First Impression

[grab]

Having awaited an English Civil War game for many years I could not wait to purchase it. I am not new to Ageod games and had a pretty good idea of what to expect. So imagine my disappointment when I saw the map. As it is, in Ageod game terms, a small geographical area I had hoped for a map that reflected the UK in form and layout. The UK looks like a childs representation, that may be an effort to give it a period look, and there is no geographic representation of the counties and shires only names that very roughly equate to their real geographic locations. For my money as a Brit I would have liked to see more attention to detail with the map which would have enhanced, for me, the visual appeal.

As for game play it is to early for me to comment on that at this time.

[grab]

Sad to say I have tried to play scenario 4/6 three times now and each time it crashes. The first time the game crashed with an error message. The next two times the game just stopped and returned to the main menu screen.
The first crash occurred running v1.00 and the other two crashes occurred whilst running v1.01

[xj900uk]

Don't understand the message about having insufficient assets to pay for deploying armies properly...
I will have to look through the manual carefully, see if there is anything there which might help.

[julianbarker]

I agree re the map. It is very poor. The location of cites, the regional boundaries, the bizarre arangement of the welsh border along the River Seven etc. placing towns and cities like Hereford deep into Wales etc. The typos, the inconsistency between geography, regional terrain type, and on map portrayal etc. Why place the town of Reading in a different region to Reading? The Thames is portrayed as a serious obstacle up to Reading. It was fordable just west of what is now London at the time. I could go on and on. I find the word "Berkshire" stamped right across the middle of Surrey unforgivable!

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Don't understand the message about having insufficient assets to pay for deploying armies properly...
I will have to look through the manual carefully, see if there is anything there which might help.

I'm confused by this too. You pay 10 to be able to make a group commander and then that commander takes a hit to his leadership stats. In other Ageod games that leadership stat hit is only temporary usually lasting one turn, but in this game it seems to be permanent. None of my group commanders ever got back their original leadership stats.

Plus, I get that "This unit is only partially operational,{Name of Group Commander] as you lacked assets to pay the admin costs." What admin costs?!?! Wasn't that the 10 I already paid when I initially made the group?

Sadly, the above issue alongside the typos, the repeating events ("The Queen has returned!" is listed twice in the event log), and the tutorial that makes references to Stettin and Swedish cavalry shows a game that could have used some more polish before release.

[Recognition]

I`m sure a few patches will follow to address issues.

The geographical map nearly 400 hundred years ago was very different to how it is today in this modern period.

I`m very happy the game is released and I`m enjoying it, and the price is very resonable. Thanks Ageod.


Cheers

[Leibst]

Please report the crashes in the tech support area.

Several changes were done from the first beta version on the map, other had to wait as some of them are delicated and need time to work and test without harm to other features.
We are of course open to study what is clearly wrong and change it. Sometimes we have made decissions that are needed for the game flow.

Regarding the Leaders remaining at 1-1-1 that is new, during beta worked correctly.

We will check all the issues and fix them asap.

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: Leibst

Please report the crashes in the tech support area.

Several changes were done from the first beta version on the map, other had to wait as some of them are delicated and need time to work and test without harm to other features.
We are of course open to study what is clearly wrong and change it. Sometimes we have made decissions that are needed for the game flow.

Regarding the Leaders remaining at 1-1-1 that is new, during beta worked correctly.

We will check all the issues and fix them asap.

So, group leaders having their stats nerfed permanently is WAD? What was the reasoning behind that decision? Also, 3-1-1 leaders are not being reduced to 1-1-1, but to 1-0-0. I don't get this design decision at all. It makes forming groups even less desirable. They're relatively expensive to create and now they permanently damage their leader's abilities? So, why bother? Also, what's the point of being told every single turn in the game log that you need to pay admin costs as to group upkeep if you can't actually pay that admin cost?

This game's lack of polish is annoying.

I've come across numerous incomplete txt.strings such as for the Northumbrian replacements (FAC_NAME_NOR(Nor)) or for building descriptions (Requisitions Office(STC_NAM_REQUISTIONSOFFICE2). The Government decisions tab is listed as "Foreign Affairs" so there's two Foreign Affairs tabs. I've come across several Royalist elements that are misidentified with pike elements being named musketeers and vice-versa. I'm not even a "bug detective," but a lot of this stuff is pretty hard to miss.

Still, I've been enjoying playing the Royalists in the grand Civil War scenario. I've had a couple of CTDs, but the autosave feature has ensured that I didn't lose much. I like the low density of units and the tight economy. I just wish it was better polished and that odd design decision as to group leaders was supported by some reasoning in the manual or notes.

Edit: Command Points. In the manual, Rank 1 commanders provide 6 CP to his force. In the game, Rank 1 commanders are providing 12 CP to his force. WAD? Or a bug? It's certainly made keeping forces in command a lot easier than other Ageod games. It's also another reason why forming groups is now almost pointless because one of their big selling points is to lessen command penalties which are now practically non-existent anyway if 1 Rank generals provide 12 CP.

