How the AGE engine has developed?

[stockwellpete]

I am very new to AGEOD games and I have just started playing BOA2 "Wars in America". I actually like the system very much even though I am finding some aspects of the game quite puzzling - reading the forum and the AAR's has started to fill in many of the gaps in the last few days, I am pleased to say. The great thing about the game for me is the "historical atmosphere" it creates - very realistic. So my question is about how the AGE engine has been developed since the beginning and what new features have been added to it as new games are released. I have just downloaded the demo of "Rise of Prussia" and, on a brief look, it seems to be very similar to BOA2. Are there any differences? If so, what are they please?

I also have purchased "Revolution Under Siege" and I have worked through the tutorial quite comfortably. It is quite clear from the little that I know about this particular game that players will need to pay a lot of attention to the structure of their armies, so presumably this is one of the changes in the AGE engine associated with this particular game? And what about the other AGE games? The ACW game is an AGE game, isn't it? But a new version of it is being developed. When is the release date for that please (if it is known)? And what about the Napoleonic game. Where does that fit into the AGE picture? I realise that the two Roman games are the most recent AGE games. Do they have new features at all?

Thanks in advance for any info on this subject. I am just trying to get my head around the way this game engine has developed.

[Durk]

The way I think of it, there are two versions of Ageod games: No Corps and Corps.

WIA/BOA2 and AJE and BOR have no corps structure. Leaders add value, or not, and you do your play.

Corps structure: ACW, ROP and RUS. This is a more sophisticated idea of how corps and armies are organized.

Both work nicely.

You can kind of see the Napoleonic to WIA to ACW to ROP and then RUS.

Each game evolves from the former. What is really exciting about the Roman games is totally new takes on recruitment and funding, like taking slaves and taking numbers.

[ERISS]

I am very new to AGEOD games and I have just started playing BOA2 "Wars in America". how the AGE engine has been developed since the beginning and what new features have been added to it as new games are released. I have just downloaded the demo of "Rise of Prussia" and, on a brief look, it seems to be very similar to BOA2. Are there any differences? (...) And what about the other AGE games? The ACW game is an AGE game, isn't it?

Yes. Ageod tries to include with patches the new features in their past games, so the differences between AGE games tend to be minimized. (it does not really answer your question)

I also have purchased "Revolution Under Siege" and I have worked through the tutorial quite comfortably. players will need to pay a lot of attention to the structure of their armies, so presumably this is one of the changes in the AGE engine associated with this particular game?

The RUS tutorial (whose I modified the text in french and also english; was not comfortable at release) has a big lacking: It does not show how to build and how to reinforce a unit, both are highly different; I think it is at now still missing to complete the game...

[Pocus]

What was the most difficult aspect to grasp for you? How units are organized (stacks, units, elements), chain of command, supply, 'dryness' of combat report, simultaneous turns, etc.?

Originally it started with BOA1 in 2004, then ACW1. ACW1 saw the new chain of command, but something to point out: there are many rules that can be made work differently, because in some games it is appropriate to have a version of the rule, in another an alternate version, so you should not consider, always, that the new rule is better than the older one. Typically chain of command, what Durk calls No Corps / Corps ... In ancient time, it is perfectly fair to have a simplified chain of command e.g

As for new code, I would say that ACW1 had a few hard coded historical options and a way of producing units which was limited for example. Now we can do whatever we want with historical options, you can drag&drop regional decisions on the map, in Pride of Nations you have a rather advanced economic system where nations trade between each others, etc. A lot of code has been done over the years indeed, and some existing code has been refined significantly too. Even the siege warfare, which was existing since 2004 has been improved further in 2012, with an overcrowding rule. So brick by brick, we try to improve the game.

[stockwellpete]

What was the most difficult aspect to grasp for you? How units are organized (stacks, units, elements), chain of command, supply, 'dryness' of combat report, simultaneous turns, etc.?

