How does this compare to those games? WW1Gold is my favourite WW1 Grand Strat game with SC Great War second.
Does it cope with the change from movement warfare to static warfare well?
Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Moderator: Pocus
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Hi Wodin!
I would say this is superior to both those in all regards IMHO.
All the best.
I would say this is superior to both those in all regards IMHO.
All the best.
My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade
Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
it what way better, can you be more in depth and give a longer answer for your reply?
ty [8|]
ty [8|]
ORIGINAL: ETF
Hi Wodin!
I would say this is superior to both those in all regards IMHO.
All the best.
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
the strategic command is a totally beer and pretzels type of fun game... easier and at times better as its actually a mature product
I own the re re release of the gold game, now on steam as Centenial... note no support from ageod as its no longer their title.. sold rights.
And
This "gold " is a fine game with essentially the same format as this game.. but much greater range of choices and scenarios etc...
but
a fiasco to play... supper terrible interface....again referring to the Centennial version of the gold title.
this game, the newest ageod version will be great once the bugs are out .. say 3-6 months.. will be by far the best simply because it will be playable and is a trimmed down "gold" written to work in the current ageod system.. as is cw2.
Im no longer spending time with the steam "centennial" and in stead i am enjoying this game, warts and all.
I own the re re release of the gold game, now on steam as Centenial... note no support from ageod as its no longer their title.. sold rights.
And
This "gold " is a fine game with essentially the same format as this game.. but much greater range of choices and scenarios etc...
but
a fiasco to play... supper terrible interface....again referring to the Centennial version of the gold title.
this game, the newest ageod version will be great once the bugs are out .. say 3-6 months.. will be by far the best simply because it will be playable and is a trimmed down "gold" written to work in the current ageod system.. as is cw2.
Im no longer spending time with the steam "centennial" and in stead i am enjoying this game, warts and all.
"Tanks forward"
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Strategic Command strikes me as more strategy game than wargame. It never really caught my interest.
EAW, like WWI Gold/CE, aspires to be more of a strategy/wargame mix. I enjoy both games, but I personally still prefer WWI Gold/CE at the present.
WWIG was based on a board game, so it's not really similar to any other PC game. One of the things I most like about WWIG is that it's completely unique.
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. It offers more deja vu than eureka. And while it mimics some of the strategy-game elements of WWIG, none is as deep as in WWIG - EAW is more strategy "lite" in that respect.
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 decent job of tweaking the CW2 engine to model some of the nuances of WWI. Trench warfare needs work - it's handled largely by the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanic used in AGEOD's 19th Century games and it doesn't work especially well in this era. But the core AGEOD engine - with its deep combat model and voluminous post-battle data dump - generally works well.
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 concision 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, is still fundamentally province-focused. Units with a general can MTSG, but the effect is still to aggregate power in a single province. If they win, fine. But if they lose, they all retreat, which can leave a huge multi-province hole in your front. And, at present anyway, there's no way to turn the MTSG feature on or off for a given unit - there's a work around involving Evade Combat orders but it's less than ideal. Overall, the reserve model in WWIG, for my tastes anyway, does a better job of simulating WWI combat in the trenches.
Fourth, the Diplomacy game in WWIG is much more interesting. You have far more diplomatic options in WWIG and can achieve some ahistorical, yet plausible, results (which some may not like). EAW is 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. Because there's no early diplomacy option, things seem to be largely deterministic, at least early on - for example, Great Britain will join the Entente or not based on factors completely beyond your control. Worse, if you play as Russia, you can't do diplomacy at all - only the Western Entente gets to use any of the diplomacy features built into the game ( the rationale being that Russia was the weaker diplomatic partner). You also 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 for Germany as in WWIG. Again, all 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 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 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.
EAW, like WWI Gold/CE, aspires to be more of a strategy/wargame mix. I enjoy both games, but I personally still prefer WWI Gold/CE at the present.
WWIG was based on a board game, so it's not really similar to any other PC game. One of the things I most like about WWIG is that it's completely unique.
