Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AACW, baby, AACW

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: AACW, baby, AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 4:28:05 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3475
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: online
quote:

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.




< Message edited by Hertston -- 4/14/2007 4:31:05 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 31
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 4:41:34 AM   
dinsdale


Posts: 382
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 32
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 5:01:43 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 33
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 6:31:33 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
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...

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 4/14/2007 6:43:35 AM >


_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 34
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 6:59:56 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale


quote:

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. ;)

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 35
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 7:57:26 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 36
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 2:55:07 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

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. ;)

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 37
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 3:08:21 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

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. 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.

quote:

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


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

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 38
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 5:22:04 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

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.........

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 39
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 6:10:50 PM   
LitFuel


Posts: 271
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by LitFuel -- 4/14/2007 6:12:38 PM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 40
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 7:31:10 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
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.


I have to say that AACW does have a LOT going on under the hood for their quick battles. It's probably the best quick battle resolution system I've seen for this period. While I agree that sometimes I want to fight it out with a more detailed battle, they really do have a good system under the hood, it's not just smoke and mirrors. From the time I've spent with AACW so far, the quick battle results seem very consistent. I did get an occasional odd result in BOA (still a fantastic game) but I haven't seen that yet in AACW. My only issue so far has been that I simply haven't had enough time to play much AACW other than testing the very small scenarios as it's definitely in the WITP scale of time commitment from what I've seen so far. I think in a few years once my son is in school, perhaps I can start a grand campaign.

Anyway, back to lurking...


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 41
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/14/2007 11:37:18 PM   
dinsdale


Posts: 382
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
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.

What's the difference between a PC resolving the dice rolls for a tactical combat or strategic combat?

BOA and "under the hood" is quite misleading, every modifier and it's effects and calculations were available in the battle report. It's also pretty easy to get a feel for when you accidently run your militia into Cornwallis :)

I expect something similar in the new game.

For period tactical games I like the Battleground series (and was looking forward to Battles Of Napoleon) as games such as that are 10 times the detail which you'll find in a hybrid game.

--------

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ravinhood 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. ;)

Of course you would. The truly obnoxious declare everything boring which doesn't propel them to centre of attention. Your posts have become more and more desperate in search of controversy, whether here or the game forums such as Close Combat where you do nothing more than troll.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 42
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 12:55:12 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3475
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
I expect something similar in the new game.


It's pretty much identical in that respect.

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 43
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 2:24:26 AM   
Grifman

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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.


This is a red herring. I could say the same of any tactical battle. What, you didn't launch Pickett's charge against Meade's center? You choose another assault on his flank? What, you crushed Lee at Chancellorville by holding off Jackson and strking at Lee? How unhistorical! You didn't repeat the same mistakes made by the original commanders? What kind of game allows you to change history?! Blasphemy, I say, blasphemy!

I think you get my point. The whole point of a game is to allow you to change history. If the CSA commander decides to adopt a more defensive strategy such that Gettysburg never happens, then more power to him. That's what it's all about.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 44
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 6:59:57 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ravinhood 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. ;)

Of course you would. The truly obnoxious declare everything boring which doesn't propel them to centre of attention. Your posts have become more and more desperate in search of controversy, whether here or the game forums such as Close Combat where you do nothing more than troll.



Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol


< Message edited by ravinhood -- 4/15/2007 7:01:27 AM >

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 45
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 7:14:52 AM   
dinsdale


Posts: 382
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol


I'm sorry, when you went on the COI forum advising people not to buy the game at it's price you weren't trolling? When you constantly repeat the same mantra in every post about games you claim to have played but not bought you're not trolling?

As for childish name calling, you patented that a long time ago with your shrill, repetative "kiddie clickfest" labelling.

Whether you're a "MAN" or not I can't say. No sign of it from your posting.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 46
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 7:26:03 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol


I'm sorry, when you went on the COI forum advising people not to buy the game at it's price you weren't trolling? When you constantly repeat the same mantra in every post about games you claim to have played but not bought you're not trolling?

As for childish name calling, you patented that a long time ago with your shrill, repetative "kiddie clickfest" labelling.

Whether you're a "MAN" or not I can't say. No sign of it from your posting.



