Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AACW, baby, AACW

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: AACW, baby, AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 11:39:33 PM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		Dominions 3...now that is a perfect example of "easy to play, hard to master"...in fact it would possibly take a lifetime to play out every race/strategy. Another superb "indie" developer and game i have yet to "finish" LOL!
I have just started fiddling with the Campaigns of AACW, and i'm not taking it too seriously, but i average about 20 minutes a turn.
Aarghhh! I can't wait 'till Summer...buy the kids 10 new games each and a case of Red Bull and i'll be in gaming heaven LOL.

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 61
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 1:38:08 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game. ;)

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)
Post #: 62
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 1:40:52 AM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game. ;)
Albeit a little ahistorical, eh?


_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 63
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 1:51:34 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game. ;)
Albeit a little ahistorical, eh?



When you have a game with no history it makes it quite easy to accept all things ahistorical. It's a "fantasy" wargame afterall. Those have always been my favorites actually since there's no squabbling over this Dragon had blue flame not Red Flame as some historical grogs do when historical wargames come out. lol

But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.

I think the main reason I prefer tactical over strategic text based wargames is that back in the 80's when SSI was very popular most of what they put out was TACTICAL from Combat Leader (yes this was a commodore 64 game) to Battallion Commander (a modern day Combat Leader), then we had the FOUR Tactical Civil War games, Gettysburg, Antietam, Shilo and Chickamaugua (sp), an offbreed of these was Sons of Liberty, then we had Kampgruppe, Battlegroup, Typhoon of Steel, Panzer Strike, Carrier Force, Sword of Aragon, and one of the best of the best Battles of Napoleon. That's just the ones I can recall off the top of my head. So, when computer wargaming started out it was mostly TACTICAL. Now, they've gone off into these grand scale operation strategic games and I just don't care for them. If they have BOTH then that's ok also as long as the AI is at least half way decent.

I also know developers aren't going to make every game to cater to me, I'm just letting them know they should. lol

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 4/16/2007 2:01:54 AM >

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)
Post #: 64
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 2:28:04 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.



I have to ask, have you actually played AACW? If you haven't can the comment that you "much prefer FoF" be considered remotely reasonable?

I don't really want to come across as an advocate for AACW ahead of FoF as I do enjoy both games, but IMHO AACW is the better grand operational game. Obviously if you insist on a tactical sub-game FoF is the better choice, but it's hardly a requirement for a strategic/operational level game. I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway.

You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.

< Message edited by Hertston -- 4/16/2007 2:29:59 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 65
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 2:31:48 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 66
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 2:45:20 AM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway.
Nice Strategy.

quote:


You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.

I thinks he's afraid to try it because he might "fall in love" and then how would he "look to the boys".

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 67
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 3:46:42 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

Maybe even better might be, "Has he ever played anything but the mouth organ?"

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 68
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 5:00:35 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		I find aacw (of which I'm a tester) to be a bit more complicated than fof when it came to understanding the mechanics.  The forming of containers (corps/divisions especially) was all quite confusing at first.  Now it's become second hand, but it's definitely not something I could have figured out by just playing around with the game.  I needed the manual to figure those issues out.

When it came to FoF however, I didn't really need a manual to figure out how to do things.  Maybe this was due to my experience with CoG, I don't know.

Either way, all 4 games have been a pleasure to play and I look forward to more releases from both companies.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 69
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 5:32:22 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.



I have to ask, have you actually played AACW? If you haven't can the comment that you "much prefer FoF" be considered remotely reasonable?



I don't really want to come across as an advocate for AACW ahead of FoF as I do enjoy both games, but IMHO AACW is the better grand operational game. Obviously if you insist on a tactical sub-game FoF is the better choice, but it's hardly a requirement for a strategic/operational level game. I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway.

You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.