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. It offers more deja vu than eureka. And while it mimics some of the strategy-game elements of WWIG, none is as deep as in WWIG - EAW is more strategy "lite" in that respect.
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 decent job of tweaking the CW2 engine to model some of the nuances of WWI. Trench warfare needs work - it's handled largely by the "march to the sound of the guns" mechanic used in AGEOD's 19th Century games and it doesn't work especially well in this era. But the core AGEOD engine - with its deep combat model and voluminous post-battle data dump - generally works well.
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 concision 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, is still fundamentally province-focused. Units with a general can MTSG, but the effect is still to aggregate power in a single province. If they win, fine. But if they lose, they all retreat, which can leave a huge multi-province hole in your front. And, at present anyway, there's no way to turn the MTSG feature on or off for a given unit - there's a work around involving Evade Combat orders but it's less than ideal. Overall, the reserve model in WWIG, for my tastes anyway, does a better job of simulating WWI combat in the trenches.
Fourth, the Diplomacy game in WWIG is much more interesting. You have far more diplomatic options in WWIG and can achieve some ahistorical, yet plausible, results (which some may not like). EAW is 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. Because there's no early diplomacy option, things seem to be largely deterministic, at least early on - for example, Great Britain will join the Entente or not based on factors completely beyond your control. Worse, if you play as Russia, you can't do diplomacy at all - only the Western Entente gets to use any of the diplomacy features built into the game ( the rationale being that Russia was the weaker diplomatic partner). You also 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 for Germany as in WWIG. Again, all 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 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 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.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
WW1Gold's mechanics capture WW1 superbly well. This game has me concerned as it's not using an engine specifically built for WW1 and due to how the War was fought over the four years using a modified engine that has been used for other periods makes me wary. Will keep my eye on it.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Although it has a great editor, if I was a serious WW1 person, I wouldn't even consider SCWW1. And they also have WW1 Breakthrough, whatever that is. Talk about milking a game system. But the support is good. They just better change them graphics for SC3.
EAW has wonderful potential. I bought on the sale, but won't play it until Christmas.
WW1 Gold is like no other game I have played. And I like to mod it. But Queeg is not going to convince me that Centennial is "like night and day" better. I already bought the game twice [;)]
EAW has wonderful potential. I bought on the sale, but won't play it until Christmas.
WW1 Gold is like no other game I have played. And I like to mod it. But Queeg is not going to convince me that Centennial is "like night and day" better. I already bought the game twice [;)]
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: rosseau
WW1 Gold is like no other game I have played. And I like to mod it. But Queeg is not going to convince me that Centennial is "like night and day" better. I already bought the game twice [;)]
Perhaps I should tap the brakes a bit on CE - don't want to be too much of a zealot. But for me, at least, the performance difference is really amazing. I rarely was able to finish a complete turn in WWIG without crashing or the cursor becoming uncontrollable. I can play CE as long as my rear-end can sit without having any serious problems - at least after the last update. There certainly are some bugs - some of the events don't work right or consistently, for example - but as you say, the game really is like no other game out there. It's such a unique experience.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: rosseau
Although it has a great editor, if I was a serious WW1 person, I wouldn't even consider SCWW1. And they also have WW1 Breakthrough, whatever that is. Talk about milking a game system. But the support is good. They just better change them graphics for SC3.
EAW has wonderful potential. I bought on the sale, but won't play it until Christmas.
WW1 Gold is like no other game I have played. And I like to mod it. But Queeg is not going to convince me that Centennial is "like night and day" better. I already bought the game twice [;)]
Wow, that's a long time for it just to sit. I'm currently in June of 1915 and I like this game more than any of the others. I like the "subject" in others, but this one has me coming back a lot.
"Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" John III Sobieski as he entered Vienna on 9/12/1683. "I came, I saw, God conquered."
