AACW, baby, AACW

[cdbeck]

If I can't figure out the game, you think I can figure out modding... [:'(]

No disrespect for FoF, because I really love the battles... best turn based battles in the biz. In truth, I am a mad man for wargames done in this time period... gotta catch them all! Funny, because I am a medievalist by trade...

Its probably because the subject matter is so different. Lord knows I love WWII, but gimme a break already.

Cheers to ANY developer who makes a grand strategy on ACW.

SoM

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
I like the FoF battle system...

I dislike it, but to each his own.

AACW seems much simpler by comparison but with the potential for some real strategy needed.

I don't understand this criticism. AACW is all about strategy. I am aware that a few commenters here have been negative about it because it is not "tactical" enough (not presenting individual battles in player-controllable detail). To that, I only respond by saying, "Tactical battles were not part of the AGE system design." I only add, "I hope they never will be," and again second Capitaine's most eloquent comments on this subject.

Is there some deficiency in AACW's strategic depiction of the American War Between the States? I am not aware of one, particularly as the game has not yet been published. Please enlighten me.

My main problem was that let's face it with the Civil War it's all about the battles. It's about Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Fort Sumter, Vicksburg, Chickamauga... etc. and in this system they are pretty much going to be ho-hum affairs. So to me that is a flaw. I really don't have to have a tactical battle system per say but just a better presentation of the battles and what the heck just happened. I think that's something they need to work on further otherwise like I said I like the system but I need more satisfaction If I just crushed Longstreet. I did read a while back that they were planning on improving that aspect of their games by the next release, Vainglory.

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

AACW seems much simpler by comparison but with the potential for some real strategy needed.

I don't understand this criticism. AACW is all about strategy. I am aware that a few commenters here have been negative about it because it is not "tactical" enough (not presenting individual battles in player-controllable detail). To that, I only respond by saying, "Tactical battles were not part of the AGE system design." I only add, "I hope they never will be," and again second Capitaine's most eloquent comments on this subject.

Is there some deficiency in AACW's strategic depiction of the American War Between the States? I am not aware of one, particularly as the game has not yet been published. Please enlighten me.

This was not a criticism Pasternakski. Read the comment again... I said simpler but with a real potential for real strategy. You're preaching to the choir buddy! [8D] No need to convince me, because we agree!

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
My main problem was that let's face it with the Civil War it's all about the battles. It's about Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Fort Sumter, Vicksburg, Chickamauga... etc. and in this system they are pretty much going to be ho-hum affairs.

The best description I read, of battles during this era (which is still Napoleonic in strategy) is that battles were the punctuation at the end of a sentence. The marches and counter marches are what the Generals would have spent their time planning, battles such as Gettysberg were simply the result of maneuver warfare.

If the new game is anything like Birth of America then it will capture that feel perfectly. No other operational game (outside of a boardgame called Struggle OF Nations) I've played comes closer than BOA in making a player feel like he is commanding period armies.

but just a better presentation of the battles and what the heck just happened.

I agree they could dress up the results a little. The combat explanation is clear, if a little devoid of atmousphere.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
AACW seems much simpler by comparison but with the potential for some real strategy needed.

This was not a criticism Pasternakski. Read the comment again... I said simpler but with a real potential for real strategy. You're preaching to the choir buddy! [8D] No need to convince me, because we agree!

Well, now that you're not throwing the cows over the fence some hay, it's much clearer...

[tc237]

Download is ready!!!
(Link deleted)
Get it!!

[benway9]

downloading now 85% done [8D]

[TheHellPatrol]

IT'S OUT! Downloaded in 40 minutes and it also works fine with Vista.

[Brigz]

Pretty impressive looking game. The map is fascinating. Even has the small town I was born in. Anyone played it yet and can give a quick review?