Originally it started with BOA1 in 2004, then ACW1. ACW1 saw the new chain of command, but something to point out: there are many rules that can be made work differently, because in some games it is appropriate to have a version of the rule, in another an alternate version, so you should not consider, always, that the new rule is better than the older one. Typically chain of command, what Durk calls No Corps / Corps ... In ancient time, it is perfectly fair to have a simplified chain of command e.g

As for new code, I would say that ACW1 had a few hard coded historical options and a way of producing units which was limited for example. Now we can do whatever we want with historical options, you can drag&drop regional decisions on the map, in Pride of Nations you have a rather advanced economic system where nations trade between each others, etc. A lot of code has been done over the years indeed, and some existing code has been refined significantly too. Even the siege warfare, which was existing since 2004 has been improved further in 2012, with an overcrowding rule. So brick by brick, we try to improve the game.

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Pocus, I found supply/attrition and combat resolution in BOA2 very puzzling at first (this is the only AEGOD game that I have played in any detail so far). I feel that I am beginning to understand things a bit better now that I have read an AAR on here that was specifically written for beginners - without the AAR then I would have struggled badly because the manual does not fully explain the points I was having difficulty with. I started with the small Pequot scenario and learned to move and set the tactics for my units there. Now I have moved on to the King William's War scenario, which I like very much, but I am getting battered every time as the English. I cannot seem to build forts (I am not sure exactly what I need to do this as different opinions are expressed on the forum) and I only found out how to build stockades in regions with harbours by reading an AAR (I didn't even realise that this option would appear in the options panel (F3) where you spend your "EP"). A scenario guide as part of the manual (which is generally excellent) would have been a big help, but I apppreciate that there are only so many hours in a day. As for combat, I tend to just go by the "power" of the units at the moment - if my "power" is twice or more than the enemy then I am really aggressive, otherwise I am more circumspect. If the enemy's "power" is greater than mine then I am defensive. Presumably, I will need to take more account of all the other categories of statistics provided if I am to improve? I know cohesion is very important too. Some of the results of combat are quite bewildering to me though. Sometimes colonists are completely wiped out by a smaller force of Indians without inflicting a single casualty - this seems very odd. How to explain it? A night-time attack maybe?

I haven't had to deal with "chain of command" yet, but I can imagine that that will be very difficult too (I have followed the RUS tutorial OK with regards to this but I think the big problem will be knowing exactly what to do with your units' organisation in specific situations during the game).

I am going to have a look at the demo of "Rise of Prussia" this week. Historically it makes a good companion for BOA2 and I immediately felt comfortable with what was on the screen when I opened up the demo last night - so I will probably buy this one next. I understand that your ACW1 game is going to be superseded by ACW2 sometime soon (presumably this year?) so I will wait for that to happen, I think, as I do not have an ACW game at all. I also don't have anything Napoleonic yet either. So is your Napoleon game based on the AGE engine? I am less interested in ancient warfare so I am unlikely to get anything from the Alea Jacta Est series, but I understand your point about simplified chains of command for earlier time periods. Thanks very much for your explanation.

[Pocus]

We could probably write several chapters on combat alone (some people here published extended articles by the way, but they might be overwhelming at first). Combat power is a small part of the equation in the end, because it don't take into account how the units are fit for a particular situation. Just try to imagine the Spartans holding the pass at Thermopylae, this would be the perfect example and you'll understand better how you can lose even if the odds may seem in your favour. For BOA2, if the terrain is difficult, then a few Indians can defeat a lot of colonists.

Napoleon's Campaigns is indeed an AGE game. Just be prepared for a lot of command chain management. There is also no grand campaign.

[Baris]

I think what you are&will be looking for scenario info about where to move units next and that can be found in AAR's. Supply and others can be fully cognizable after a test in smaller scenarios. But supply for big stacks can be really problematic in WIA !
Ageod games more of a operational but WIA is more of a tactical with smaller scale I think. That said group of indians,light inf can ambush successfully whole stack of well disciplined line inf in their native terrain. That kind of tactics less common for newer titles such as ROP and RUS as there are more complex chain of command and more populated troops.
Besides WIA I have played countless hours Rise of Prussia and Revolution under Siege solo and some pbem I can say they are brilliant games.

[Franciscus]

Napoleon's Campaigns is indeed an AGE game. Just be prepared for a lot of command chain management. There is also no grand campaign.