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: Queeg
ORIGINAL: rosseau
WW1 Gold is like no other game I have played. And I like to mod it. But Queeg is not going to convince me that Centennial is "like night and day" better. I already bought the game twice [;)]
Perhaps I should tap the brakes a bit on CE - don't want to be too much of a zealot. But for me, at least, the performance difference is really amazing. I rarely was able to finish a complete turn in WWIG without crashing or the cursor becoming uncontrollable. I can play CE as long as my rear-end can sit without having any serious problems - at least after the last update. There certainly are some bugs - some of the events don't work right or consistently, for example - but as you say, the game really is like no other game out there. It's such a unique experience.
I wish you would mod it to run perfectly.
"Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" John III Sobieski as he entered Vienna on 9/12/1683. "I came, I saw, God conquered."
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
[quote]ORIGINAL: rosseau
EAW has wonderful potential. I bought on the sale, but won't play it until Christmas.
[quote]
According to all the plans, the war should be over by Christmas...
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
I have all three games. WW1 Gold is the best - when I can keep it from crashing.
Strategic Command - The great war is the one I have played the most, and gotten the most enjoyment out of. Still, it is not as deep a look at the war as WW1 Gold, but it works well and is very stable.
EAW has great potential, but needs a lot of work. I question a number of the design decisions, and their a huge lack of scenarios. I also question the realism of a number of the things I have seen. Yet every problem it has is fixable. If it gets the attention it needs, it will be a great game. It is far more stable than WW1 Gold, but lacks the unmatched historical feel of WW1 Gold.
Strategic Command - The great war is the one I have played the most, and gotten the most enjoyment out of. Still, it is not as deep a look at the war as WW1 Gold, but it works well and is very stable.
EAW has great potential, but needs a lot of work. I question a number of the design decisions, and their a huge lack of scenarios. I also question the realism of a number of the things I have seen. Yet every problem it has is fixable. If it gets the attention it needs, it will be a great game. It is far more stable than WW1 Gold, but lacks the unmatched historical feel of WW1 Gold.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: vaalen
I have all three games. WW1 Gold is the best - when I can keep it from crashing.
WWI Centennial Edition largely solves the crashing problem. I played today for 2+ hours without a hiccup.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Queeg, glad it is working for you.
Centennial edition does not crash for me, but it does other bizarre things that ruin the game, such as failing to resolve combats, sieges,having the French in the 1914 scenario run away from the front without attacking or moving into Belgium, and other weird behavior.
But I do know these problems are not shared by everyone, and it has worked well for other people besides yourself. I think it is a matter of having the right system.
Also, I cannot get CE to run at a monitor resolution large enough for me to visually enjoy the game, which is not a problem with WW1 Gold.
Centennial edition does not crash for me, but it does other bizarre things that ruin the game, such as failing to resolve combats, sieges,having the French in the 1914 scenario run away from the front without attacking or moving into Belgium, and other weird behavior.
But I do know these problems are not shared by everyone, and it has worked well for other people besides yourself. I think it is a matter of having the right system.
Also, I cannot get CE to run at a monitor resolution large enough for me to visually enjoy the game, which is not a problem with WW1 Gold.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: vaalen
Queeg, glad it is working for you.
Centennial edition does not crash for me, but it does other bizarre things that ruin the game, such as failing to resolve combats, sieges,having the French in the 1914 scenario run away from the front without attacking or moving into Belgium, and other weird behavior.
But I do know these problems are not shared by everyone, and it has worked well for other people besides yourself. I think it is a matter of having the right system.
Also, I cannot get CE to run at a monitor resolution large enough for me to visually enjoy the game, which is not a problem with WW1 Gold.
Wow, that's good to know (not that I'm happy you're having problems) but just that experiences with CE apparently can vary greatly.
What settings do you use? For me anyway, CE runs best if I don't load the full map at start-up (which was essential in Gold) and leave v-sync on. Also, I check the setting in the Windows/Compatibility menu to "disable display scaling." You might try those if you haven't already, as well as some of the other compatibility settings.
And that's especially weird about the screen resolution. I've run CE on a variety of resolutions, including several lower ones, to take screenshots of various mods I've worked on. Admittedly, I do it by changing my desktop resolution to whatever I want to run the game in, but it works fine.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: wodin
How does this compare to those games? WW1Gold is my favourite WW1 Grand Strat game with SC Great War second.