Nope sure wasn't. I was stating MY god given OPINION to the price and what the game entails as far as being a kiddie clickfest. It's become a very popular form of describing an rts game (hey maybe thanks to me) and that's the way I see it and that's the way I calls it. But, it's not titling anyone specifically as you do by calling my actions "trolling". Very different and apples to oranges in usage of terms where one is an opinion and statement and the other is a direct attack.

It also reads lately from your posts like you might have a tumor have you had that checked lately? ;) You appear highly agitated and irriateable lately, common signs of a tumor in the brain.

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 47
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 9:28:09 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
You know, I'm having a lot of fun playing AACW. It gets better and better the more you understand about it - and there's a lot to learn.



_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 48
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 9:55:32 AM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You know, I'm having a lot of fun playing AACW. It gets better and better the more you understand about it - and there's a lot to learn.


Same here, almost as much fun as the Matrix Forums tonight...reading everyone insulting each other. It's like Fight Night at the Olympic Auditorium...is it a full moon?
Seriously, AACW is a gem and should get Wargame Of The Year if not Decade. After a couple days of play i am starting to miss the tactical combat of FOF...funny how these things tie together...they both offer something unique.
I have to disagree with Erik though, i think FOF is a longer game in general, especially if you fight the battles yourself which IMO is the most enjoyable/rewarding way.
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.


_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau


(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 49
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 4:11:31 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Ravinhood, Dinsdale,

Knock it off. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)
Post #: 50
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 6:01:52 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Wonder if there's a research module in this game... Can't find mention of it on its site...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 51
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 8:42:19 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3475
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wonder if there's a research module in this game... Can't find mention of it on its site...


Nope. There are a few political options and such to play with (calling for volunteers, moving the capital etc) but AACW is a wargame, not a strategy/wargame hybrid as is FoF.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.


Agreed. That's a very good way of putting it, actually. After a couple of days play it's certainly my favourite of the two.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 52
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 8:50:29 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Thanks, Hertston... Doesn't sound like it's for me, then...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 53
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 9:33:51 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.


Agreed. That's a very good way of putting it, actually. After a couple of days play it's certainly my favourite of the two.


Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 54
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 9:48:30 PM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.

Regards,

- Erik

Although there is much under the hood EVERYTHING you need is on the playing field via screens or tooltips. The tutorial goes into enough detail to begin playing, the manipulation of units<containers> is straightforward and the added economic/diplomatic elements are not too overwhelming but again, the tooltips help.
In fact, it is one of those "easy to play, hard to master" games because after learning the basics you get the fun part...Strategy. I think you'd agree that FOF is a little more complicated, further bogging the player down is/was the WAD dilemma which is understandable with a game of this scope.
In summary: AACW has more Fun Factor where FOF demands "work" (if you want to live).
On the other hand, i'm one of those people who could play HW all day long...different strokes


_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 55
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 10:04:36 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Although there is much under the hood EVERYTHING you need is on the playing field via screens or tooltips. The tutorial goes into enough detail to begin playing, the manipulation of units<containers> is straightforward and the added economic/diplomatic elements are not too overwhelming but again, the tooltips help.


Thanks for the response. I mean this as an honest query (not a dig at AACW, which we hope to distribute as well and which I am enjoying quite a bit) as I found the games of similar complexity and in some ways thought FOF was easier. I love both games, but as a designer/producer am interested in learning how they come across and what makes it so for gamers. In AACW, I have to go into the ledger just as one has to go into three or four list type screens in FOF each turn to manage various off map functions. FOF has plenty of tooltips and a Flash tutorial that goes through basic interface and container management. I actually find the interfaces quite similar complexity-wise and design-wise.

I guess the in-game tutorial AACW has is a superior way to learn, but I'm trying to figure out if that's really all there is to it as far as the impression of greater approachability. If I were dumped in either game without a tutorial, I think I'd probably find FOF easier, so I'm guessing the AACW tutorial scenarios are what make the difference. One thing I've found a bit cumbersome in terms of managing containers in AACW is the need to split/disassemble them fairly often when I want to reorganize. It's easy to add units in, but I haven't figured out how to get units out without disassembling the whole container. I haven't read the entire manual yet though, so this may just be my inexperience.

quote:

In fact, it is one of those "easy to play, hard to master" games because after learning the basics you get the fun part...Strategy. I think you'd agree that FOF is a little more complicated, further bogging the player down is/was the WAD dilemma which is understandable with a game of this scope.