[ravinhood]

The issue with games like this and even FOF is that while historically set in the timeframe they never or rarely meet historical realism for the battles. There will rarely be a major battle at Gettysburg or a very slim chance of it. Or Vicksburg or Shilo or Antietam or any of the other "famous" battles, because these operational games just can't simulate them and be open operational strategic games. Thus only simulations will ever capture the real realism of the "battles" while games like this one and FOF might capture the realism of command and politics and resource management and troup composition. And the other point and the reason I don't care for these types is I enjoy the "battles" tactically moreso than playing out the strategy game. Even the Total War series the most fun was to be had playing out the battles, not the strategy portion. The AI was pretty lame in both catagories for all of them post MTW Vikings Invasion anyways. Once the player takes over any aspect of the strategic portion it all becomes ahistorical after that unless the game is a pure simulation of the period and the player plays out a sequence of events that lead up to the major battles. Ala HPS Campaign Gettysburg. I like the way they did that campaign. I've not very often got into a grand strategic campaign game of any period except Medieval. Crusader Kings was the exception to my rule, but, only because it has a mini game in it of dynasty building while playing out an ahistorical outcome. Of course the dynasty building is just as much ahistorical as the strategic game, but, it almost feels like playing The Sims in a wargame. lol It is truely one of those games where you get two games in one. Many people that like CK like it for the dynasty building game moreso than the strategic game from what I could gather from the official forum.
 
At any rate I'm sure this Civil War game will be welcomed by the normal group of grogs/gamers that are into this sort of ahistorical type of game. I as I said would be more prone to buying it if it had tactical battles ala Mad Minutes combat engine. I'll defintely be buying Mad Minutes next game (hopefully Shilo). It's fun, it's slow and it doesn't feel like a clickfest and it's "tactical".

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The issue with games like this and even FOF is that while historically set in the timeframe they never or rarely meet historical realism for the battles. There will rarely be a major battle at Gettysburg or a very slim chance of it. Or Vicksburg or Shilo or Antietam or any of the other "famous" battles, because these operational games just can't simulate them and be open operational strategic games.

Agreed, which is one reason I'm not one of those who clamour for tactical battles in operational/strategic games. I'd far rather play AACW (rather than FoF now as, to be honest, AACW is both more fun and more atmospheric) and then Take Command or the HPS Civil War stuff separately where you can have detailed simulation of particular battles and campaigns.

As to AACW in particular, it simply doesn't need a tactical layer. It's one of those compulsive just-one-more-turn games where it would just be an annoyance and, even if just an option, I can't imagine anybody using a tactical sub-game with it, or at least enough to justify the effort of including one.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhoodAt any rate I'm sure this Civil War game will be welcomed by the normal group of grogs/gamers that are into this sort of ahistorical type of game. I as I said would be more prone to buying it if it had tactical battles ala Mad Minutes combat engine. I'll defintely be buying Mad Minutes next game (hopefully Shilo). It's fun, it's slow and it doesn't feel like a clickfest and it's "tactical".

Very few people consistently manage to hit the Condescending Wanker tone you've patented for yourself.

Maybe your vocabulary is limited: what you've painfully explained is that you prefer tactical games over strategic ones. There, summed it up in a sentence and didn't need to make any snide remarks, references to games I've either never played or used the word clickfest.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The issue with games like this and even FOF is that while historically set in the timeframe they never or rarely meet historical realism for the battles. There will rarely be a major battle at Gettysburg or a very slim chance of it. Or Vicksburg or Shilo or Antietam or any of the other "famous" battles, because these operational games just can't simulate them and be open operational strategic games. Thus only simulations will ever capture the real realism of the "battles" while games like this one and FOF might capture the realism of command and politics and resource management and troup composition.

Well, you probably won't have "Gettysburg", but I've already had a couple of detailed battles in FOF where afterwards I thought "Wow, that was almost like Gettysburg" or "That was like Second Bull Run", etc. As soon as you start changing history in a strategic game, everything changes and that's the case in any such game you play. If you want the historical battles, that's fine - but for me the detailed battles bring the fun and involvement to a new level, even though they are in different places with different forces. They still feel historical.

Regards,

- Erik

[pasternakski]

It seems to me that there is a fundamental design matter that informs the discussion of "strategic game with or without tactical battles" that has slipped under the radar like a greased eel.

Back in Paleolithic times, wargames were almost always hex-based. The occasional area-movement (or point-to-point movement) design popped up, but there was no consideration of digging into each hex or area and pulling out a "tactical" representation of what was going on in there (an early design that did something of this kind was "Remember the Maine," an S&T magazine game).

Well, time passed, and designers tried to become more varied and diversified. Somewhere in there, computers for the home came into existence, and the Lord said, "Lo, let there be wargames on the computer." And it was good (but I still don't know why the, "Lo!" was necessary, but maybe it's a Charlton Heston thing).

Before long, there were a lot of area-movement games. Remember "Storm Across Europe"? How about "Feudal Lords"?

