RE: Unplayable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray



Message

Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/9/2007 1:50:22 AM)

Kindly read the other posts; I'm not the only player having a hard time believing that AACW/BoA is as complex/complicated to play as WitP/UV.



madgamer2 -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 1:45:17 AM)

To Joe D I would say that perhaps complexity is more a state of one's mind than hard true fact. I know some folks who find a game like WitP to me not vary complex at all. A game like WitP has great depth and many factors and things that one must do each turn or 2 (depending on how often you stop to give orders)before you push that end turn button.
There is to my way of thinking not a great deal of game innovation in WitP but a great deal of detail handled by routines that are not that much state of the art, so to speak. Its not so much the game mechanic's that make it complex but rather the shear number of things going on in the game itself that make it that way. It is the way the game is designed that makes it complex but still allow one to be play it.
it WitP I finf that one can play a great bit of history such as the war in the pacific without becoming totally weighted down by it makes it such a great game experience.
To me it is large...yes. deep...yes, hard....perhaps but complex by its size and scope. You do what you need to do and just start it in motion and marvel at how it works...kind of like life. I don't worry about the small stuff like the best altitude for a particular aircraft or the best way to do something in the game. I do it and if it doesn't work I try something else kind of like life (OOPS I daid that already :-) )

So in the end complex is more to do with the way we see something rather than it being a fact. What I see as complex someone else may not. All games that are greater than a certain level to me are complex and require a longer learning curve for me. For someone else it might be be games I find complex they might find easy.

Well enough rambling on here I most likely have you (and myself) a bit confused. I write stuff like this all the time just for fun. :-).

Yours,
Madgamer



MrBoats -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 2:23:30 AM)

Madgamer,

Amen! I think that WITP is as much about logistics as strategy, and once you get your logistics straightened out in the first few months things run pretty smoothly. There are "spikes" of activity when you prepare for invasions or for major raids, but most turns require a relatively small amount of player activity. I think AACW requires more attention per turn, especially if the naval operations are at full realism setting. Just managing the Anaconda Plan is a game in itself. And I love AACW all the more for it! A micromanager's dream!

I hope Gary G's game is released this year, and I imagine it will be pretty "complex" as well! I would like to have a CW game with a hex-grid map and a tactical battle option. HPS's games are excellent, but they are, of course, limited in scope. But AACW is just fine as it is, and I can see myself playing it for years to come.



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 2:55:09 AM)

Game difficulty is not just a state of mind; you can objectively gauge the (relative) complexity of different games by comparing the size of their manuals, assuming that a more difficult/complicated game requires more explanation.

The following is a post from the UV forum re whether or not to "upgrade" to WitP, and how it compared w/UV:

Another measure that can be used to determien(sic) the depth of the game is to look at the size of the manuals for the games:

UV - 70 pages
WPO - 165 pages
WITP - 220 pages

My original manual for BoA comes in at only 28 pages, which makes it the least complicated of the above, relatively speaking. You can put in the number of pages for AACW; I assume it's more than BoA, but much less than the others.

As I said when I entered this thread, I don't yet own AACW. But if it really is a "micromanager's dream" as MrBoats claims, then I won't be buying it.



Joram -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 3:10:38 AM)

I agree the blockade is a bit tedious and requires micromanagement but other than that, I don't think it's a hard game to get into at all.  But as madgamer said, it's really about who you are.  People will always find different things complex and easy.



MrBoats -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 3:14:35 AM)

Joe D.,

I didn't mean to put you off buying AACW -- I may have overstated the micromanagement in the game. I was thinking of the naval operations, which can be adjusted to the player's liking. If you play at full realism there's a lot of management involved. But I enjoy the hell out of AACW and I recommend it highly. It's probably best with a human opponent, but the AI is aggressive and takes advantage of human mistakes (just like Lee and Jackson[;)]).

I do believe AGEOD shortened the manual as time went by, and the newer version is a lot better. The tooltips are a great feature, as well, and I wish WITP and/or UV had them.

In short, AACW = great value for the price. (For that matter, so was UFO:ET -- I played that one obsessively for several weeks!)

Thanks for your posts -- this has been a good thread.



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 3:41:40 AM)

You're welcome, although there were times I thought you guys were jerking me around about AACW being as hard as WitP (or UV).

UV vs. WitP has been an ongoing thread in their respective forums for some time; although they share the same engine, gamers say they play very differently.

I have yet to see a BoA vs. AACW post; BoA Gold was supposed to be a purchased upgrade that incorporated AACW features, but that hasn't happened (yet).

