AGE strategy advice

[FmrPFCBob]

I posted in BoA because I find myself coming back to it most frequently but it applies to all the games. I've been dabbling in several Ageod games (ACW BoA2 RUS PON) but haven't quite got the groove of strategy under this engine but I do have a lot of experience with Paradox titles and strategy games in general, mostly set in WWII and later.

I really like the approach to several aspects of the game like supply and unit organization. But I just can't get my tactics adjusted to the more fluid combat that seems to be due to the historical warfare or the engine. There is little in the way of solid fronts and I think that might be my hang-up. Any help would be much appreciated.

[Durk]

You have identified what to me are the key differences between Ageod games and other, more traditional, games.
You nailed two of the critical differences, supply and unit organization. Another major difference is the use of areas instead of hexes. One of the most important is the simultaneous execution of turns from all opponents.
Era is the final difference. Lines of battle and hundreds of mile long fronts did not exist in these eras.

I found myself in a situation very similar to the one you express in your post when I first began to play these games.
In terms of your list of games, you know, there is a further subdivision between the four: BOA2 or WiA and PON use a very different organization system than ACW and RUS.
WiA and PON rely upon a 'combined total' for command and the highest ranking leader for results. That is, enough leaders and no command penalties.
ACW and RUS rely more upon Armies, Corps and Divisions. The need to form armies is paramount.

Think of other wargames as wars of fronts, kind of like WWI when the trench lines developed. Keep your Zone of Control intact and all is well.
Think of Ageod games as ones of Defense of Posts and Destruction of Opponent's Armies. Zones of control do not apply unless you and your opponent share the same area, then it determines where you can move,
While what I am going to say applies to all the games, think about the American Revolution on a map as extensive as the one provided in the game. What does Greene's Southern Campaign look like? He did not set up a chain of posts to defend, instead, he maneuvered Cornwallis to Virginia.
When you mix strategy and tactics in describing your issues, I am a bit at a loss to explain. The game engine focuses upon strategy, abstracting the tactics in the battles.

I know this may not make intuitive sense. But I get what you are saying. These are not games where you cover your front and then have battle. Movement is open. In some games, especially ACW and RUS, fronts develop, but the game can still be very open.
As you selected this place in the forum, I would suggest tackling the 1776 game, if you like the wide open challenge; or, take one of the Southern campaigns if you want to explore the openness of the game in a more defined scenario.

[ERISS]

differences between Ageod games and other, more traditional, games.
You nailed two of the critical differences, supply and unit organization. Another major difference is the use of areas instead of hexes. One of the most important is the simultaneous execution of turns from all opponents.
Era is the final difference. Lines of battle and hundreds of mile long fronts did not exist in these eras.

, there is a further subdivision between the four: BOA2 or WiA and PON use a very different organization system than ACW and RUS.
WiA and PON rely upon a 'combined total' for command and the highest ranking leader for results. That is, enough leaders and no command penalties.
ACW and RUS rely more upon Armies, Corps and Divisions. The need to form armies is paramount.

Zones of control do not apply unless you and your opponent share the same area, then it determines where you can move,
Movement is open. In some games, especially ACW and RUS, fronts develop, but the game can still be very open.

Another key feature is the attitude/posture of armies. I even think that is the number one about Zone of Control.

[FmrPFCBob]

Thanks for the replies.

I prefer to RTM and dive right into a full campaign instead of learning piecemeal for any new game so I've started the 1776 campaign several times (but never finished) and I'd say it's definitely the lack of fronts that is the biggest challenge for me. Longer turns are probably a factor too, enemy forces often catch me offguard because they are able to move more rapidly than I anticipate into areas I had considered safe.

Think of Ageod games as ones of Defense of Posts and Destruction of Opponent's Armies

I understand what to defend and usually how best to do so, of course more experience will help, but the skill to destroy enemy forces eludes me.

[KG Erwin]

As a WWII gamer, the AGE engine really tossed me for a loop, too. I've been playing BOA2 for 3 years now, and I am just now getting comfortable with the system. The key things are (1) to know how to take the objectives and keep them in your posession; (2) how to maintain large armies in the field; (3) understand how the naval strategy works. Point 3 is more important in BOA2 than most people realize, especially in keeping your coastal communication/supply lines open and earning engagement points.