The problem was that these games were very superficial and offered little player immersion, because you couldn't see what the heck was going on, and your success - or failure - was determined through interface with a few detached displays and tables where you punched in your settings, gave a few "go there" orders, and hoped for the best.

Kinda disappointing, wasn't it?

Well, things tried to get better. You had "Imperialism," for example, that tried to give you some detail within areas and - ta da! - included the option of tactical battles within specific places where opposing ground forces happened to wind up facing each other.

It sucked. I don't care what you say, it sucked.

Now, to the point (and, jeez, isn't it about time this Condescending Wanker got around to making some kind of a point?). I don't think I have yet seen a game that tries to depict tactical battles separately in an overarching strategic game system that works.

The biggest problem, for me, is the "leap of faith" involved. "Okay, here we are in Timbuctoo, and you got this, and I got that, so let's line 'em up and shoot it out, then get back to the level where the outcome really matters." To my mind, making these "real-time" battles (I refuse to admit that there is any such thing as "RTS," but I'll hold that water for another flood) is a failed approach, and I don't think that turns help much. You have to disconnect yourself from the flow of the strategic simulation you were playing, put on a battlefield commander's hat, fiddle around for awhile, then try to resume command of what really interested you about playing the game in the first place. You wanna fight Gettysburg, go fight Gettysburg. You wanna be Lincoln or Davis, do that. One ain't the other. They're distractions, and they make any game where this is built in less of a game and more of one of those naval shoot-'em-ups where you start out on the bridge, then you start aiming a deck gun and going, "bang, bang, pow, pow," and maybe even get to shoot off your big torpedo spread ...

but enough of that.

Remember Avalon Hill's old "War at Sea," where you picked up your ships from the sea zone where you happen to have wound up at the same time as your opponent, plunked 'em down on the card table among the beer and chips, lined 'em up one-by-one against teach other, and started rolling the dice ("Dang, ain't there any sixes on these things?").

I don't think we've come very far. I'll take the very eloquent and satisfying BoA and AACW, thank you.

Oh. There's trouble inherent in WeGo, too, but some other time...

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: ravinhoodAt any rate I'm sure this Civil War game will be welcomed by the normal group of grogs/gamers that are into this sort of ahistorical type of game. I as I said would be more prone to buying it if it had tactical battles ala Mad Minutes combat engine. I'll defintely be buying Mad Minutes next game (hopefully Shilo). It's fun, it's slow and it doesn't feel like a clickfest and it's "tactical".

Very few people consistently manage to hit the Condescending Wanker tone you've patented for yourself.

Maybe your vocabulary is limited: what you've painfully explained is that you prefer tactical games over strategic ones. There, summed it up in a sentence and didn't need to make any snide remarks, references to games I've either never played or used the word clickfest.

Ahhh but we do not live in a world of clones of Dinsdales. We live in a world of uniqueness. Personally I would find myself boring both online and real life if I were your clone Dinny ole boy.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Personally I would find myself boring both online and real life if I were your clone Dinny ole boy.

Actually, I find Dinsdale's posts to reveal a person of intelligence and reflection.

My guess is that, if you did turn out to be Dinsdale's clone, there would be a genetic engineer facing a malpractice lawsuit of the nastiest kind...

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Personally I would find myself boring both online and real life if I were your clone Dinny ole boy.

Actually, I find Dinsdale's posts to reveal a person of intelligence and reflection.

My guess is that, if you did turn out to be Dinsdale's clone, there would be a genetic engineer facing a malpractice lawsuit of the nastiest kind...

That sounds more like what would happen if YOU were the case. lol

And I never said Dinsdale didn't have intelligence afterall you only need 80IQ for that.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
The biggest problem, for me, is the "leap of faith" involved. "Okay, here we are in Timbuctoo, and you got this, and I got that, so let's line 'em up and shoot it out, then get back to the level where the outcome really matters." To my mind, making these "real-time" battles (I refuse to admit that there is any such thing as "RTS," but I'll hold that water for another flood) is a failed approach, and I don't think that turns help much. You have to disconnect yourself from the flow of the strategic simulation you were playing, put on a battlefield commander's hat, fiddle around for awhile, then try to resume command of what really interested you about playing the game in the first place. You wanna fight Gettysburg, go fight Gettysburg. You wanna be Lincoln or Davis, do that. One ain't the other. They're distractions, and they make any game where this is built in less of a game and more of one of those naval shoot-'em-ups where you start out on the bridge, then you start aiming a deck gun and going, "bang, bang, pow, pow," and maybe even get to shoot off your big torpedo spread ...