Then again, maybe AGEOD should leave well enough alone.



MrBoats -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 12:40:17 PM)

No jerking here! I enjoy a good discussion and this has been one.

I used to take a break from WITP by playing UV -- UV is WITP at about 1/10 scale. I've had some really satisfying UV campaigns and I've had my clock cleaned too many times as the US commander. One good thing is that I finally have a desktop and laptop that are powerful enough to run through a full WITP turn in two minutes

AACW took me forever to get a handle on, largely because I jumped into it before digesting the manual. I've had BOA since the release but never got into it -- I think I'll update it and give it another shot. I've been reading "Almost a Miracle" and it has me craving a good Revolution wargame.



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/10/2007 3:34:55 PM)

If you're going to go back into BoA, be sure to download the new v 1.09 manual from the "Important: useful links" posting on top of its forum; apparently, as w/AACW, the first translation of French into English left something to be desired.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1328204
Improved Game PDF Manual (available for your review)

Be advised BoA under 1.12/.12a is a very different game then when first released; supply restrictions are now strictly enforced, which means the Brit AI can't juggernaut w/large armies over New England because it can't supply such large forces for long w/o attrition penalties, esp. in winter as was the case historically.

Finally, I just learned the hard way that if you use naval guns to make a (land) fort, you can't shot back at ships, which is crucial when being bombarded by the Brit fleet vs. NYC and other key ports.

Good gaming.




Grotius -> RE: Unplayable? (9/12/2007 5:11:52 AM)

I love all three games mentioned -- FoF, AACW, WiTP -- but I think WiTP is far more complex than either of the other two. AACW may be a bit more complex than FoF, but on the other hand, FoF has tactical battles, which add a different sort of complexity. I do agree that AACW has some of the "epic" feel of WiTP.

Also, take what you read in the WiTP forums with a grain of salt. My guess is that the majority of players never post there, and a fair number of them -- maybe a silent majority -- play the AI. I've played WiTP and UV with PBEM, but I've probably spent more time playing the AI. It gives you an OK game if you play historically, and it doesn't quit -- or expect you to play out a game that has become tedious or dull.



MrBoats -> RE: Unplayable? (9/12/2007 1:34:30 PM)

Joe D., thanks for the info. I want to install and play BOA this weekend and I appreciate the info. I had heard about the "monster" armies and I'm glad that's fixed.

In response to Grotius's post, I have played only vs. AI and I agree that WITP is good that way if you don't take advantage of the AI. Tactically it is first rate, but strategically it is weak. I have been able to take Iwo early on while the Japanese ignore it and focus on the Solomons or keeping Kwajalein supplied. I think in WITP and even AACW it's necessary to impose some limits on your own play, just for the sake of having a decent game. I once cut off the entire southern army in the east and wiped it out by sending single divisions into the enemy's path of retreat. Of course, Lee and the NVA might have been "bagged" after Gettysburg, so maybe it's not entirely ahistorical.



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/12/2007 4:43:14 PM)

In 1.12a, the Brit AI can still field a large army, it just can't go far too far afield w/o severe supply penalties.

However, a large AI force can easilly garrison a well-supplied port city objective where it will become a real bother to extricate by seige from both land and sea.



madgamer2 -> RE: Unplayable? (9/13/2007 12:11:08 AM)

quote:

RE: Unplayable? - 9/9/2007 11:45:17 PM
No New Messages
madgamer
Matrix Veteran




Posts: 113
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: online To Joe D I would say that perhaps complexity is more a state of one's mind than hard true fact. I know some folks who find a game like WitP to me


Well to each his own. I would say that you have that old boardgame illusion we always called "The weight of the box" syndrome :-) The manual for WitP is something like 220+ pages. This is due to mostly explaining the many rather different things one had to do and how to do them because up till this game nothing had been published quite like this game.
The manual for WitP although was and remains to me the best written work of its kind. The fact that there are a lot of different thing one must do to me does not make it complex its just that you have many thing that need or can be done that would make it appear to some (like yourself) complex. I guess it come down to how each of us views the word "Complex". You have your way and I mine and I can live with that. Differences are what makes life interesting because if we all thought the same what a boring world it would be. I would like to continue this but I must get back to my WitP game. Your posts have caused me to realize there are different ways to see something so for that thanks and keep the posts coming I do enjoy reading them.

