Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
When combat occurs, you can't follow that as it happens; you have to bring up a battle report at the start of the next turn and study its cryptic hieroglyphics to try to make sense of how a battle was resolved. All this may give the sense of a realistic system -- or maybe not -- but it is not very rewarding gameplay where, as in say WitE or WitW you move and fight as you go seeing the results immediately and having a rough knowledge of the factors going into a combat. As you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

...

I recall playing a demo of "Napoleon's Campaigns" where as France I fought a battle with the Prussians in 1806, was victorious, and the defeated Prussians did not retreat back on their open Line Of Supply, but further from it, moving behind my forces into a region controlled by the French. Since this was an early demo, I reported the seemingly unhistorical behavior and the response was that when a force retreats it can go to any adjacent region, anywhere. That made no sense, as you'd think the first place the force would first retreat to was the region it entered from, especially if that was also its supply line.

That's an example of me having a lack of confidence in the historicity of the AI programming, where forces seem not to follow a sound historical practice. (It could be argued that erratic behavior is "realistic", but wargames have always had distinct rules for retreat priority based on logical military principles. If multiple paths are all equally valid then randomness among them would be acceptable.)

quote:

Someone earlier complained about March to the Sound of the Guns. Well if you don't like it being random you can easily mod the game files so it always happens. If you don't like the concept (and some players of Rise Of Prussia argue it is ahistoric for that war), then mod it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

CWII I love, but I feel badly burned by WON. It was obviously released long before it was ever close to completion. I shall be much more circumspect with any AGEOD game going forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

One thing I never liked about Ageod games is the combat system and that next turn results screen. I don't feel like a part of the combat I just feel I'm moving units around piecemeal and not getting any satisfaction out of the combat results.

I like games like "Forge of Freedom" over Civil War I or II by Ageod. I get to see the results and get to play out the combat in tactical battles. I also like command and control games like Panzer Command and Norbsoft's Civil War series where I get to be part of the battles not just "read" about them. That is so 60's stuff.

Basically their games are so boring and put the player outside of the game I just don't care for them. Even Hoplite is more fun to play than an Ageod game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain_Orso

I think if you want to hear the roar of cannons, ripping of massed rifle volleys, and the thunder of cavalry charges, this is not the game for you. You don't play the battlefield commander, down on the field, watching the progress of advances, guiding reinforcements, ordering the charge. Your position is far from the field, behind a desk, listening for the telegraph to clatter out the words of generals, spattered with mud and worse, many miles distant across mountains and forests, rivers and fields, reporting of loss or victory.

You do however get to decide where these generals will struggle with a wily and determined opponent. You get to build the armies, plan where to leverage strength and mask weakness. Your hands steer the resources of a nation toward victory or defeat.

You decide whether to push down the Mississippi with all strength, or to pull your forces together in the East and push for Richmond or Washington; and the amount you can influence movements toward a strategic goal is not small. But you don't get the cry Charge!!

Back in the AGEOD forums CharlesOnMission put an entire series of tutorials together: Video Tutorials and Let's Play!. If you're interested in not just learning the rules, but how to use them, this may help you.

Aside from that, drop by the forum and ask any questions pertaining to the game. There are always people willing to shed some light onto dark corners of the game and very happy to help others on their journey to learning a game we've grown to hold in very high esteem.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Best regards

Captain_Orso aka on the AGEOD forums, Captain_Orso, because I'm so divers

quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

One thing I never liked about Ageod games is the combat system and that next turn results screen. I don't feel like a part of the combat I just feel I'm moving units around piecemeal and not getting any satisfaction out of the combat results.

I like games like "Forge of Freedom" over Civil War I or II by Ageod. I get to see the results and get to play out the combat in tactical battles. I also like command and control games like Panzer Command and Norbsoft's Civil War series where I get to be part of the battles not just "read" about them. That is so 60's stuff.

Basically their games are so boring and put the player outside of the game I just don't care for them. Even Hoplite is more fun to play than an Ageod game.

I've never played the tactical part of Forge of Freedom. I'd rather be the higher up general moving my troops around and expecting the generals to carry out my orders and win the war.

It really is personal feelings on what people like. There are games here that people drool over and I'm just ambivalent to, like the SPWAW or whatever it is. I had that game a long time ago in its first incarnation and it was OK, but it wasn't anything I felt like returning to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
The depth comes in once you get the basic mechanics. It's really a simple drag and drop type of game at heart. But then forming up divisions and knowing your command structures have huge impacts. A corp command can only have a few divisions under command. An army commander impacts all corps assigned to the army up to a range. Leadership traits have huge impacts at all levels (division up to army). Military control and loyalty of provinces have major impact on your supply system and production system. Throw in regional decisions and it's a very deep game engine with ample replay ability Always plays out different. Massive choices on what to do, especially with Civil War or WON.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
The depth comes in once you get the basic mechanics. It's really a simple drag and drop type of game at heart. But then forming up divisions and knowing your command structures have huge impacts. A corp command can only have a few divisions under command. An army commander impacts all corps assigned to the army up to a range. Leadership traits have huge impacts at all levels (division up to army). Military control and loyalty of provinces have major impact on your supply system and production system. Throw in regional decisions and it's a very deep game engine with ample replay ability Always plays out different. Massive choices on what to do, especially with Civil War or WON.

This is exactly the type of thing that sounds interesting to me...but for some reason I've just never gotten sucked in with any of the AGEOD games. Maybe I'll try again with WON once the weather turns cold again...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

One thing I never liked about Ageod games is the combat system and that next turn results screen. I don't feel like a part of the combat I just feel I'm moving units around piecemeal and not getting any satisfaction out of the combat results.

I like games like "Forge of Freedom" over Civil War I or II by Ageod. I get to see the results and get to play out the combat in tactical battles. I also like command and control games like Panzer Command and Norbsoft's Civil War series where I get to be part of the battles not just "read" about them. That is so 60's stuff.

Basically their games are so boring and put the player outside of the game I just don't care for them. Even Hoplite is more fun to play than an Ageod game.

I've never played the tactical part of Forge of Freedom. I'd rather be the higher up general moving my troops around and expecting the generals to carry out my orders and win the war.

It really is personal feelings on what people like. There are games here that people drool over and I'm just ambivalent to, like the SPWAW or whatever it is. I had that game a long time ago in its first incarnation and it was OK, but it wasn't anything I felt like returning to.

I never played the tactical part either for the same reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alan Sharif

Well, I NEVER expected to be posting this. I too invested in the 'Bundlestars' offer, it was just too good to let pass by. After false starts, and hours spent watching you tube, I think I have finally cracked it. I am really enjoying Alea Jacta Est. Yes, I do not understand it entirely, but I am winning, against an AI that I have set as 'easy' but 'aggressive', but most importantly, I am having FUN whilst learning some Roman History.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavalNewZ

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavalNewZ

.

?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavalNewZ

lol, I wanted to delete the post, but you can't do that on these forums, so I chose the next bext option,'.'