From: Syracuse, NY
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.
< Message edited by LitFuel -- 4/11/2007 4:36:24 PM >