AGEOD Forums

Played the demo for a while, got a little familiar with the game, then bought it and plunged into a 1775 campaign. I have a few early impressions, some rule questions, and a few suggestions.

Firstly, disaffected Pax Romana owner here, and previously determined to avoid anything at all from those involved. So it took a lot to even take the time to try the demo. Read some decent reviews, saw that there were 4 patches out, and it was actually Pasternaki's posts in this forum which prompted my to try it. I'm familiar with him from Matrix and know he has a similarly low tolerance for rubbish.

So I tried the demo, and again, and again again and again, and after only a short time with the full game there's reall only one word to sum it up: wow! Wow, wow, wow and more wow! This is fairly unfamiliar territory for me as I don't usually have unreserved praise for any game, but this is a masterpiece. It's everything I had hoped Frank Hunter's games would eventually turn into, and exactly the type of game I thought Crown of Glory might be, but the difference...... BOA nails it perfectly.

First of all the AI. I'm no Napoleon, but games such as this are usually trivial to beat even the first time through. The AI is very competent (and if that doesn't sound like praise, it really is, there are less than a handful of games with anything approaching competence.) Further, I don't know whether it cheats or not, but it doesn't appear to, so it maintains an illusion that there's an opponent on the other end and you're not playing Space Invaders-type swarms of poorly led overwhelming numbers.

Second, the interface. It's barely noticeable, and natural to use. That means instead of fighting a poorly thought out command and information display, or carrying out tedious repetition to do things, most of my game is spent thinking about the consequences. Again, if that doesn't sound like high praise, it is. Interfaces are often afterthoughts, this game looks as though it's been designed to take advantage of the PC, and designed around the user.

There's so much more, but I can't gush on all day So final thoughts: this is perhaps the first game in a long time which prompts logistical and maneuver decisions, combat is almost an afterthought. I find myself facing decisions like

- "Can I finish the siege before winter, should I assault, or do I have to retreat and start again next year?"
- "Can I sneak through the wilderness and try and get behind them, or will my men starve on the journey?"
- "Shall I risk throwing seperate coprs into battle and hoping they make it on time, or combine and hope I'm still in contact with the enemy next month"

and many more, those types of things make the game a triumph in representing 18th century war.

Aside from the Frank Hunter campaigns, the game this really reminds me of is the Victory Games boardgame: Vietnam. That might sound strange, but playing the British in a campaign feels very similar: the fluidity, (and futility) chasing the enemy around, then losing towns because they can't all be garrisoned sufficiently. Numerical advantage can be thrown away with one poorly planned winter, or pushing too hard and facing a bunch of militia/continentals you never knew were there. Amazing.

I know there have been suggestions for a future game, and I'd like to offer one. It would take almost no changes in game mechanics as the conflict is almost identical: guerilla war, low troop density, commitment/withdrawl of forces, political events, cooperating (and not) allies, supply shortages and there is no game I'm aware of which deals with it: The Peninsular War This game engine is perfectly suited to that conflict which is also similar in length, and the problem of pacification of a country without enough troops to do the job. It's even the same era, so you're just maps, OOB, and scenarios away from being able to release it


---------

Now the questions:

1) In determining loyalty, does control/loyalty of surrounding areas affect the change? Thus, is it worth controlling all the provinces around a key one for a while.

2) Is it possible to build a fort in a province without a town (Newark,Brooklyn eg) If so, how? I've had an army with wagon and not had the option to build, is there someting I'm missing?

3) Sorry to repeat a question from another thread, but I couldn't see if there was a definate answer: Do supplies and other leaders count as units against a leader total?

4) Similarly, do subordinate leaders count to increase command. For example, could Leader B,C and D, each command 2 units, while Leader A commands just B-C-D.

5) Do I have to stop to replenish supply, or is passing through a depot/high supply city enough?

6) Is there anyway to sort the ledger by corps/detachment? All the sorts seem to have just a list of battalions regardless which other battalions they're grouped with.