I found AACW to be beautifully elegant and fun in the smaller scenarios like Shiloh and Bull Run, but so far I haven't gotten far into the main campaign because of the amount of management it requires each turn to check all my units, reinforcements, new militias, etc. It's taking me a lot more work thus far to get through a turn than BOA or FOF does and I'm wondering if I'm the only one seeing that. FOF feels to me a bit more like playing Third Reich while AACW is feeling a bit more like World At War (the board game) so far. Perhaps a better comparison is to say that AACW is making me feel a bit like I'm playing WITP as far as detail, which is a good thing but not what I would ever have called "approachable".

quote:

In summary: AACW has more Fun Factor where FOF demands "work" (if you want to live). On the other hand, i'm one of those people who could play HW all day long...different strokes


Well, detailed battle certainly takes time but FOF does have both quick and instant battle options, so the addition of detailed battle _as an option_ doesn't strike me as a possible negative against FOF, but rather a positive for those who do have the time to fight things out. I think AACW's instant battle resolution is much better than FOF's but FOF's quick battle seems to take similar things into account as the battle resolution in AACW, so those seem about on par.

FOF also has its Basic and Intermediate games as options, which IMHO are much simpler games than the Advanced version and Basic doesn't even allow Detailed Battles as an option.

Anyway, I'll play around with AACW some more as time allows. I'm also working on Panzer Command Kharkov and the next FOF update, both of which take up a fair amount of my time.

In any case, I'm very glad to see such a great ACW game from AGEOD and I think ACW fans are frankly blessed to have both this and FOF and the upcoming ACW game from 2by3. Enjoy it while it lasts, folks as I can't remember the last time there was this much ACW goodness all within a year's time.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)
Post #: 56
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 10:06:07 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3475
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.



Regarding 'approachability', AACW is a lot easier to learn and get playing (once the tutorial bug was fixed, anyway!). Having played BoA helped a lot of course, but then I'd also played CoG prior to FoF as well. The only real hiccup at all is the army organisations, once you get that sussed the whole thing is very intuitive. (EDIT: point noted on this; I haven't found any easy way to disentangle a commander from his division, either. I just haven't found myself actually needing to do it that often so far.)

"Grand-operational game focused on the military side of things" describes AACW well, and that helps approachability too. There's depth without the 'width' of FoF, which gives you the 'strategic' stuff (developing cities, researching weapons, etc) as well. It's a matter of preference which style of game you prefer. I certainly prefer the AACW approach partly because it's the military aspect that interests me but mostly because such strategic layers are always (and have to be, practically) so abstract and 'gamey' they lose the historical feel.

Overall, though, I don't think any gamer with an interest in the Civil War can do without either title. They are sufficiently different to co-exist on a hard-drive, and both will be played.


quote:

FOF also has its Basic and Intermediate games as options, which IMHO are much simpler games than the Advanced version and Basic doesn't even allow Detailed Battles as an option.


Tsk, tsk Erik.. you know that the folks around here don't do "basic"!






< Message edited by Hertston -- 4/15/2007 10:27:02 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 57
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 10:30:58 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Regarding 'approachability', AACW is a lot easier to learn and get playing (once the tutorial bug was fixed, anyway!). Having played BoA helped a lot of course, but then I'd also played CoG prior to FoF as well. The only real hiccup at all is the army organisations, once you get that sussed the whole thing is very intuitive. (EDIT: point noted on this; I haven't found any easy way to disentangle a commander from his division, either. I just haven't found myself actually needing to do it that often.)


Thanks, it helps to understand that - for me the jump from COG to FOF seemed pretty easy but I understand that it might not be the case for everyone. I actually found COG to be significantly less initially intuitive as far as how some of it was laid out than FOF, though I've heard from some folks that they thought the reverse.

quote:

"Grand-operational game focused on the military side of things" describes AACW well, and that helps approachability too. There's depth without the 'width' of FoF, which gives you the 'strategic' stuff (developing cities, researching weapons, etc) as well. It's a matter of preference which style of game you prefer. I certainly prefer the AACW approach partly because it's the military aspect that interests me but mostly because such strategic layers are always (and have to be, practically) so abstract and 'gamey' they lose the historical feel.


