RE: AGEOD

RE: AGEOD (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

wosung -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 4:54:48 PM)
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. Good analysis about rewarding gameplay & WEGO info lack. In the WitE/WiTW forums you'll find quite some complaints about unrealistic beaming units out of pockets just because of the IGO-YOUGO approach... One WEGO monster game comes to mind, WitP (/ Adm ed.): Is it better in presenting the action info than the Ageod games? More candidates for Ageod games may feel "strange": -areas & uniqe counters & counter containers instead of the usual hexes and stacks of Nato counters, -the rather non-mainstream choices of conflicts for making Agoeod games?! They are just not about "first I'll take out Poland and then...", -most Ageod games are not about clear frontlines but maneuver warfare about supply centres and LOCs. OTH, if you play one Ageod core game (besides of Great Invasions and WW1 Gold) you get used to their engine and could handle the other games as well. Which in itself has pros and cons. Plus, apparently (some of the) next Ageod games will use a new engine developed by Slitherixeod Canada. We'll see if those will be more accessible.

Freyr Oakenshield -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 6:02:30 PM)
BTW, do AGEOD games use that Slitherine match-making system that is implemented in Slitherine recent games?

Capitaine -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 6:59:56 PM)
I am very interested in the AGEOD "Wars of Napoleon" and the forthcoming "Wars of Succession", but I've read a host of complaints over on AGEOD's forum regarding the former; particularly regarding the AI. When the games are as opaque as the AGEOD titles are, you've got to be able to trust the validity of the AI. You've got to believe that the AI is getting it right and that its behavior is reasonably historical. I'm not seeing that myself so that's why I feel that as the game progresses the whole situation seems to spiral into something improbable to me. 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.)

loki100 -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 8:07:13 PM)
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.) I think this particular rule is a typical example of why people either accept the logic of AGEOD's games or don't. First there are rules (and they are easy to mod), equally over time the retreat rule has been told to put more emphasis on either retreating back the way you came (if you were the attacker) or towards a supply base. Most times you will see something that makes sense in those terms (other attractive routes are towards a friendly fortress, down the quickest road or towards where you already hold military control). But there is a random element and sometimes something very annoying will happen. But this was what did happen in the pre-modern age. A simple eg is in the Franco-Prussian war the French armies beaten around Metz retreated back to Sedan (ie away from both Paris and their supply lines) when they could have fallen back to the west (towards supply and been a threat to any Prussian move on Paris). The result is when the battle of Sedan occured all the Prussians had to do was not lose - which they didn't and Nap III et al surrendered. With the exception of EAW, few AGEOD games have a 'front line' that is the norm in most other games. You have regions where you sort of dominate instead. That means that a whole set of key mechanics are subject to unexpected outcomes - and most can be modded if you don't like this. 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.

76mm -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 8:32:05 PM)
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. OK, fair enough, but honestly I'm not likely to get to the point of figuring out how to mod a game's files, and which mods I want to make, unless I like the game in the first place, and so far I haven't gotten there with AGEOD's games. I'd like to like their games but after buying two or three and not playing them, don't expect to buy any more.

richfed -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 8:35:09 PM)
I support Ageod with purchases even though I don't play most of the games - time constraints, really. However, I HAVE played extensively Wars in America and Civil War & Civil War II. Excellent games that have a realistic flavor and a depth of strategic opportunities. Love them. There is no game I have played for more hours than Ageod's Civil War II.

Lecivius -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 8:54:39 PM)
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.

Max 86 -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 9:02:36 PM)
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. +1

aaatoysandmore -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 10:33:34 PM)
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.

Gilmer -> RE: AGEOD (7/29/2016 11:12:24 PM)
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.

Captain_Orso -> RE: AGEOD (8/1/2016 10:21:20 PM)
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 [;)]

wings7 -> RE: AGEOD (8/1/2016 10:45:55 PM)
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 [;)] Thanks for the info and link! [:)]

Aurelian -> RE: AGEOD (8/1/2016 10:53:25 PM)
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.

Qwixt -> RE: AGEOD (8/1/2016 11:15:43 PM)
https://www.bundlestars.com/en/bundle/grand-master-bundle [:)]

vicberg -> RE: AGEOD (8/3/2016 1:10:28 AM)
AGEOD games are entirely unique, but they have a lot of depth. They are closer to War in the Pacific. Both sides do their turns and the engine resolves them. What that does is create an accurate fog of war in which troops can suddenly show up unexpectedly and it favors those that send out scouts, etc., to determine where the enemy is. Then it's a guessing game as to what they are going to do. This is where PBEM games with AGEOD absolutely shine. Against a human opponent, there's so many choices. Form fronts and utilize MTSG. Stack up and try to smash or chase them down. 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.

