARs. I have the deepest appreciation for those who do. I have neither the skills nor the expertise to create these tales of play which are informative and entertaining. I am going to recommend three AARs for TEAW and one for CTGW, not that they are the best or most engaging and etc, but because this will provide an overview of all sides, all games.
Central Powers http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... e-Mass-AAR
Eastern Entente http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... ntente-AAR
Western Entente http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... ral-Powers!
CTGW tm.asp?m=3416919
A European friend says only Americans say, take care.
Take Care
Typically, I begin pbem play the day of the game release. To do this you need two things, other players who are willing to learn as they go. This is not for everyone. It is not unusual to discover something really painful you needed to avoid. And, a tolerance for playing a game still in refinement. Both TEAW and CTGW war have really strong post release support. So when things are found like the Austrian Navy floating in the Danube outside Vienna because German provided concession to Italy, the issues has been fixed. I usually run a solo learning game at the same time as doing these pbems, but I do not play verus AI. I play both sides or all three sides myself. If you only play AI you do not learn both sides as quickly. AI play is useful if you are brand new to a system, because AI will often mirror the decision solid players will use.
CTGW uses IGO UGO. It uses a movement system I like, but which can frustrate players who have never seen this kind of system. Once you move a unit you must decide whether or not to attack. You can not change the movement of units which have moved, nor can they attack later. If you have never played Commander: Europe at war, two games of the 1914 scenario, once for each side, and one game of a later scenario against AI, should suffice to gain enough experience to begin pbem play. If you have played Commander: Europe at War, just start playing. The systems are very similar.
TEAW is a WEGO system where orders are created and then execute for all sides at the same time. This does have the advantage that you can change any move you wish up until the point you post your orders. I do not find the TEAW interface so much clunky as involving. If by clunky you mean a bit awkward to play, this would not be my take. TEAW is not the kind of intuitive system found in CTGW, it takes intentional attention. Because the game is played at the corps and army level, the number of playable pieces is about double CTGW. The first turn of any scenario is very involved as you optimize the composition of sub-units in the corps, armies and fleets. The handing of munitions is quite realistic and will frustrate the best Quartermaster General in the first year.
Two suggestions for how to manage learning enough to play multiplayer:
1. Find two other players who also want to learn the game and play. The most fearless player should take the Central Powers as they will be challenged.
2. Patch up the game to the latest patch. This version contains a scenario for each front. Play the Eastern Entente, then play the Western Entente, then play the Central Powers against AI; or play both side versus your self. These smaller scenarios are more manageable and easier to play.
I do not create AARs. I have the deepest appreciation for those who do. I have neither the skills nor the expertise to create these tales of play which are informative and entertaining. I am going to recommend three AARs for TEAW and one for CTGW, not that they are the best or most engaging and etc, but because this will provide an overview of all sides, all games.
Central Powers http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... e-Mass-AAR
Eastern Entente http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... ntente-AAR
Western Entente http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.p ... ral-Powers!
CTGW tm.asp?m=3416919
A European friend says only Americans say, take care.
Take Care
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
OK, you got me to move into the buying mode, will check for any specials here and over at Slitherine. What's funny: TEAW is locked out on their forum, a little bit of a head scratcher. Another thing: Have you had to contact Support? if so, Were you satisfied with it? As far I have been concerned with CTGW support has been excellent, also members have very helpful too. Will read your suggested AARs. Hope doing screenshots is as easy here as in CTGW.
Is this where I am supposed to say CHEERS.(lol) Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
Oh excellent. When you are up and running, if you need a punching bag on the opposing side, drop me a pm.
I have had great support at all three partners sites. Matrix is really great about supporting older titles. With Windows 8 emulation mode, it is even easier to play older titles like Guns of August. A World War One game one more level higher in strategic play. The only support I have needed for CTGW was help remembering my password or changing it when I added the IPad version. Support has always been timely and helpful.
Interesting about the Slitherine Forum lock out. As I primarily use the AGEOD forum for its games, I had not noticed.
I do love how the world wide gaming community has such blended language.
I have had great support at all three partners sites. Matrix is really great about supporting older titles. With Windows 8 emulation mode, it is even easier to play older titles like Guns of August. A World War One game one more level higher in strategic play. The only support I have needed for CTGW was help remembering my password or changing it when I added the IPad version. Support has always been timely and helpful.
Interesting about the Slitherine Forum lock out. As I primarily use the AGEOD forum for its games, I had not noticed.
I do love how the world wide gaming community has such blended language.
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
Been reading the AARs you suggested, a lot of detail and of course info/data, much of which goes over my head till I get the game ($54 or so boxed), looking for a deal. I would not want to go flat footed into MP, it definitely appears to have a learning curve to comprehend what is what and nuances that may not be in the manual (little surprises that can ruin the day and perhaps a lot of invested time). One of the AARs delves on the "Arab Revolt", which is dated sometime in 1916. ( CTGW Revolt kicks in first turn of 1917) Going to have to research some on the subject. Battle Plans (variations) I find an interesting concept. Still have pages of AARs to pour over. A strong emphasis on supply caught my eye. Like the siege aspect too, of course I don't know the in game on how it works pro/con on timeline to victory.
Chao, Bob
Chao, Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
TEAW is not a beer and pretzel game, as they used to say. CTGW is a much lighter treatment.
Lots of nuances. Many waiting for alternative play. Arab Revolt is earlier because of greater variability in what happens.
Supply, as I mentioned earlier is a unique and delightful historical twist. But takes some time.
Chao, Symple
Lots of nuances. Many waiting for alternative play. Arab Revolt is earlier because of greater variability in what happens.
Supply, as I mentioned earlier is a unique and delightful historical twist. But takes some time.
Chao, Symple
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
Found this article about the Arab Revolt: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/ottoman ... rab-revolt
All the best, Bob
All the best, Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: TEAW vs CTGW
Excellent . . .
See you on the flip side
See you on the flip side