Well, to each his own. I think at the moment I'll just let you enjoy your AACW high. [8D] It's a great game. I just enjoy variety and sometimes I like to get down there and fight out the battle in detail with all the troops I've so lovingly built up with all my strategizing and economizing. So, I'll be playing both as I assume most folks wll be.

Oh. There's trouble inherent in WeGo, too, but some other time.

Hm? Every system has its trade-offs...

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

It seems to me that there is a fundamental design matter that informs the discussion of "strategic game with or without tactical battles" that has slipped under the radar like a greased eel.

Back in Paleolithic times, wargames were almost always hex-based. The occasional area-movement (or point-to-point movement) design popped up, but there was no consideration of digging into each hex or area and pulling out a "tactical" representation of what was going on in there (an early design that did something of this kind was "Remember the Maine," an S&T magazine game).

Well, time passed, and designers tried to become more varied and diversified. Somewhere in there, computers for the home came into existence, and the Lord said, "Lo, let there be wargames on the computer." And it was good (but I still don't know why the, "Lo!" was necessary, but maybe it's a Charlton Heston thing).

Before long, there were a lot of area-movement games. Remember "Storm Across Europe"? How about "Feudal Lords"?

The problem was that these games were very superficial and offered little player immersion, because you couldn't see what the heck was going on, and your success - or failure - was determined through interface with a few detached displays and tables where you punched in your settings, gave a few "go there" orders, and hoped for the best.

Kinda disappointing, wasn't it?

Well, things tried to get better. You had "Imperialism," for example, that tried to give you some detail within areas and - ta da! - included the option of tactical battles within specific places where opposing ground forces happened to wind up facing each other.

It sucked. I don't care what you say, it sucked.

Now, to the point (and, jeez, isn't it about time this Condescending Wanker got around to making some kind of a point?). I don't think I have yet seen a game that tries to depict tactical battles separately in an overarching strategic game system that works.

The biggest problem, for me, is the "leap of faith" involved. "Okay, here we are in Timbuctoo, and you got this, and I got that, so let's line 'em up and shoot it out, then get back to the level where the outcome really matters." To my mind, making these "real-time" battles (I refuse to admit that there is any such thing as "RTS," but I'll hold that water for another flood) is a failed approach, and I don't think that turns help much. You have to disconnect yourself from the flow of the strategic simulation you were playing, put on a battlefield commander's hat, fiddle around for awhile, then try to resume command of what really interested you about playing the game in the first place. You wanna fight Gettysburg, go fight Gettysburg. You wanna be Lincoln or Davis, do that. One ain't the other. They're distractions, and they make any game where this is built in less of a game and more of one of those naval shoot-'em-ups where you start out on the bridge, then you start aiming a deck gun and going, "bang, bang, pow, pow," and maybe even get to shoot off your big torpedo spread ...

but enough of that.

Remember Avalon Hill's old "War at Sea," where you picked up your ships from the sea zone where you happen to have wound up at the same time as your opponent, plunked 'em down on the card table among the beer and chips, lined 'em up one-by-one against teach other, and started rolling the dice ("Dang, ain't there any sixes on these things?").

I don't think we've come very far. I'll take the very eloquent and satisfying BoA and AACW, thank you.

Oh. There's trouble inherent in WeGo, too, but some other time...

..maybe this is the wrong point to mention t3 buttttttt.........

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski



The problem was that these games were very superficial and offered little player immersion, because you couldn't see what the heck was going on, and your success - or failure - was determined through interface with a few detached displays and tables where you punched in your settings, gave a few "go there" orders, and hoped for the best.

Kinda disappointing, wasn't it?

The funny thing is when I read this part I was thinking that was how I feel about BOA which I'm assuming is very similar to AACW. Until they come up with a better way to resolve battles, which I hear will be with the next game Vainglory then I'll sit this one out. I don't need a pure tactical game but battle results could be much more involved and with immersion. As is now it really just is like pushing pieces around a board for little satisfaction. It seems many are mesmerized by how it seems to be but so much is "under the hood" that it feels like I'm being fooled by smoke and mirrors, and a pretty game board face.