I don't need to play a game I already know I don't like Herston that was my point of why I PREFER FOF and Tactical games. Or did you not read my post and not comprehend? I DON'T LIKE most Operational Startegic games of any type (hell I don't even like RISK). I've tried them and I don't like them. I never liked Third Reich by Avalon Hill, I don't like Strategic Command from Battlefront. I don't care for HOI or HOI 2 either, but, I have them. I'm not going to BUY every game I don't like just to apease some people who can't comprehend that some people don't like specific type games. I already know I don't and won't like AACW because of the way it plays. Because of the screenshots and the AAR's and the comments I've already read about it. That's plenty enough for me to make the statement I much prefer FOF over AACW because it offers MORE for the $$ as well as having what I like in those types of games a Tactical game as well as a strategic game. I'm playing more than just flip thru some numbers and watching numbers tell me the outcome of a battle. I didn't like Hunters Civil War game either or No Greater Glory and I was a damn beta tester for that game. They are boring as hell with nothing more than text and numbers telling the player the outcome. Boring, Boring Boring. ;)

Give me tactical anyday everyday, it's the only kind of wargame that really makes sense to play. ;)

As for the rest of you with your snide comments I think you might want to read what Erik said. Paternaski if anyone has a mouth organ it's YOU! lol Not only your own but the one in it. hahahaah

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 70
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 5:41:26 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		I find the AACC command structure much harder to learn than FOF. I have read the manual twice and done the tutorials twice (and parts of them more than twice) and it is still a challenge. I also found FOF easier with regard to the urgent question, what steps do I need to take in order to win? But, mainly, they just seem like two very different games and I am pleased to own both. I agree with others that this is a terrific time for a civil wargamer.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 71
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 5:53:10 AM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
But, mainly, they just seem like two very different games and I am pleased to own both. I agree with others that this is a terrific time for a civil wargamer.
Agreed, a combination of both would be a real killer. I'm definitely going to give the Beta Patch a run thru soon to see if/what makes the learning curve so different in my case. The tactical battles in COG or FOF were very easy to learn and i got very good at them. I need to take a fresh look at the economy/development model in FOF now that my mind is in the Civil War framework.


_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 72
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 8:13:53 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Give me tactical anyday everyday, it's the only kind of wargame that really makes sense to play. ;)

So, umm, excuse me for asking, why are you posting on this thread?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 73
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 12:29:52 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:


So, umm, excuse me for asking, why are you posting on this thread?

Because he can....oh...and it's his god given right, or something.

Upshot is this...he won't buy a game unless it's in the bargain bin...so he will allow all us gamers to keep him in the life he's become accustomed by allowing US the priviledge of keeping developers in business while he picks up the tail end.

He doesn't need to own a game to qualify any of his arguments. Hell, he doesn't even need to play the demo. "Why not?" I hear you all scream....well...hold on and I'll tell you why...because it's his god given.

But, what he does have down to an absolute art, is this...completely and utterly "getting it wrong" when it comes to describing a game and, by doing so, completely misrepresents the game by using two simple words close to his heart...real time and clickfest. And although RTS seems to be the bane of his life, he likes RTS (TW series (albeit just Medieval) and 2nd Manassas)...go figure.

Another thing he's great at is getting peoples backs up...and to that, I give him credit because he is truly a master at it. Like now.....I so depserately tried to fight the urge to post to point out his complete and utter lack of direction of his posts and the falsehoods therein...but I simply couldn't. Oh yes...he's very good at one thing!

Anyway, unlike him, I am off to see what this AACW game is all about and, more than likely, again unlike him, I will most likely purchase it. After doing so, it will allow me to come back here and give some positive feedback...something ravinhood is never likely to accomplish for two reasons...one, he will never buy it because it's a clickfest or rts (even though it's not - simply pointing out the fact the guy has absolutely no idea what those two terms mean...and I can prove that by pointing out he thinks HTTR and COTA are clickfests...which proves either he has no idea what the hell that means, or he has never played the damn games or more than likely he cannot play it right) and two, because he is completely and utterly incapable of giving positive feedback.

In fact, I challenge anyone (yes, ravinhood, you can take part) to find me a dozen links to different threads where he is positive about anything...out of 2187 posts, I think I may have set the barrier too high there!!

< Message edited by JudgeDredd -- 4/16/2007 4:55:21 PM >

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 74
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 12:46:30 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

Maybe even better might be, "Has he ever played anything but the mouth organ?"


Maybe the flute?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 75
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 5:22:04 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		True to my word, I've just purchased the game based on what I've read and liking their previous game (Birth of America)...we will see.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 76
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 8:04:54 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 77
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 8:10:27 PM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.

One word...Horseradish.


_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 78
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 8:14:08 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Denis the Menace's solution to everything is ketchup. But we digress...

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)
Post #: 79
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:01:36 PM   
Gibbon


Posts: 56
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.