Madgamer



madgamer2 -> RE: Unplayable? (9/13/2007 12:23:59 AM)

all I ever really did with the navy (before the patch) was blockade with the blockade fleets you start with and split the navy between the 2 fleet boxes and let it go at that. I did spend max on diplomacy however. I did invest heavy in one game in navel production and did not notice much difference between building and not building a large navy. I find that investing in diplomacy tp be cheaper.

Madgamer



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (9/13/2007 12:38:44 AM)

When it comes to software, the "weight of the box syndrome" becomes academic; my BoA disk weighs about as much as your WitP disk [;)]

You're welcome, and I have to get back to my latest round of BoA.



TommyG -> RE: Unplayable? (9/13/2007 12:47:18 AM)


.

.

[/quote]

Just wondering how you determined that. I have never played WitP PBEM because it would seem to take too long to reach the end. Has anyone actually finished a PBEM from 1941 to 1945? How long did it take them, 2-3 years?


[/quote]

I have finished one game and have another in August 45. Both were one day turns and both were/will finish in less than two (extremely enjoyable) years. Like most PBEM WitP players, I tend to play 3-5 games at a time and spend 40 hrs or more per week. But I am old and ugly, and have no life.



Icedawg -> RE: Unplayable? (10/1/2007 10:01:24 PM)

Length of the manual is not a terribly accurate way of estimating game complexity. Some technical writers are both effective and concise while others are incomplete yet very verbose. In some cases, specific rules are mentioned multiple times in different, but related, parts of the manual (WiTP and UV). In other cases, key rules are not even mentioned - you have to find out by trial and error (which I feel describes this manual and that of Guns of August).

WiTP is a complex game, but it isn't as bad as you might think based on the length of the manual. In terms of game mechanics, it is very simple and intuitive. Everything about the interface makes perfect sense. When I first started playing UV several years ago, I was amazed at how quickly I could get through the various screens. Everything was highly ordered and logical. In a matter of an hour or so, I was zipping through the various screens with no problem.

On the other hand, I've been playing AACW now for about 2 weeks and I still can't accomplish many basic tasks and have no clue what certain game concepts are all about. For example, I can't even access General Longstreet at the start of the game. I can find his brigade in Richmond, VA on turn 2 of the April scenario, but I can't seem to find his information or move him around like I can the other generals. Perhaps this is because he hasn't been promoted yet and is still tied to his brigade? If so, it would be nice if the manual could have told me so. (As is, I'm just assuming that and waiting for him to become available later in the game.) Also, what ARE the "supply wagons" generated by each state each turn? Do these represent general supply points or do they have something to do with the various supply wagon counters I see in various locations? It seems as though these basic issues should be intuitively obvious.



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (10/1/2007 10:18:53 PM)

Have you posted your questions re Longstreet and supply wagons on the AACW forum yet? Pocus is quick to answer querie concerning his games.

BoA and AACW manuals suffered from (poor) translation of French into English; AGEOD rewrote the BoA manual (v. 1.09), and will probably do the same for their latest game, if they already haven't done so already.



Icedawg -> RE: Unplayable? (10/1/2007 11:03:14 PM)

No, I haven't posted my questions there yet. Maybe I will get a bit of a helping hand there.

I was wondering why the manual had so many grammar issues. (Using "good" in place of "well" really drove me crazy.)



targul -> RE: Unplayable? (10/1/2007 11:27:08 PM)

I must agree with the author. I like WiTP and found it simple to play. I spent three days attempting to learn how to play this game without success.

My friend who is also well versed in war games could not figure out how to play this game.

I bought it day of release but have never been able to play it so it just takes up space on my computer. Sure wish I could return unplayable and unusable programs.

This is the first game in my 50 years of war game play that I was incapable to understanding. Some I just didnt like but this one was the only one I simply could not figure out how to play.



simovitch -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 12:18:26 AM)

The varied responses in this thread provides an interesting basis for the analysis of what makes a game "difficult".

I don't own WitP so I can't make a comparison, but I just whipped the Union AI into submission by September 1861 on my second try as Confederate in the April 1961 campaign (my first attempt beat the Union by mid 1863.)

IMHO there's nothing really difficult about the game. You devise a plan and do all the the things you need to do to make it work. Perhaps 'complex' is the right word - although you should be able to play the game without addressing the complexities of supply, control, loyalties, and economics. You just won't do very well.

I played the tutorials step by step, then went on to a few of the shorter scenarios, and then the campaigns. Once the 'difficult' command structure became familiar, the rest fell into place. That's not to say that the game is not still complex to me - but I like it that way.

The biggest 'complexity' at first was becoming familiar with the geography so I could follow the buildup of my armies. But then it all breaks down into campaigns in 3 basic theaters (West, Central, East) and using the jump-map.