Does it cope with the change from movement warfare to static warfare well?
I've been on the search for a great WW1 operational/strategic game for some time.
I find WW1G/CE too much like a boardgame - I can see the attraction but it then misses the advantages of a PC. It also has a horrible UI that you spend a lot of time tussling with.
SC is beer and pretzels.
EAW will have the current issues ironed out. The basic AGE system already copes with the Russian Civil War so can reflect both a war of movement and trench warfare. Athena is a very amenable lass - look at the way AGEOD have got her perked up over the 4 patches for ACW2. At the moment, the problems with EAW are mostly AI related and that will resolve itself over patches.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: loki100
EAW will have the current issues ironed out. The basic AGE system already copes with the Russian Civil War so can reflect both a war of movement and trench warfare. Athena is a very amenable lass - look at the way AGEOD have got her perked up over the 4 patches for ACW2. At the moment, the problems with EAW are mostly AI related and that will resolve itself over patches.
My guess is that EAW ultimately will be the best pure war game of the three - assuming they can model trench warfare adequately and iron out some AI issues.
But I'm skeptical that EAW will ever offer particularly deep strategy-game content. They've taken some features from WWIG and grafted them onto the traditional AGEOD engine, but they really don't offer much variety or depth. Better perhaps compared to other AGEOD games but not a true contender for a compelling strategy/war game hybrid. And I think that's unlikely to change.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
I agree EAW will be #1.
I'm surprised I've had no problems with WWI Gold 1.08 considering my weak system (Quad 2.4,3gig,ati 4650,Win7). The computer turns are blazing fast. It used to be hell on XP, though [;)]
I'm surprised I've had no problems with WWI Gold 1.08 considering my weak system (Quad 2.4,3gig,ati 4650,Win7). The computer turns are blazing fast. It used to be hell on XP, though [;)]
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
ORIGINAL: rosseau
I agree EAW will be #1.
I'm surprised I've had no problems with WWI Gold 1.08 considering my weak system (Quad 2.4,3gig,ati 4650,Win7). The computer turns are blazing fast. It used to be hell on XP, though [;)]
Gold runs pretty well for me on Windows 8.1. But loading takes forever (PON seems snappy by comparison) and the cursor can get jumpy after an hour or so. CE, for me anyway, solves all that.
RE: Question o owners of this and WW1Gold or Strategic Command Great War..
Well Queeg, you have given me hope again of getting CE or Gold to work.ORIGINAL: Queeg
ORIGINAL: vaalen
Queeg, glad it is working for you.
Centennial edition does not crash for me, but it does other bizarre things that ruin the game, such as failing to resolve combats, sieges,having the French in the 1914 scenario run away from the front without attacking or moving into Belgium, and other weird behavior.
But I do know these problems are not shared by everyone, and it has worked well for other people besides yourself. I think it is a matter of having the right system.
Also, I cannot get CE to run at a monitor resolution large enough for me to visually enjoy the game, which is not a problem with WW1 Gold.
Wow, that's good to know (not that I'm happy you're having problems) but just that experiences with CE apparently can vary greatly.
What settings do you use? For me anyway, CE runs best if I don't load the full map at start-up (which was essential in Gold) and leave v-sync on. Also, I check the setting in the Windows/Compatibility menu to "disable display scaling." You might try those if you haven't already, as well as some of the other compatibility settings.
And that's especially weird about the screen resolution. I've run CE on a variety of resolutions, including several lower ones, to take screenshots of various mods I've worked on. Admittedly, I do it by changing my desktop resolution to whatever I want to run the game in, but it works fine.
Would it be possible to post your configurator settings for both games, if it is not too much trouble? Or even one of them?
I hope I am not asking too much, but Gold was one of the finest games I ever played, when I had xp, than I moved to windows 7, and crashing has been a huge problem on gold ever since.
I appreciate your brilliant work around to the resolution problem, which should work for me in CE, if the other problems can be solved.