76mm -> RE: AGEOD (8/3/2016 5:15:27 AM)
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...

loki100 -> RE: AGEOD (8/3/2016 8:25:36 AM)
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... one of the deeper bits is a degree of force tailoring. Less so in the bigger games on the main theatres but its not always a good idea to use your 'best' (ie most effective in combat) generals for a particular mission. If you want to outflank your enemy through poor terrain someone who is a 'fast mover' or has the ability to live off the land (perhaps leading light units) is by far a better choice. Also weak units, in the right stack or situation can become battle winners where your well trained guards are left looking bemused.

nicwb -> RE: AGEOD (8/16/2016 7:05:00 AM)
I picked up the ageod package on bundle stars- I have to admit I had been really struggling with the game mechanics from an earlier game I had. The tutorial for 30 Years War was much improved. There is still room for improvement but at least they cover things like sieges - a topic not well explained before. Like them or not ageod at least covers a lot of areas generally ignored by other developers.

Recognition -> RE: AGEOD (8/16/2016 10:19:28 AM)
AGEOD games are very good and Im happy that the developers continue to produce these periods. It can be daunting at first, even second time to get a handle on the mechanics and interface...but all will fall into place with patience and a look at gameplays on youtube [;)] I play CW2 and TEAW PBEM, and PBEM is the way to go Imho...Just play against the AI first to get the feel of the game. Hard to imagine gaming life without AGEOD.

VPaulus -> RE: AGEOD (8/19/2016 10:22:43 AM)
bump

Alan Sharif -> RE: AGEOD (8/25/2016 2:36:46 PM)
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. Looks like I'm converted to Ageod.

zakblood -> RE: AGEOD (8/25/2016 2:39:51 PM)
there you go, if only others tried the first one and worked there way up, by the time they got to the civil war, they would maybe be a lot better and appreciate them more, as this is what i've done and it worked for me, i'm never too proud to start or play anything on easy until i've learnt how to play, this way it doesn't or can't overwhelm you and you stop playing etc after being hammered game after game

Crimguy -> RE: AGEOD (8/25/2016 4:10:34 PM)
Me either, and I played the heck out of FoF. The tactical was too slow-moving for me. Someone asked if WitP was better at conveying information on battles than the Ageod titles. It is and it isn't. Problem with WitP was that the battle report screens, like the intel screens etc, were static and didn't contain hyperlinks. You had to use an external java app to see where the battles took place (something GG fixed when he did WitE). The information in WitP after battles is terrific. Few other games gave me the satisfaction of pulling off a successful carrier attack, or invasion. 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.

redcoat -> RE: AGEOD (8/25/2016 7:59:18 PM)
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. I bought the Ageod bundle too. I didn�t have the games and they were going for a song. The first one I tried was Rise of Prussia. It was difficult to get the hang of the Ageod game system at first. I got used to it eventually after a couple of short scenarios and numerous references to the game manual. I'm now playing Revolution under Siege. I�ve found that RUS has been easy to play after learning the basics about the Ageod system in ROP. My main problem with the bundle now is deciding which game to try next.

Alan Sharif -> RE: AGEOD (8/26/2016 11:25:21 AM)
I am thinking of playing Rise Of Prussia next, but this will be some time away.

NavalNewZ -> RE: AGEOD (8/26/2016 3:22:00 PM)
.

altipueri -> RE: AGEOD (8/26/2016 4:39:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NavalNewZ . ?

Zorch -> RE: AGEOD (8/26/2016 6:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: altipueri quote: ORIGINAL: NavalNewZ . ? "." - pe�ri�od (ˈpɪər i əd) n. 1. an extent of time that is meaningful in the life of a person, in history, etc.: a period of illness; a period of social unrest. 2. a specific division or portion of time: the postwar period. 3. a round of time, esp. as marked by the recurrence of some phenomenon: the rainy period. 4. any of the parts of equal length into which a particular thing, as a sports contest, is divided. 5. the time during which something is completed or runs its course: the gestation period. 6. the point or character (.) used esp. to mark the end of a declarative sentence or to indicate an abbreviation; full stop. 7. a full pause, as is made at the end of a complete sentence; full stop. 8. a sentence, esp. a well-balanced, impressive sentence. 9. periodic sentence. 10. a. an occurrence of menstruation. b. a time of the month during which menstruation occurs. 11. the basic unit of geologic time, during which a standard rock system is formed: comprising two or more epochs and included with other periods in an era. 12. Physics. the duration of one complete cycle of a wave or oscillation; the reciprocal of the frequency. 13. a division of a musical composition commonly consisting of two or more contrasted or complementary phrases ending with a cadence. 14. Astron. a. the time in which a body rotates once on its axis. b. the time in which a planet or satellite revolves once about its primary. 15. (in classical prosody) a group of two or more cola. adj. 16. noting or pertaining to a historical period. interj. 17. (used to indicate that a decision is final): I forbid you to go, period. [1375�1425; < Middle French < Medieval Latin periodus, Latin < Greek per�odos circuit, period of time, period in rhetoric] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Full+stop+(punctuation)

NavalNewZ -> RE: AGEOD (8/27/2016 6:36:12 AM)
lol, I wanted to delete the post, but you can't do that on these forums, so I chose the next bext option,'.'

Zorch -> RE: AGEOD (8/27/2016 9:59:35 AM)
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,'.' You could have told us to disregard it...we've been down that road before. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.734375