7) How do I escape from Montreal? I have been able to send a groups under Burgoyne by ferry to then march on Pittsburgh, but after losing the boats in Ticonderoga, I can't seem to find any road to march south through New York or New Hampshire with the units I left behind. Are they doomed to an eternity of French food?

8) Is there attrition for fully supplied units? I haven't noticed any of my troops freezing/starving/or catching camp fever, unless their supply is used up and they take hits. Have I been lucky (or not watching closely enough?)

------------

A couple of suggestions/issues

1) The ledger seems very laggy. I don't have a problem switching from one map view to another, the scrolling is smooth etc, but opening the ledger makes the mouse freeze and become unresponsive.

2) It can be tricky to detach a couple of units from a corps and order them into a town. It seems to depend where the layout for the corps is onscreen. Sometimes it seems to block the town. If it were possible, a magnified view of the current province + surrounding ones would be ideal. It can be a little cluttered in a place like Connecticut for example, and tricky to see which province each unit is in.

3) Some kind of theatre-level intelligence. I can scan all spotted units and count up roughly how big the enemy force is, but it would be great if this could be done automatically, on a State and region level. Just to clarify, not avoiding the FOW, just having the PC consolidate everything I can see into an intelligence report.

------------


I really can't say enough about the game, congratulations on producing something this unique and so effective at creating a true feel for the period, and thank-you for a wonderful game.

dinsdale wrote:
1) In determining loyalty, does control/loyalty of surrounding areas affect the change? Thus, is it worth controlling all the provinces around a key one for a while.

2) Is it possible to build a fort in a province without a town (Newark,Brooklyn eg) If so, how? I've had an army with wagon and not had the option to build, is there someting I'm missing?

3) Sorry to repeat a question from another thread, but I couldn't see if there was a definate answer: Do supplies and other leaders count as units against a leader total?

4) Similarly, do subordinate leaders count to increase command. For example, could Leader B,C and D, each command 2 units, while Leader A commands just B-C-D.

5) Do I have to stop to replenish supply, or is passing through a depot/high supply city enough?

6) Is there anyway to sort the ledger by corps/detachment? All the sorts seem to have just a list of battalions regardless which other battalions they're grouped with.

7) How do I escape from Montreal? I have been able to send a groups under Burgoyne by ferry to then march on Pittsburgh, but after losing the boats in Ticonderoga, I can't seem to find any road to march south through New York or New Hampshire with the units I left behind. Are they doomed to an eternity of French food?

8) Is there attrition for fully supplied units? I haven't noticed any of my troops freezing/starving/or catching camp fever, unless their supply is used up and they take hits. Have I been lucky (or not watching closely enough?)

1) no, your generals do not care about nearby colonists. But they do care about city dwellers in the area...in other words, if you capture a strategic city in a given area, it has an impact on the loyalty of all other regions in the same area (e.g. an area = New England)

2) Yes. You need a supply AND an artillery to build a fort. They should be not depleted.

3) Supply units do, leaders don't

4) Leaders command points just add up

5) You have to stop AND be in defensive or (better) passive posture

6) Not that I know

7) It's most likely because one of the units you have with Burgoyne's is area tied to Canada. Unless you leave her aside (and in Canada), it will prevent all the rest of the army to leave Canada...

8) There is attrition, but the supply units absorb the hits first...try to go into the wilderness in winter, even if fully supplied ...

dinsdale wrote:Firstly, disaffected Pax Romana owner here, and previously determined to avoid anything at all from those involved. So it took a lot to even take the time to try the demo. Read some decent reviews, saw that there were 4 patches out, and it was actually Pasternaki's posts in this forum which prompted my to try it. I'm familiar with him from Matrix and know he has a similarly low tolerance for rubbish.

Good to "see" you over here. I got thoroughly tired of the "other place" being overrun by self-important, semi-literate, ignorant punks who have only one stock response to anything serious you might say: "I'm tired of all this whining." When they started clamoring for Matrix to produce games for the X-Box, it was "Sayonara" for me.