Yes, Napoleon's Campaigns is an AGE game and a very good one, too

It has some peculiarities that some can view as weaknesses but that can be also seen as advantages, like:
- it relies heavily on chain of command (and simulates extremely well how for example Grande Armée corps "worked" together), but the job is almost all pre-made for you: You have a series of scenarios, where for the most part you have at start your armies and corps stationed and organized like in the starting historical dates of each "campaign". You can but do not really "need" to reorganize your forces, at least when you start playing this game.
- It's more of a wargame than other AGE games, because for example you can't build new units during the scenarios (although in some scenarios some units can appear and disappear by events), and have very few "options" to play or to worry about.
- weekly turns and the necessity of creating a logical chain of supply (via depot building) in a clearly defined setting in relatively short term scenarios (with the exception of the monster peninsular campaign; the Russian campaign is also somewhat long... ) permits to simulate very well the operational aspect of Napoleonic warfare, IMHO, and to learn your logistics...
- it has no grand campaign (ie, you cannot play straight from 1805 to 1815), but has all the most important campaigns of that period, and even some hypothetical scenarios like the invasion of England. Some of the shorter scenarios can be played in a couple of hours and are IMHO very satisfying.

Regards

[stockwellpete]

Thanks everyone. I am starting to read the forum a lot more now and it seems that there is definitely an ACW2 on the way quite soon and maybe there is a second Napoleon game coming along a bit further on down the road? I'll get "Rise of Prussia" soon as I have just read the Osprey book on the Seven Years War and now realise just how dramatic a period of history this was in Europe, North America and India. Then I can go onto Revolution Under Siege, which I have read a lot about in the past.

Another related question then . . . when you play these AGE games online by PBEM are they IGOUGO or WEGO games? I am assuming they are all WEGO games because the rules mention "blocking moves" (something I haven't really got to grips with yet). Is that correct please? Up to now I have just played two of Slitherine's games which are IGOUGO (I have only been playing online for a couple of years) but I am also reading about other companies who do "real-time" and "pausable real-time" games that can have as many as 30+ players! How on earth do these games work then? Not everyone would be online at the same time so presumably you have to complete your turn by a certain time, I guess? And then maybe all the turns are done at once like a WEGO game? Is it something like that? And what is the purpose of the "pausable" option then? Sorry if these are very basic questions but I have no idea how these sort of games work. I get a sense though that the real-time games are a bit more stressful than the turn-based games so they are probably not for me (seeing as I am one of your oldest players (according to your poll! lol)

[squidelica]

I am less interested in ancient warfare so I am unlikely to get anything from the Alea Jacta Est series.

its a shame your not interested in these 2 as IMO they are the best AGEOD have produced yet

[Durk]

Thanks everyone. I am starting to read the forum a lot more now and it seems that there is definitely an ACW2 on the way quite soon and maybe there is a second Napoleon game coming along a bit further on down the road? I'll get "Rise of Prussia" soon as I have just read the Osprey book on the Seven Years War and now realise just how dramatic a period of history this was in Europe, North America and India. Then I can go onto Revolution Under Siege, which I have read a lot about in the past.

Another related question then . . . when you play these AGE games online by PBEM are they IGOUGO or WEGO games? I am assuming they are all WEGO games because the rules mention "blocking moves" (something I haven't really got to grips with yet). Is that correct please? Up to now I have just played two of Slitherine's games which are IGOUGO (I have only been playing online for a couple of years) but I am also reading about other companies who do "real-time" and "pausable real-time" games that can have as many as 30+ players! How on earth do these games work then? Not everyone would be online at the same time so presumably you have to complete your turn by a certain time, I guess? And then maybe all the turns are done at once like a WEGO game? Is it something like that? And what is the purpose of the "pausable" option then? Sorry if these are very basic questions but I have no idea how these sort of games work. I get a sense though that the real-time games are a bit more stressful than the turn-based games so they are probably not for me (seeing as I am one of your oldest players (according to your poll! lol)

What a complicated series of questions you pose.
The simultaneous movement of these games is not at all an ongoing amorphous mess as you contemplate. I am likely in your age category. AGEOD is sensible, fun and challenging.
Connect with a few players and enjoy the fun of this handful of delightful games.

[stockwellpete]

What a complicated series of questions you pose.
The simultaneous movement of these games is not at all an ongoing amorphous mess as you contemplate. I am likely in your age category. AGEOD is sensible, fun and challenging.
Connect with a few players and enjoy the fun of this handful of delightful games.

Complicated? How so?

