AACW, baby, AACW

[pasternakski]

My main man "wrong way" Korrigan has just let it slip over at AGEOD that their American Civil War title, derived from the same engine that drives their most excel - LENT Birth of America game, is going gold in the next few days.

We got game, dawg, now we definitely got GAME!

[Skeleton]

Most excellent indeed! Any word on the chance of Matrix working with AGEOD again for this title?

[cdbeck]

I believe it will be better than going gold, I think it will RELEASE in the next few days (at least on the Digital Download).

All signs point to April 12, to mark the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. I know I am excited!

SoM

[Mayenne]

The AGEOD guys are pretty secretive about their contracting policy.
For Europe, we've just learned last friday they had striken a deal with Nobilis for retail distribution in France. Nobilis was already distributing BoA, we can only hope this will be the same for Matrix. The companies look quite on friendly terms.

[Hairog]

From going to the web site and reading descriptions of the game is it safe to say that this is only a strategic level simulation. No operational level like Forge of Freedom?

I do enjoy setting up the battle and then fighting it on an operational level.

[cdbeck]

No tactical or squad level stuff, like actual battlefields (such as FoF). It will be much like their earlier Birth of America (which you can dl a demo of to get an idea). Combat is abstracted in a way akin to BoA or any major, turn based, operational style game (you move armies together and the computer fights).

You will have less... how to put this... control over force building or composition, but the grand strategy aspects of AACW will be a bit more focused on broad stroke campaign moves than FoF (i.e. you won't be stressing over what exact armaments to give to each brigade). They look to be pretty different games with the same style and purpose.

I intend to own both! Also you can check out the Manual for AACW on their forum, to get an idea of what the game will be like.

SoM

[LitFuel]

It's a nice system, but I just can't get into their games. The way battles are resolved leaves me cold and unattached. In a Civil War game where major battles are everything I'm just not big on how it plays out if anything like BOA. Gettysburg will be poof!! it just happened and you hardly knew it. I gotta have the whole enchilada.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

It's a nice system, but I just can't get into their games. The way battles are resolved leaves me cold and unattached. In a Civil War game where major battles are everything I'm just not big on how it plays out if anything like BOA. Gettysburg will be poof!! it just happened and you hardly knew it. I gotta have the whole enchilada.

This is a bit of a problem I have with all WEGO-style games. If the playback of the turn doesn't focus sufficiently on each combat resolution, the game has a tendency to feel more distant and less involving. Were I designing such a game, I would try to include a mechanism to play up the combats in some way, either actually or perceptually.

[JeF]

I agree.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Were I designing such a game, I would try to include a mechanism to play up the combats in some way, either actually or perceptually.

Like Dominions III ?
Combats are resolved in "real time" without human intervention. Players can only position their troops and script up to 5 orders (attack, hold, fire, etc.).

It is not an historical game though. So fantasy scenery and bizarre tactics abound. I don't know if such a principle can apply to historical games. Doesnt GG:WaW implement a similar principle ? I didn't play it and understand people mostly chooses to deactivate the feature.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

[cdbeck]

Technically speaking, a lot of games use this sort of method. You don't fight the battle in Hearts of Iron or Europa Universalis, nor do you drop to squad level when units clash in TOAW. FoF and CoG are some of the exceptions to this rule (in fact there are fewer grand strategy games that LET you play the battles than not). The battle are a bit like Spartan or Dominions III, although I am not sure you actually see the fighting and you get a battle report when it is over. Sort of like a baseball (or any other management sim) when they auto-resolve a game.

SoM

[dinsdale]

Personally I'd rather strategic and operational games don't succumb to adding tactical combat. Unless someone is going to devote the time and effort to sell two excellent games for the price of one, what it usually means is either the tactical side, or strategic side is a skeleton of a real game.

[ravinhood]

It's too bad it doesn't have the combat engine of Mad Minutes 2nd Manassas. How sweet a game it would be then if all meetings went down into a real play mode with the MM engine doing the combat results. Oh I know one game would take a long time to finish, but, what fun getting  to the finish it would be and one could always use the quick calc option if they so chose.  That's the game I'm waiting for. Though I may die before I ever see it with the combat speed and fun of MM's 2nd Manassass and the colorful map and strategic depth that this one looks like it's going to have. <sigh>

And yes I know I say I don't like rts, pct, and anything really real time, but, MM's 2nd manassas is an exception to that rule because I DON'T ever feel a NEED or HAVE TO pause that game to give orders and enjoy the perfect flow of time. That's what makes it exceptional, it's a real real time game with perfect timing and it doesn't even need a pause feature. Unlike HT...or CO.....no I won't mention those games here. hehe

[Capitaine]

I wasn't talking about "battle board" concepts in my post above.&nbsp; Simply making combat, when it occurs, a stop action kind of thing where the combat is presented, resolved (perhaps by clicking a combat button after being presented with the forces involved), and then the results/stats of the combat are shown.&nbsp; That is, making WEGO combat resolution a bit more like IGO/UGO combat resolution.&nbsp; I too dislike efforts to place "tactical" battles in strategic/operational combat games.&nbsp; Really didn't like the GGWaW thing either.

[ravinhood]

You don't like the Total War, Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom Games Capitaine?!

[cdbeck]

I was thinking the same thing ravinhood, about merging AACW and MM:2ndM. I agree with you... how... odd a feeling![:'(]

What makes 2ndM a great RTS (if you can even call it that) is the realistically slow battlefield (which is why you like it and don't consider it a "click-fest" I presume). A game would take FOREVER if you merged it with a grand strategy engine, but that isn't really a bad thing. I believe some developer did this with the Imperialist era with Imperial Glory (although I believe the battle were more like R:TW or M:TW2, faster paced and such).

Anyway, I thought I would praise your idea, seems like we are always busting on you... it would be a nice change of pace.

SoM

[Capitaine]

ravin, no I really don't like the titles you mention.&nbsp; I've only played the Total War series, not the CoG series, and find that the tactical battles lose my interest VERY fast.&nbsp;&nbsp;B/c the terrain of the battles isn't authentic --&nbsp;it's just randomly generated -- there's a&nbsp;separation from true operational warfare insofar as battlefield&nbsp;selection is totally lost.&nbsp; There is also sense of diminishment to me in a tactical game when it's coupled with a strategic game because the tempo of the strategy game is often upset and the battles become tedium.
&nbsp;
It may just be a personal thing with me, although I know there are others who feel the way I do.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
I know there are others who feel the way I do.

Oui, mon Capitaine. Tres bien.

[cdbeck]

To tell you the truth, I like the FoF battle system... it was all the esoteric rules about movement, recruiting (I need HOW many horses and HOW much money only for a divisional CONTAINER), and leadership (assign who to what) that made me feel "meh" about the game. AACW seems much simpler by comparison but with the potential for some real strategy needed. I felt the same way about CoG. GREAT ideas, overly complex execution.

SoM

[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.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

To tell you the truth, I like the FoF battle system... it was all the esoteric rules about movement, recruiting (I need HOW many horses and HOW much money only for a divisional CONTAINER), and leadership (assign who to what) that made me feel "meh" about the game. AACW seems much simpler by comparison but with the potential for some real strategy needed. I felt the same way about CoG. GREAT ideas, overly complex execution.

SoM

In FOF, you can easily mod it so that divisions/corps/armies don't cost anything, or cost a nominal amount (e.g., 1 Money). And you can play without generals if you don't like dealing with them.