I'm sure AGEOD guys will love to see their game compared to Goulash...
Gil R. Never bitch me again about me being direspectful to your game, it looks like you can't even respect the work of your Matrix fellows.

Really guys, you s..ck. We have the chance to have 2 great ACW games in a row (soon 3 with Gary Grisby's one) and the only thing you do is to flame?!!

I think this is great, AACW and FOF offer two different game experience. Some like us will prefer something more strategy oriented and will buy AACW. Some like Ravinhood will prefer a good mix between Strategy and tactical battles and will buy FoF. Some, like me again, are true ACW fans and will buy both (and later Gary's one).

So please stop being kiddish, AACW is a great game, post about your strategies, post about your AAR, post about its drawbacks, but post about AACW!

This was Gibbon's Morale Minute


_____________________________

McClellan asked, "What troops are those fighting in the Pike?"
Hooker replied, "[Brigadier] General Gibbon's brigade of Western men."
McClellan stated, "They must be made of iron."

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 80
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:11:27 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:


...like Ravinhood will prefer a good mix between Strategy and tactical battles and will buy FoF

Incorrect...ravinhood, as stated previously, will not buy FoF...or AACW or any other game outside of the bargain bin.

Just pointing out the slight inaccuracy in your post


_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Gibbon)
Post #: 81
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:11:29 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.



How?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 82
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:14:19 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Gibbon, like too many other people in the wonderful world of the internet, you've interpreted someone else's words to have the worst possible meaning, instead of the most obvious one. It's absurd to think that I was insulting AACW. As is a common practice on the Matrix forum, I was making a joke, in this case comparing Ravinhood's pickiness about games to my pickiness about foods.

Think about it: if I wanted to say something negative about AACW so as to hurt their sales, wouldn't I have written something slightly more substantial than that their game is like goulash?!?

And anyway, AACW clearly resembles ratatouille much more than goulash. Sheesh.

(in reply to Gibbon)
Post #: 83
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:14:54 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline 		Hmmm... I think I consider dissing goulash without actually trying it an even more heinous crime than dissing AACW without playing it...

I LOVE goulash. Unless you are a veggie how can you NOT love goulash?!





< Message edited by Hertston -- 4/16/2007 9:16:45 PM >

(in reply to Gibbon)
Post #: 84
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:17:26 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston
...how can you NOT love goulash?!

Because it has mushrooms in it!

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 85
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:17:58 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Gibbon, like too many other people in the wonderful world of the internet, you've interpreted someone else's words to have the worst possible meaning, instead of the most obvious one. It's absurd to think that I was insulting AACW. As is a common practice on the Matrix forum, I was making a joke, in this case comparing Ravinhood's pickiness about games to my pickiness about foods.

Think about it: if I wanted to say something negative about AACW so as to hurt their sales, wouldn't I have written something slightly more substantial than that their game is like goulash?!?

And anyway, AACW clearly resembles ratatouille much more than goulash. Sheesh.

I was just about to point out how touchy he appeared...u beat me to it.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 86
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 9:36:12 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Seriously, Gibbon, no one is attacking AACW. In fact, I'm playing it. Chill.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 87
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 10:11:21 PM   
Gibbon


Posts: 56
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Well Gil. R, no disrespect but I like your humour just as much as I like ratatoulle: Would not recognize it if I had it right in front of me.

Didn't get that Ravindhood disliked as much FoF as AACW. Well, I guess he doesn't like wargames then.... Must be pretty boring for him overhere!

NB: I don't like cabbage

< Message edited by Gibbon -- 4/16/2007 10:15:43 PM >

_____________________________

McClellan asked, "What troops are those fighting in the Pike?"
Hooker replied, "[Brigadier] General Gibbon's brigade of Western men."
McClellan stated, "They must be made of iron."

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 88
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 10:15:20 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Love cabbage...makes me fart though! 

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Gibbon)
Post #: 89
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/16/2007 10:16:59 PM   
Gibbon


Posts: 56
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Love cabbage...makes me fart though! 


Reading how ridiculous my first message sounds now, may be what I need is to eat more cabbage then!

_____________________________

McClellan asked, "What troops are those fighting in the Pike?"
Hooker replied, "[Brigadier] General Gibbon's brigade of Western men."
McClellan stated, "They must be made of iron."

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: AACW, baby, AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.719