Ok - just curious, how long does it take you to do a full campaign turn in AACW vs. FOF? Currently for me, though it may be a learning curve issue still, it took me over an hour to do my first AACW turn and about 30 minutes per after that, whereas FOF turns take me about 10-15 minutes. Granted, if I choose to do a detailed battle, it will take much longer but that's apples and oranges.

I agree that to some extent strategic layers are always going to be a bit gamey. BRPs anyone? However for me at least they do add a lot and that may be where our tastes differ a bit. I enjoy being Lincoln a bit more than being Grant and I think you may be the opposite.

With that said, I find the AACW level of detail on the military side fascinating. That's where it reminds me of WITP in that I look at the resolution of the map and the detailed OOB and go "Ooh!". However, it's also still daunting for me in that same respect. I'll keep at it, though - there is definitely a wealth of info there for any wargamer.

quote:

Overall, though, I don't think any gamer with an interest in the Civil War can do without either title. They are sufficiently different to co-exist on a hard-drive, and both will be played.


I agree with that 100%, which is why I'm hoping we'll also have AACW available here in the future to make sure everyone in the community sees it and gets a chance to add it to their collections. This really is the best time for ACW gaming since the heyday of TalonSoft as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Tsk, tsk Erik.. you know that the folks around here don't do "basic"!


Bah.

Regards,

- Erik


< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 4/15/2007 10:32:54 PM >


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 58
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 11:13:48 PM   
TheHellPatrol


Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
Surely it's an individual thing as WITP was a snap for me to pick-up...although i was younger(and the kids were too). COG/FOF "appear" overcomplicated to me because i "perceive" it to be because of all the options and hidden/subtle machinations. AACW "appears" simple so i "perceive" it as such and i don't notice how much is under the hood until the "Wow Factor" hits.
This is my "psychological" evaluation of "my" thinking just to make myself clear...and a sudden excuse to use knowledge i gained in College that hasn't been lost in a group of dead brain cells<hic>. If i wasn't so "obsessive" i would have just played FOF but in reality i was always searching to find out why/how things worked...it became a fixation...that and "life" kept getting in the way.
I agree Erik, the one thing that i find cumbersome with AACW is the management of the larger campaigns...sure you have "E" and "R" ( T & Y ) to cycle thru units but on a large scale it can be daunting. Let's put it this way...i will have a renewed reminder of US Geography.

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 59
RE: AACW, baby, AACW - 4/15/2007 11:30:33 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3475
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok - just curious, how long does it take you to do a full campaign turn in AACW vs. FOF? Currently for me, though it may be a learning curve issue still, it took me over an hour to do my first AACW turn and about 30 minutes per after that, whereas FOF turns take me about 10-15 minutes. Granted, if I choose to do a detailed battle, it will take much longer but that's apples and oranges.


The timings are about right, I think, although on average I'd probably take longer over both, particularly FoF. I'm one of those who spends an awful lot of time mulling over possibilities before doing anything, and in FoF there are probably more possibilities to mull over due to game aspects that aren't in AACW. That's not directly a factor regarding 'approachability', I think. For example, Dominions 3 is a very 'approachable' game in that it is ridiculously easy to learn and play in terms of game mechanics, but turn lengths are just as long as FoF, and usually rather longer.


quote:

I agree that to some extent strategic layers are always going to be a bit gamey. BRPs anyone? However for me at least they do add a lot and that may be where our tastes differ a bit. I enjoy being Lincoln a bit more than being Grant and I think you may be the opposite.


Probably true, but I think a lot depends on the actual game design. Features only "add a lot" if they suit the overall game design. AACW doesn't need that strategic layer any more than it needs a tactical system. FoF needs the former if not necessarily the latter but in both cases the games deliver what they were designed to deliver, and it is that on which they should be judged. Which is 'best' is all down to personal preference, as you say.





(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: AACW, baby, AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125