[HeinzHarald]

ORIGINAL: mkeogh76

So, group leaders having their stats nerfed permanently is WAD? What was the reasoning behind that decision? Also, 3-1-1 leaders are not being reduced to 1-1-1, but to 1-0-0. I don't get this design decision at all. It makes forming groups even less desirable. They're relatively expensive to create and now they permanently damage their leader's abilities? So, why bother? Also, what's the point of being told every single turn in the game log that you need to pay admin costs as to group upkeep if you can't actually pay that admin cost?

I believe what he meant to say was that the bug is new, that it didn't work like this in the beta.

[Leibst]

indeed, it's new. Not wad.
We will fix all of that regarding strings... We worked hard with the tutorial text and it seems some escaped our eyes [:(]

leaders should give 12 points. This was changed to allow that leaders to command historical forces.Two star leaders here can command big stacks.

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: Leibst

indeed, it's new. Not wad.
We will fix all of that regarding strings... We worked hard with the tutorial text and it seems some escaped our eyes [:(]

leaders should give 12 points. This was changed to allow that leaders to command historical forces.Two star leaders here can command big stacks.

It's good to hear that a leader's stats being permanently nerfed if you make them a group leader is a bug.

However, I'm not sure about the change to make a 1-star leaders provide 12 CP. Again, that damages a big reason for forming groups. It also undermines the value of leaders. As the Royalists, I have a bunch of superfluous 1-star leaders who are providing little or no value. The generic 3-1-1 leaders with no traits are practically worthless if you don't need them to provide CP. One of the best things about Ageod games has always been the importance of leaders within the chain of command. The decision to have 1-star commanders provide 12 CP seriously undermines the chain of command because one can easily remove bad commanders and shunt them to the rear. If you don't need their CPs so why have them in your armies at all? Plus, it's now very easy to avoid dealing with bad/mediocre but senior generals. Simply remove them from command and let more junior but talented commander take charge with no real fear of command penalties.

Plus, do the Royalists have any ability to recruit supply wagons? I've been playing Ageod games a long time, but I confess I still find the supply rules almost inexplicable. I built a depot. My army is supplied by that depot, but the next year that same army in the same depot province whittled away from lack of supply until I built another depot level. But now that army has no supply wagons and seemingly no ability to recruit more. Where and when can a Royalist commander build supply wagons?

[Leibst]

You just need to go ahead some months and have loyalty over 50% in the Royalis recruit regions.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Rush
The geographical map nearly 400 hundred years ago was very different to how it is today in this modern period.

It might well have been but I'll bet it didn't include county towns in the wrong county!

One small point I'll mention in passing, references to 'the Parliament' should read just 'Parliament'. Grammatically 'Parliament' here is a proper name, not an object, so the definite article is not added.

[altipueri]

Well a wargame site should have a few grammar nazis I suppose.

"the Parliament" is used in the Encyclopedia Britannica article I posted - tm.asp?m=4283826 - opening paragraph and paragraph 27 I believe, so the error is in good company.

Personally I suspect the manual might have been written in Spanish and translated.


Apart from some map defects and spelling areas I think the game is brilliant at bringing a formerly rather dry bit of English history to wargaming. Not least because Lyme Regis is about 5 miles from my house - who would have thought Lyme Regis would be in a wargame?

Viva Liebst.

[Pans]

I agree that this is a really good game as far as I can say up to now. I´m playing this solely in multiplayer mode and it is stable with no Bugs so far (turn 20). The map could be nicer. I am still struggling with the supply rules. King Charles and his main army is in winter quaters at Leicester. I build a depot their and loyality is up to 67%. After a couple of months the army supply went down rapidly. I have no Explanation to this. In WoN that´s complitly different.

[xj900uk]

Maybe it was a really harsh winter and the army ate all of the food?

[DEB]

... the repeating events ("The Queen has returned!" is listed twice in the event log), and the tutorial that makes references to Stettin and Swedish cavalry shows a game that could have used some more polish before release.

The Queen went abroad twice ( 1642 & 1644 ), and although historically she only returned once ( 1643 ), she may well have returned a second time if the Royalist's situation had improved in 1645 ( rather than getting worse ), so ( IMHO ) two "returns" are acceptable. However, the Stettin and Swedish cavalry references seem very odd / plain wrong...

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Rush

I`m sure a few patches will follow to address issues.

I should hope so !

The geographical map nearly 400 hundred years ago was very different to how it is today in this modern period.

Not so much as to make those errors spotted and reported to date incorrect...

[altipueri]

Just finished my third game playing the Royalists in the Naseby scenario. Game seems stable and fine and works on my low spec 1.7 ghz laptop.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Rush
The geographical map nearly 400 hundred years ago was very different to how it is today in this modern period.

It might well have been but I'll bet it didn't include county towns in the wrong county!

The Map appears to be rather poor, and this is a prime example...

[ And I read somewhere ( on this website ) that AGEOD maps were their games best feature ! ]