To me, 'too difficult' means you just can't understand the rules and what they are trying to convey. 'Too complex' means you understand the game mechanics but you just don't know what to do with them. I'll wager that most of the problems people are having with this game fall into the latter case.



Icedawg -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 1:07:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch
To me, 'too difficult' means you just can't understand the rules and what they are trying to convey. 'Too complex' means you understand the game mechanics but you just don't know what to do with them. I'll wager that most of the problems people are having with this game fall into the latter case.


No, its the former. I know what I want to do in terms of tactics/strategy. I just don't know how to get the *^&%$#@ program to do what I want it to. [:@]

Using your definitions for "difficult" and "complex", I'd have to say the game is not at all "complex". It's actually quite simple in that sense - especially compared to WiTP. (I can spend 3-4 weeks at about 6 or 7 hours per day just planning my first turn as the Japanese player in the Dec 1941 scenarios.) It's just too darned difficult to slog through the counter-intuitive game mechanics (finding units on the map; getting them to move with this stupid and unforgiving "drag and drop" nonsense; assigning commanders and more dragging and dropping of units onto them).

I heard somewhere that this game originated in France. Maybe its a cultural thing. Perhaps Americans have a culturally based preference for left clicking on hexes, while the French go for the drag and drop method? This sounds like a future Computer Science/Sociology PhD thesis for some aspiring grad student. [:D]



Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 1:53:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

... I heard somewhere that this game originated in France. Maybe its a cultural thing. Perhaps Americans have a culturally based preference for left clicking on hexes, while the French go for the drag and drop method? This sounds like a future Computer Science/Sociology PhD thesis for some aspiring grad student. [:D]


If you've ever worked w/Microsoft software or desktop publishing, dragging and dropping is as American as apple pie, even when its "a la mode".





Joe D. -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 1:55:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: targul

I must agree with the author. I like WiTP and found it simple to play. I spent three days attempting to learn how to play this game without success ...


Did you play UV before WitP? I'm assuming knowing how to work BoA will give me a clue to (eventually) playing AACW.



simovitch -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 2:40:20 AM)

I happen to like the drag and drop, (and the no hexes.) oh well, C'est la vie

Incidentally the game is produced by a French company, and there is a whole community of AACW players and modders over at ageod. They even have a wiki site going. A lot more information and activity going on over there than there is on the Matrix AACW forum.

Edit: fixed the link



MrBoats -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 2:55:08 AM)

Targul,

Stick with it -- it took me a while to get the hang of the game but it's well worth it. The multitude of strategic options available are reason enough to figure out the mechanics. I'm in January '63 (Union side) and I have taken New Orleans and Nashville and my forces are closing in on Memphis. I am tempted to send several divisions to New Orleans and secure the Mississippi River from the south, but I may just leave that to Grant in Tennessee. I am keeping the eastern armies as a force in being, just to tie down the rebel armies. I plan to win the war in the West. But any number of options have been available.

The new manual is very good and the tooltips are great. The latest patch is good, too.



targul -> RE: Unplayable? (10/2/2007 5:01:47 AM)

Well, I have shelved the game. Both myself and my best friend could not figure it out in over a week of trying.

Game looks kewl but the amount of micromanagement appears to be overwhelming. I tried the tutorial step by step many times and then I would try to actually move and well it was pointless.

I hope those who figured it out are having fun but this game is too complicated for me.



berto -> RE: Unplayable? (11/9/2007 10:44:06 AM)

Check out the smaller battle scenarios (more limited scope, shorter duration, fewer game elements) starting to emerge from the AACW modder community. These are making AACW very playable.



korrigan -> RE: Unplayable? (11/9/2007 11:47:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
BoA Gold was supposed to be a purchased upgrade that incorporated AACW features, but that hasn't happened (yet).


Indeed, we had to reschedule BoA 2.0 as the team focused its efforts on ACW customer service and Napoleon's campaigns.

The arrival of two new members in the team should help Philippe Malacher (Pocus) and Philippe Thibaut a lot: HoK is a game designed and Celtic is a coder. Together, they are going to work on BoA 2.0 and several other projects while Philippe & Philippe will focus upon Vainglory of Nations, a further improvement of the AGE engine.

BoA 2.0: ETA Q1 2008
VoN: ETA Q1 2009
Expect at least another project from us in 2008 between BoA 2.0 and VoN.

BoA and ACW will continue to be supported, expect more contents and updates!

Best regards,

Korrigan



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375