Great post, by the way. Your comments, questions, and suggestions seem to me well thought out, articulately stated, and right on the money.

I love this game. It's a real kick, and I agree with your comparison to Victory's Vietnam game (despite its primary hex orientation), which is still one of my favorites. Its treatment of political effects, ARVN leadership, and flowchart game mechanics was nothing short of brilliant, in my opinion. Civil War is another all-time classic for me, and I hope that any forays by AGEOD into the 19th century are informed by close study of how that game depicts leadership, unit differentiation, and amphibious warfare as practiced during that period.

Hey, Philippe, do I get a royalty for each persuaded buyer I bring you?

for 5. you have to be at the right place in the right moment (= at the start of the turn) to get supplies in your units (even adjacent to the region is ok). I think Philippe was refering to taking replacements into battered units. In this case you have to be in a level 2+ town, a fort or a depot to gain a replacement (and only if you have some in the pool). Also the posture give the priority, with armies on passive always served before defensive, and agressive last.

As for the ledger, you can sort each data by clicking on it, so the closest things to a sort by army is a sort by region name.

If the ledger is laggy, can you give me your config? What is your CPU speed, etc.

Thanks you much for your praise Dinsdale. You were in the Pax forum if I remember well? I was a moderator at this time. Now as you see, the technical team is anew, with Philippe giving us a solid design while we make games as bug free as possible (and the engine is brand new...)

Is it provocative to think the game engine could work for the Vietnam War (both French and US)? Totally different period, but

dinsdale wrote:guerilla war, low troop density, commitment/withdrawl of forces, political events, cooperating (and not) allies, supply shortages and there is no game I'm aware of which deals with it

pasternakski wrote:Hey, Philippe, do I get a royalty for each persuaded buyer I bring you?

Yes, if you can prove it ...

More seriously, I am considering some kind of bonus points to our customers who bring in other customers from their own network...points would translate into discount on our next game for instance...or something else, open to discussion..

PhilThib wrote:More seriously, I am considering some kind of bonus points to our customers who bring in other customers from their own network...points would translate into discount on our next game for instance...or something else, open to discussion..

I didn't really mean it...

Hmm ... although I appreciate the thought of rewarding loyal customers, I don't know if I like that idea. If I am at site XYZ and Joe Blow says to me, "Mark, go check out BoA. It's the start of a revolution. (pun intended)". I don't want to find out that Joe had some monetary incentive in giving me such an opinion - kind of cheapens his statement in a way.

If you want to reward loyal customers, then why not just give them X% off their next purchase once you have verified that they are an existing customer.

Yes, very nice post with which I fairly well agree. I would also like to see this engine portray The Peninsular War; after The Seven Years War of course. I think another go at Rome would work as well.

Well, I like your suggestions. That was already our intention anyway, that when we launch our next game on pre-order, all our current customers will get some preferential tarrif...

As for next game(s), the only thing we lack is time and means (both human and financial). We would love to do that many projects, and some are under schedule right now, but unfortunately ( !?) we came equiped with only a single brain and 2 hands...

Very interesting note Dinsdale.

I was also wondering about point 8. Is there enough attrition to supplied units in wilderness terrain in fair weather? For instance Robert Rogers lost 20% of his force to accident and illness in the first three days of his trek out to St Francis just a few miles from Crown Point, and these were hand picked men travelling in good weather.

They certainly seemed to travel by boat whenever possible even for very short distances and I don't think this seems quite so important in the game, although it will improve when a unit is able to load and unload in one turn.

One improvement I was thinking of for a future patch is the ability to choose to move by road (if one exists) or to go cross country.
The second option should obviously incur far more attrition (and fatigue?) and be much slower but would carry a much lower chance of detection. Maybe an option only open to certain unit types?

