BOA 2 Demo Review

[JeanNYGUARD]

ME: Longtime Wargamer, Game Developer & Soldier

TITLE: BOA2 Demo

Personally I went into this game with not many expectations. I played the original BOA and found the game interesting but incomplete. It was missing a few vital components which I will explain later.

BOA 2. After playing this game for 10 minutes I noticied a great many changes.

1. The engine and gameplay is more smooth and stable.

2. More combat options for Armies (ie. Defend, Attack, Hold at all costs, etc.)

3. Increased scenarios and Campaigns

4. More options pertainning to supply, diplomacy, training, etc.

5. Officers contain own historical units (ie. Morgan's Riflemen, Glover's Fisherman, etc.)

These changes brought a level of gameplay that wasnt seen in BOA. The game is more refined and fun to play. The replayability factor is good, as well as the addictiveness of the gameplay. All of these changes present a great title that is worth the $50.00 price tag.

Now the bad. A few things I noticied that could be improved.

1. Displaying each regiments/units actual strength instead of a bar meter. When clicking on a army... a player should be given the total estimate of Soldiers, cavalry and Artillery pieces within that army, as well as per unit.

2. A more organized unit display structure is needed

3. Health bar needs to be more bold and readable (possibly with a percentage figure located next to bar)

4. A promotion structure to allow the player to promote / demote generals would be a great feature to add

5. A brigade, division, corps, army struture would be another great feature

And lastly the one thing that I am sad to not see changed is the no introduction of a tactical element in this title. I believe this title is great... but it definetely needs a tactical element to be included. If added the BOA series, as well as AGEOD products will become the cream of the crop within the wargaming market.

RATING: 7/10
Worth The Price Tag of $50.00? Yes

Final Conclusion: Great title. Great Engine. Great Gameplay, however the title needs a Tactical component.

[Siekster]

ME: Longtime Wargamer, Game Developer & Soldier


Now the bad. A few things I noticied that could be improved.

1. Displaying each regiments/units actual strength instead of a bar meter. When clicking on a army... a player should be given the total estimate of Soldiers, cavalry and Artillery pieces within that army, as well as per unit.

2. A more organized unit display structure is needed

3. Health bar needs to be more bold and readable (possibly with a percentage figure located next to bar)

4. A promotion structure to allow the player to promote / demote generals would be a great feature to add

5. A brigade, division, corps, army struture would be another great feature

And lastly the one thing that I am sad to not see changed is the no introduction of a tactical element in this title. I believe this title is great... but it definetely needs a tactical element to be included. If added the BOA series, as well as AGEOD products will become the cream of the crop within the wargaming market.

RATING: 7/10
Worth The Price Tag of $50.00? Yes

Final Conclusion: Great title. Great Engine. Great Gameplay, however the title needs a Tactical component.

A couple of observations for your observations.....

1) A stack's actual number of men, horses and artillery is listed by holding down the CTRL button. That info is also available if you click on the individual elements.

3) I agree, although that info is readily available by holding the mouse over the unit to see a breakdown of it's cohesion/total possible cohesion.

5) A lot of players who tried AACW didn't like the emphasis on organizational structure. I personally didn't mind it. The devs pointed out quite accurately that particular level of military organization didn't exist in the wars fought in America at the time. Most of the theatres of war were fought in the wilderness where it was a feat just keeping an army together and alive, let alone organized ala AACW.

Tactical battles would be an awesome addition, but the focus of the game is operational, and it does it very well. I would rather a game that does one thing very well, than try to perform 2 things not quite as good.

Just my 2 cents/pesos.....

[Hok]

And 4. there is a system of promotion in the game, but not for all generals.

[JeanNYGUARD]

A couple of observations for your observations.....

1) A stack's actual number of men, horses and artillery is listed by holding down the CTRL button. That info is also available if you click on the individual elements.

3) I agree, although that info is readily available by holding the mouse over the unit to see a breakdown of it's cohesion/total possible cohesion.

5) A lot of players who tried AACW didn't like the emphasis on organizational structure. I personally didn't mind it. The devs pointed out quite accurately that particular level of military organization didn't exist in the wars fought in America at the time. Most of the theatres of war were fought in the wilderness where it was a feat just keeping an army together and alive, let alone organized ala AACW.

Tactical battles would be an awesome addition, but the focus of the game is operational, and it does it very well. I would rather a game that does one thing very well, than try to perform 2 things not quite as good.

Just my 2 cents/pesos.....

1) This information should be more easily accessible. It should be within the army & unit box.

5) There was a Brigade, Division, Corps and Army Structure at the time of The American Revolution. During the fall of 1776, Washington's army was composed of numerous Brigades and Divisions. Nathanel Green commanded a Division under Washington's main command in New Jersey. Charles Lee commanded a segment or corps of the army near Morristown. Numerous commanders commanded Brigades ... in both The American and british army.

Tactical battles are a key element in many games. It is needed otherwise half the gaming experience is missing.

[Rafiki]

Tactical battles are a key element in many games. It is needed otherwise half the gaming experience is missing.

