Having a first look ...

[Heldenkaiser]

... on the surface this looks pretty similar to AACW. I clicked my way through two tutorials, and so far I haven't seen any great differences between the two games (in fact, the chain-of-command rules looked identical). Is there anything that I should pay particular attention to because it's different from AACW? Pointing me to a place or thread where this is/has been covered is good enough. Thanks!

[Heldenkaiser]

50 times read, nobody has any comments?

[Adlertag]

Maybe you can read this excellent thread about Austerlitz Campaign.
You will find many interesting details about game mechanics.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7475

[Heldenkaiser]

Maybe you can read this excellent thread about Austerlitz Campaign.
You will find many interesting details about game mechanics.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7475

Thank you, sir. I have already noticed it and will not fail to do so.

However, is my general impression that NCP is fairly similar to AACW (minus the economy, I suppose?) more or less correct? Are there any obvious differences that I should pay particular attention to? Thanks.

[Franciscus]

Just my thoughts, and I have not played NCP much (just a couple of short scenarios), but I think the main difference (and indeed a significant one) between NCP and AACW, specially if, as I suspect, you play the AACW grand campaign is the "static" feel of NCP. The armies are organised and deployed for you, pratically no army building feel. That and the lack of economics/diplomacy set both games quite apart, although the mechanics, rules, etc are indeed almost the same.
NCP is "operational" in scope. AACW is much more than that.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thank you, that was quite helpful.

The armies are organised and deployed for you, pratically no army building feel.

Is that true also for the longer scenarios? (There are longer scenarios, I understand, like the Russian campaign? I only have the demo so far.)

[Franciscus]

That was indeed the case, IMHO, also for the longer scenarios. But, as this has been cited as a relative drawback of NCP (at least to AACW players), PhilThib has been working on it and I think the latest patch introduced more "extended" scenarios. But I have not played NCP much, and not yet at all with the 1.03 patch.
So, maybe more experienced NCP players (or members of AGEOD ) could also give their insights.

[highpocrisy]

NPC packs most of the kicks of AACW compressed so that you do not have to spend 3 days building up militias in the frontiers before you get to any significant manouvers.In other words if you got a life or some such, NPC is great for campaigns you can actually finish in a day or two.Plus it's a different theater, beautiful map of Europe, historically colorful new units and leaders, and although you don't get to "build" unitis in the shorter scenarious, you still get to rearenge the initial setup of the cores to an opitimal one.Yeah it's the same engine, and yeah its going from civil war to Napoleonic warfare and not ww2 so it's similar, but with campaigns ranging from 5 to hundered some turns its not shallow by anymeans.Like I said at the beginging of this rant, its like all thats fun about AACW condensed. I was unimpressed at first glance too, but the more I got to playing it between AACW patches I got totaly hooked. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

[Franciscus]

Please note that I never said that NCP was not good. Much to the contrary, the few times I played I did have a great time. I just was pointing my view on the principal differences between two great gaming experiences.

[Heldenkaiser]

Gentlemen, I thank you for your responses. And I did not understand Franciscus's comments as negative reflections on NCP.

[Korrigan]

IMHO:
Fortresses are more important, and the Guard impact is something you'll need some time to master.