CTGW vs TEAW

[operating]

Hi Folks,

Recently ordered To End All Wars (TEAW aka EAW), have not received the boxed set yet. I have been yearning for a WW1 game on the scale of how EAW is set up, but would rather have it in the CTGW operating system, instead of what AGEOD offers. From what I have been reading: That EAW is riddled with problems, lack of readily available information, CTDs, ect.. Gee! Have I heard this before? (hint CTGW) I have to admit, in both games there has been help from both game management and co-members, let's say good samaritians (excuse sp.). Currently I have 5 MP matches recently started in CTGW MP, which I still find "very entertaining", then again I would like this style of gaming to go up another level (scale), where a player has hands on interaction within a battle (as it is in CTGW), instead of a computer generated AI free for all with the most convoluted outcomes in EAW, win or lose in battle (if you read EAW AARs you will see what I mean).. I have been swayed by EAW AARs to give the game a try, mind you a lot of it goes over my head. On the face of EAW naval game, I believe that CTGW has it beat hands down, that may change after getting into the new game (being an optimist).

Here may not be the place to bring up this subject for discussion, regardless, most here are like minded with an interest about WW1 games. If this provokes development of a grander scale of CTGW style game, I'll have to say mission accomplished, all I can do is just "HOPE", the last of anything out of the Pandora's Box.

Have a nice day, Bob

[operating]

Below is a copy of a comment about EAW made a couple of hours ago. CTGW complaints sound tame compared to the quote below.[:D]

oK, so can anyone explain how to deal with the first turn? I'd like my armies to assault Liège and then proceed to assault Namur. How does one do that? I get the strangest results and have no idea why one army moves, why the other doesn't, why one reverts to the defensive when not asked to, why some are "blocked by X forces on the country side" and do not attack them as they are supposed to, why all corps in Lège can plot movement through Louvain but one corps is not allowed to ("cannot reach that destination" or something like that), why I pass through Brussels with the whole 1st German army and it ends the turn being 100% Entente, why the King of Belgium ends the turn in... Verdun, why are German horses bulletproof why does the message log say "Emden fortress shoots at Harwich force" or something like that , and then " thanks to our victory we took 400 rifles" "thanks to our victory we took 2000 prisoners" , (which victories???? against whom????? when???? where???? coastal batteries firing at passing ships???)

why, why , whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh

[Symple]

Well, to the comment on your quote - first of all, use the card to deploy artillery on Liege. Namur falls if you send your army in red, ie attack, mode. This game, To End All Wars, is not a mystery, but it is a challenge. However, you do need to learn how to play it. It is not a gift to defeat France, but work.
Actually, my experience with TEAW is very different than what you report. I find it realistic and challenging.
TEAW is a huge step above CTGW, but I do love CTGW with the later starts. Try the Verdun start, great game.
Bob, ie Operating, these are two excellent games. Both take work. TEAW is not a given, you win if you play. It takes serious players to make it work. CTGW is more causal, but requires understanding of the system.
Really, two excellent World War One games. I love them both. I would be glad to share how to play them. But do not let someone who cannot even capture Liege to influence your understanding.

[operating]

To tell the truth; I have not received the game TEAW yet, expect it will get here any day now, however, when I read questionable comments about TEAW at a number of sites, it begs the thought: "Am I making the right decision buying this game?". I have been very comfortable with the IGOUGO concept, of which CTGW represents, I would prefer that it's concept be implemented on a grander scale much like TEAW, that's right in my comfort zone of familiarity, however, I have compromised with myself to get TEAW anyways, as almost as a last resort, and also from a strong recommendation from you (Symple) and other positive sources, including comments, AARs. There is another WW1 game in the offering out there at Making History Gaming Headquarters based on WW1, but that game seemed to be off the charts to my liking, also "it is not linked to Matrix/Slitherine sites".

Yes, I do believe there is some explanation for the above quote which could be reasoned, thus made sensible. Am I looking forward to dealing with same like situations? NO! Will I try and solve these types of frustrations when confronted with them, YES! Certainly headaches I do not desire, certainly have gone through a graveyard of mistakes, misunderstandings to get to where I am now. I'm keenly aware there are more graveyards of those types to go through, when learning new games in the future. It comes down to what you want to get out of it....

And believe me "Symple", I am going to take you up on your offer on how to play the game!!!!!![;)]

[Symple]

So your message is all good news to me. The WEGO system is so very different, but it captures the issue of celerity often missing in games with the IGOUGO system, which I also love in the Commander series. Is it chess or is it simultaneous movement in 3-D chess. The WEGO system also factors in fatigue from march.
Lots of players only want the simplicity of the Commander series. I love this. One of my favorite games is Piecing Fortress Europe. It is a gem of simple design and play, but complex treatment of the Italian campaign. There is a place for a game which takes time to learn. I actually took three days, about six hours, to make my initial turns in TEAW. It is not easy to play at first. The deal is, this challenge is ultimately so fun.

We just need a third player. And, we are on.