Chris

dinsdale wrote:3) Some kind of theatre-level intelligence. I can scan all spotted units and count up roughly how big the enemy force is, but it would be great if this could be done automatically, on a State and region level. Just to clarify, not avoiding the FOW, just having the PC consolidate everything I can see into an intelligence report.

This is a nice idea. The minimap shows red or blue dots, but it's not that useful. Perhaps another layer of (outward) zoom which doesn't have the same level of detail as other zooms but shows armies and cities over a larger area.

dinsdale wrote:I know there have been suggestions for a future game, and I'd like to offer one. It would take almost no changes in game mechanics as the conflict is almost identical: guerilla war, low troop density, commitment/withdrawl of forces, political events, cooperating (and not) allies, supply shortages and there is no game I'm aware of which deals with it: The Peninsular War This game engine is perfectly suited to that conflict which is also similar in length, and the problem of pacification of a country without enough troops to do the job. It's even the same era, so you're just maps, OOB, and scenarios away from being able to release it.

Excellent idea, especially as the militia idea would adapt well to the guerilla forces, and the landscape and weather imposed similar movement constraints (albeit with extremes of heat rather than cold). Also, of course, the English didn't come second to the French in that round

I really can't say enough about the game, congratulations on producing something this unique and so effective at creating a true feel for the period, and thank-you for a wonderful game.

Thoroughly agree.

Phillippe and Pocus, thanks for the answers.

Pocus wrote:If the ledger is laggy, can you give me your config? What is your CPU speed, etc.

Celeron 2.3 ghz, 2gb ram, Radeon 9200 video. Not a super system, but it handles the map and game very well, even the overlays. It's just the unit tab of the ledger which slows down.

Thanks you much for your praise Dinsdale. You were in the Pax forum if I remember well? I was a moderator at this time.

I knew I recognized your screen name, been racking my brains for where I saw you before

Some things I omitted from the last post: there are many little things in the programming which remove annoyances and inconveniences. They might sound like trivial things, but I really appreciate them

1) Game loads and exits very quickly.
2) No map slow down as the game progresses.
3) Flawless alt-tab.
4) No CPU use when not active.
5) It doesn't try to change my existing video settings

Some of that stuff might sound trivial, but a game which comes with professional polish is a breath of fresh air. Now if I just had dynamite to stick up Burgoyne's ass to get him moving, I'd be happy......

Pasternaki wrote:Its treatment of political effects, ARVN leadership, and flowchart game mechanics was nothing short of brilliant, in my opinion

Indeed, when a game rises up like that, and presents some of the problems faced in the conflict it's a huge difference from the feeling of pushing counters around. I used to like Gulf Strike too, the mechanisms they invented to simulate command and inertia.

Hobbes wrote:I was also wondering about point 8. Is there enough attrition to supplied units in wilderness terrain in fair weather?

I'm not sure yet. It does seem that you can create optimal conditions which result in no losses at all, though the way I've been playing, I tend to sacrifice speed for supplies, split large units up, and build a lot of depots. But if you miscalculate timing, or get caught in bad Canadian weather it can be brutal. I lost almost an entire army pursuing Washington 1 month too far into NH as I couldn't get back to my supply areas in time.

Quercus wrote:and the landscape and weather imposed similar movement constraints (albeit with extremes of heat rather than cold). Also, of course, the English didn't come second to the French in that round

Absolutely, it's a very similar set of operational problems and wildly fluctuating troop/officer quality, and the diminishing returns of larger force sizes.

In fact, there are quite a few others which would be very suitable: Bonaparte in Italy, Chilean Independence, Early colonial India, even some of the campaigns from the early 18th century wars in Flanders and Germany. Some of them would need shorter turns and some modifications, but there are some which could use unchanged mechanics.

3) Flawless alt-tab.

It flawlessly fails to alt-tab for me every time. I have to hit the Windows key to get at my browser.

you must have at least one application or a window open to alt-tab. If not, then you will have to use the Window key as you do, then reduces the app.

@Dinsdale: thanks for the appreciations!