[Durk]

I understand what to defend and usually how best to do so, of course more experience will help, but the skill to destroy enemy forces eludes me.

The supply system is elusive compared games where you trace a supply line to some place, like the nation's capital. In WiA each city and town, along with many areas, produce supply. But not very much. Armies carry supply with the units and with supply wagons.

To destroy an army, it is most effective to force it (either by maneuver or brute force), into a situation such as Burgoyne faced at Saratoga, where it is weakened by lack of supply. Then it must attack against odds or allow you to eliminate it.
Otherwise, understand that the goal of destruction of the opposing main army is a multi-year goal. A strong British force holds Washington at arm's length until Washington has a reduced force due to winter absences or lack of a firm supply base. Then it goes in for the kill, multiple monthly battles.

The only way to destroy an opposing force in one blow is to catch it inside a fort or city, usually through siege; or to force it into very unfavorable terrain when it retreats from battle.
This is another way to hear what ERISS and KG Erwin are suggesting. For instance, using a leader with good attack skill or fort attack skill, combined with a naval blockade to cut supply, are usually needed to take Charleston and eliminate the defending forces.

Some thoughts.

[H Gilmer3]

I'll be honest. I have the same issues FmrPFCBob has. I have a really hard time getting my arms around armies moving to and fro and no set lines. AACW is much more set in its lines, but even it has wide open spaces where it seems you could drive an army of mack trucks through.

I recently started a game with Rise of Prussia and I'm doing better than I have ever had. It takes a whole new approach and I can't explain it. And I still do not have my arms completely around it.

It still drives me insane to see armies moving around in the areas I have no armies and going after cities lightly defended, but I am able to get through that and go back and take them now.

[Durk]

H Gilmer3,
I love your comments about this game. You are so totally right about set lines in other games.
This is so true. Yet this is, also, why all the Ageod games get the history right. You could march around your enemy in all the earlier wars, pre-late American Civil War.
Maneuver was rewarded. No set lines.

[Narwhal]

I believe the key of the game is not to attack the armies, except when forced too, but to attack what sustains the army.

All armies in AGEOD needs supply, and thus cannot operate from more than in most cases two or three turns from such a supply point (except very small armies). Even wagons don't improve this much - you will still need a structure to recover cohesion.Thus, if you want to "gain ground" or destroy enemy armies, you need to take the supply generating structures in order to "limit" the area of operation of your opponent. As a secondary targets, you should destroy places where he can recover cohesion.

You don't need to take every structure. If you isolate a group of structures (like in my War of 1812 AAR on Paradox forum- where I targeted Oswego to cut the Western Lakes from where my opponent comes from), they are just as good as taken.

I admit that due to the number of structure, this strategy does not work in the Independance War for WIA and to a lesser extent in RUS (where you should aim at controling the railroads). But it works in all other games. Even ROP - true there are more structures but since the armies are much bigger it works exactly the same way.

[FmrPFCBob]

Aha, another piece clicks into place, in many of the games I've played the supply system exists but it's not usually an effective way to weaken the enemy so I tend to ignore disrupting it entirely. The supply system in AGE can really be used to starve down a unit though and I need to include that in my strategies too.

[Durk]

Aha, another piece clicks into place, in many of the games I've played the supply system exists but it's not usually an effective way to weaken the enemy so I tend to ignore disrupting it entirely. The supply system in AGE can really be used to starve down a unit though and I need to include that in my strategies too.

Yes, if you are still playing WiA, each city is very limited in supply. Watch the strength, in terms of number of elements, and the city capacity.
I often count and recount my own supply, just to make sure I am in the limit. To the extent I can know, I try to do the same for my opponent and make certain my opponent is outside the limit.

[michaelangelo]

Excellent points, All. Thanks for the continued discussion (scribbling notes in upcoming war plans...)

[H Gilmer3]

It's also hard to know just how much army you need in each place. In RoP, you have 4 fronts, eventually, if you have not knocked any out. The armies from each come at different times, so you have to know how much you need and when you need them.

After reading Narwhal and Baris' excellent learning AAR, I have more knowledge of how much army is needed and where. I still think supply should be tweaked in this system. It seems pretty unbelievable that a Koenigsberg can't get any supply overland. And you should also be able to stockpile more and more supply. Just about any army can stockpile a durable food that would last for a pretty good while... especially in a city.