If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 3 AUG 2009 at 7:34am |
bruceposCenturion
Posts : 2
Joined: 3 AUG 2009
Status : Online | There's a lot more to think about - the game covers the operational aspects of Napoleonic battle, so you have to worry about supply, terrain, intelligence, weather, etc.
The game system is quite subtle and takes a bit of time to get used to, but the more you play the more you'll find to enjoy. A good way to get to grips with the game is to play it against a another human.
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 7:34am |
marvingardCommander
Posts : 2826
Joined: 13 APR 2007
Location: 0
Status : Offline | Mhowe, is this your first AGEOD game? NCP is definitely the weakest link. The Peninsular Campaign and the longer Third Coalition game are the only good scenarios, and even then the time/map scale seems off if you wanted to face the same operational dilemmas of the era.
I would have gone with Birth of America II, and while you may be perplexed and even frustrated wit the command system, it works VERY well in the American Civil War. Both BOAII and ACW are very strong games. NCP seems like an afterthought... or a stillborn concept that lacked the crucial need for a full campaign system with diplomacy, mobilization and mustering/conscription.
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 7:59am |
mhoweCenturion
Posts : 191
Joined: 9 AUG 2006
Status : Online | Originally Posted By marvingardns
Mhowe, is this your first AGEOD game? NCP is definitely the weakest link. The Peninsular Campaign and the longer Third Coalition game are the only good scenarios, and even then the time/map scale seems off if you wanted to face the same operational dilemmas of the era.
I would have gone with Birth of America II, and while you may be perplexed and even frustrated wit the command system, it works VERY well in the American Civil War. Both BOAII and ACW are very strong games. NCP seems like an afterthought... or a stillborn concept that lacked the crucial need for a full campaign system with diplomacy, mobilization and mustering/conscription.
Thanks. I accept your experience that BoA2 and ACW are better games. But what about the presentation of information? Are BoA2 and ACD easier to read, have better icons and maps etc? That, even more than strategic depth, is what makes me question whether I can spent a lot of time on this game. Not really willing to incur eyestrain.
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 8:12am |
marvingardCommander
Posts : 2826
Joined: 13 APR 2007
Location: 0
Status : Offline | Well to be plain, I bought ACW and it sat on my hard drive for over four months before I gave it good shot. To me it seemed overcomplex... a game in which I thought gaining a decisive advantage involved fine tuning.
I now view ACW and BOAII as being rather elegant in their game play. The game has so much going on under the hood, but the results are 'intuitive.' There is absolutely NO control over tactical aspects of the game, so get that out of your mind. Your generals run the tactical show and you only see the results. But results almost always 'make sense.' Marching 50,000 men under a general noted for poor offensive character through mud 100 miles away from their nearest supply base and asking they attack aggressively across a river against an entrenched enemy of 5,000 men will yield predictible results. Still, there is so much fog of war, you will be frustrated not a few times in meeting your operational objectives... either because of weather, because of unseen supply strains, because of meeting engagements common in WEGO-type games, etc. etc.
The only fine tuning I make in a game of ACW is shuffling my generals each time a new 'class' of generals arrive in my capital, promoting where necessary, and rebalancing my divisions. Predictably, that slows down operations. Shoring up my supply net takes time.
The hardest thing to grasp in my mind was that I was not pushing around panzer divisions. Every year of BOAII and ACW is another campaign scenario with objectives that need to be accomplished by the onset of winter.
Give it some time and, if you feel so desired, I recommend getting BOAII. From there you can move up to ACW which, in my opinion, is one of the best wargames ever made. I'll argue the same for BOAII.
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 10:06am |
RayferCommander
Posts : 1857
Joined: 19 FEB 2006
Location: US, Michigan
Status : Offline | I wanted so much to like BOA and ACW, tried them both, but I couldn't get past the interface which IMHO is terrible. The tab feature to arrange armies and corps etc. just was very difficult to work with. And like mhowe who started this thread, I find the maps a strain on the eyes. I ended up selling both games. I much prefer the interface and maps in Forge of Freedom and Gary Grigsbys War between the States. And mhowe....there is a Forge of Freedom engine Napoleonic game called Crown of Glory: Emperors Edition out their if you prefer that era over the American Civil War.
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 11:47am |
MikeckCommander
Posts : 1396
Joined: 28 DEC 2008
Status : Offline | I agree with Marvingardns. AACW is the best wargame ever made (or one of the....) It is extremely deep whe it comes to logistics, command and even combat. Although you don't fight tactical battles, you can control the outcome by working with frontage issues, terrain, weather, entrenchments, cohesion, supply, enemy corps "moving to the guns", command penalties, level of training, whether you have ordered an assault, active, defensinve or passive posture corresponding to attack, conservative attack, probe, or on defense, if you ordered a withdrawl if attacked, hold at all costs, etc . If you can master these, you have a lot of control over how the tactical battles play out.
You can, for instance, use a well trained and supplied division to hold off a reinforced corp if you position them in a mountain area or other terrain that allows a limited frontage. On eth other hand, you can improve frontage by assigning the right types of commanders. Maneuvering untis is a big part of this. While I love GG WBTS...this area is lacking I feel.
I think its worth your time to get into it. I Agree that BOA II is also very good. Stay away from NCP. No maneuvering and not enough time on most scenarios.
"love is preserved by link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 1:22pm |
bowcatCenturion
Posts : 11
Joined: 13 JAN 2008
Status : Online | Been thinking of an Ageod game myself, hows the AI ?
|
| 3 AUG 2009 at 2:44pm |
marvingardCommander
Posts : 2826
Joined: 13 APR 2007
Location: 0
Status : Offline | The AI is better than in most games. It is better on the defensive than it is on the offense. Defensively, the AI is very good about attacking your supply chain with a combination of small raiders/partisons and entire full-blown offensives. I have seen the Confed AI more than once send a multi-corps spoiling offensive ala Bragg's 1862 invasion of Kentucky to draw off Union forces in the Deep South. The AI is also very good at using a combination of entrenched forces around objective cities while keep a field army available for maneuver in reserve.
I highly recommend checking out a very comprehensive AAR at the AGOED forums of the Soundoff vs. Banks game. Both players are posting great AAR's complete that is replete with operational thought, fair (often frustrated) evaluations of the gaming engine and full of historical flavor. Here is a link to Banks's AAR: [link=http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=12869&page=7]http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=12869&page=7[/link]. You can also find Soundoff at the same location in a different thread.
PBEM is definitely where it is at.
The other great thing about AACW is the riverine campaign. No other game has been able to model riverine operations in ANY period as well as riverine operations have been modelled in this game. My only grief is that 'mortar barges' have not been modelled (naval bombardment is dangerous business in ACW), and they have modelled static gatling gun units, but there is are no naval mines or submarines (i.e. CSS Hunley).
and entrenching around objective cities while during campaign seasons.
|
| 4 AUG 2009 at 12:22pm |
bowcatCenturion
Posts : 11
Joined: 13 JAN 2008
Status : Online | Sounds good thanks
|