Tactical battles are a key element in many games, indeed, but luckily not in this one

Many games try to do "everything", throwing as much as they can into the game, but do so poorly, haphazardly and with little regard for balance and execution. Part of what makes AGE games as good as they are (IMO), is that they focus on what they are, strategic/operational games, putting the gamer in the role of commander-in-chief, and make sure that all aspects of the game fit together as a whole with that in mind

Also, I don't have that much time for gaming, and if I were to resolve my battles tactically, I'd never get a campaign completed (I'm struggling enough as it is ). You could then say that the games should have an auto-resolution, but from my perspective, AGEOD would then have wasted a whole lot of time and resources on developing something I'd never use, time and resources that could've been spent on other aspects of the game, aspects where AGE already has proven strengths and a proven track record.

Disclaimer: these remarks are made as someone outside the core AGEOD development team

[wryun]

Also, I don't have that much time for gaming, and if I were to resolve my battles tactically, I'd never get a campaign completed (I'm struggling enough as it is ). You could then say that the games should have an auto-resolution, but from my perspective, AGEOD would then have wasted a whole lot of time and resources on developing something I'd never use, time and resources that could've been spent on other aspects of the game, aspects where AGE already has proven strengths and a proven track record.

From my perspective it's even worse: if there's a tactical component, I know there's another way I can get an (often ridiculous) edge over the AI, as long as I'm prepared to spend the time. Then I'm caught between spending the time (getting full play out of game, beating AI), or leaving it alone (playing faster, not getting a 'silly' advantage where I can do bad strategic things yet tactical wackiness saves me).

The choice just drives me bonkers, hence never finishing a game of Medieval Total War, and not buying anything in the series since.

(not that I have any right to post here, since I don't have BoA2 and haven't yet tried the demo - although I have bought 2 copies of BoA, which is similar, right? )

[Rafiki]

From my perspective it's even worse: if there's a tactical component, I know there's another way I can get an (often ridiculous) edge over the AI, as long as I'm prepared to spend the time. Then I'm caught between spending the time (getting full play out of game, beating AI), or leaving it alone (playing faster, not getting a 'silly' advantage where I can do bad strategic things yet tactical wackiness saves me).

The choice just drives me bonkers, hence never finishing a game of Medieval Total War, and not buying anything in the series since.

Hehe, I started auto-resolving my Total War battles till I realized that that's not how the games are supposed to be played and basically stopped playing them

You make a very good point about the advantages over the AI

(not that I have any right to post here, since I don't have BoA2 and haven't yet tried the demo - although I have bought 2 copies of BoA, which is similar, right? )

BoA 2 = 2 x BoA? Makes kinda sense, mathematically, at least

[Siekster]

5) There was a Brigade, Division, Corps and Army Structure at the time of The American Revolution. During the fall of 1776, Washington's army was composed of numerous Brigades and Divisions. Nathanel Green commanded a Division under Washington's main command in New Jersey. Charles Lee commanded a segment or corps of the army near Morristown. Numerous commanders commanded Brigades ... in both The American and british army.

I don't think anyone is attempting to deny that such organizational structures didn't exist at that time. The inclusion of such elements in AACW had a purpose, differing corps under an army could "march to the sound of the guns" and assist another corp part of the same army under attack in the same region. This was possible in the 19th century with the infrastructure and means of communication at the time. In the late 17th century America, such a thing could not have taken place, so including it in BOA 2 doesn't serve the same functional purpose as it did in AACW. I imagine that was the reason to leave it out, IMHO.

[orca]

I don't think anyone is attempting to deny that such organizational structures didn't exist at that time.

I will deny it. Armies certainly existed, and brigades were used and were actual formations. However, "division" in the 18th century senses simply meant that the army had been divided. De Saxe had come up with the idea, and de Broglie experimented with it in the Seven Years War, but divisions as actual independent formations were not used by anyone other than the French until the French Revolution. Army Corps were not used in any way shape or form before the French Revolution. I don't believe the US army adopted either until after the Napoleonic Wars.

In this era an army was composed of battalions. Generally these would brigaded, and the brigades were used as maneuver elements in battle. When the army needed to split up a "division" was made and some number of brigades and battalions formed into a new "division".

IMHO, for BoA, any formations other than brigades would be anachronistic. Army HQ was basically just the personal staff of the CinC, so I don't see that they make sense, and divisions and corps simply were not used in any of the wars included.

[Stwa]

Tactical battles are a key element in many games, indeed, but luckily not in this one

<snip>

Also, I don't have that much time for gaming, and if I were to resolve my battles tactically, I'd never get a campaign completed (I'm struggling enough as it is ).

<snip>

1. Indeed! I never finished anything in Rome Total War. I grew tired of the speeches, the screaming women, the ridiculous Spanish troops.

2. BoA 2 is neat, but as a purist, I like BoA 1 best. I have done a lot of mods for myself at least, and I just have enough time to work on one game only.

3. Now, I think the original BoA engine (they probably threw it away), should be used for complete tactical level games. (like ACW battles, etc..). Instead of a map of North America, you would use a map of the Gettysburg battlefield. Games would be regiment based, no command structures, etc..

[Obediah]

.....

2. BoA 2 is neat, but as a purist, I like BoA 1 best. .....

BoA2's great advantage over BoA1 is that it will run. BoA1 would only run part of the time on my desktop (running XP) and not at all on my laptop (running Vista :wacko BoA2, OTOH, runs just fine on my laptop. Woohoo!