I am just trying to understand the difference between the various types of historical games out there. As far as I know all of the AGE engine games are 2-player - I am just not completely sure if they are what is called IGOUGO or WEGO type games when you use PBEM. I am assuming they are WEGO from what you have said. And I have got myself an opponent to play BOA2 now, thanks.

But there is this other category of game made by other companies like Paradox which are called "real time strategy" or "pausable real time strategy" that seem to be able to cope with 20 or 30 players at once - my question is really about them. How do they work? The reason that I am asking is that I have just got a new laptop that allows me to play the much bigger games for the first time.

[Franciscus]

Ageod games are WEGO, even in PBEM, of course.

"Pausable real time strategy" - ie Paradox games like Crusader Kings - are completely different and definitely now not for me, but many people like them...

"Tactical" real time pausable games like Scourge of War or HistWar are, on the contrary, very enjoyable

Regards

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Ageod is WEGO, still turn based. And that is one of the main draws as few games attempt WEGO.

[Pocus]

WEGO don't need you and all your buddies to be logged in at the same time, this is one of the main advantage of the system (plus concurrent moves, it makes a load of fun when you stomp someone hard .

[loki100]

Complicated? How so?

I am just trying to understand the difference between the various types of historical games out there. As far as I know all of the AGE engine games are 2-player - I am just not completely sure if they are what is called IGOUGO or WEGO type games when you use PBEM. I am assuming they are WEGO from what you have said. And I have got myself an opponent to play BOA2 now, thanks.

But there is this other category of game made by other companies like Paradox which are called "real time strategy" or "pausable real time strategy" that seem to be able to cope with 20 or 30 players at once - my question is really about them. How do they work? The reason that I am asking is that I have just got a new laptop that allows me to play the much bigger games for the first time.

IGOUGO is when you complete your moves on your own PC (move + combat) and then send the completed turn portion to your opponent - or hand it over to the AI. There is usually also a turn resolution element, but in effect, you move/fight etc with no interaction. A good eg of this is GGs War in the East. From your comment, I guess you have some experience of this approach.

WEGO is what AGEOD use, where you set up your orders, if it is MP, then one hosts, if SP then you resolve your orders and the AIs at the same time.

So far, no AGEOD game has had to cope with motorised warfare (ok a little in RUS and PON - but in both they can be treated as fast infantry/powerful cavalry). Be fascinating to see if the game engine can ever manage that ...

Both have the very real advantage for multiplayer that you do not all need to be on line at the same time.

Pride of Nations has an epic 20+ player MP game on the go, so the normal 2 player situation in AGEOD is down to scenario design not game engine limits.

As others have said, real time strategy is very much Paradox's style. The problem (for me) is that for MP, you all need to be online at the same time and that is very hard to arrange. SP, you can play/pause as you wish as you progress through the game, but it is in effect simultaneous movement.

[stockwellpete]

IGOUGO is when you complete your moves on your own PC (move + combat) and then send the completed turn portion to your opponent - or hand it over to the AI. There is usually also a turn resolution element, but in effect, you move/fight etc with no interaction. A good eg of this is GGs War in the East. From your comment, I guess you have some experience of this approach.

WEGO is what AGEOD use, where you set up your orders, if it is MP, then one hosts, if SP then you resolve your orders and the AIs at the same time.

So far, no AGEOD game has had to cope with motorised warfare (ok a little in RUS and PON - but in both they can be treated as fast infantry/powerful cavalry). Be fascinating to see if the game engine can ever manage that ...

Both have the very real advantage for multiplayer that you do not all need to be on line at the same time.

Pride of Nations has an epic 20+ player MP game on the go, so the normal 2 player situation in AGEOD is down to scenario design not game engine limits.

As others have said, real time strategy is very much Paradox's style. The problem (for me) is that for MP, you all need to be online at the same time and that is very hard to arrange. SP, you can play/pause as you wish as you progress through the game, but it is in effect simultaneous movement.

Thanks again, everyone.

You have explained that very clearly for me loki. I have only come across this WEGO/IGOUGO terminology in the last few weeks - I was completely oblivious to it before. It strikes me that the WEGO way of doing things is the most realistic way to represent historical campaigns. IGOUGO is OK too but not quite as good (yes, I have been playing a couple of Slitherine's games for the last two years or so, mainly Field of Glory, which is great fun but not always particularly "historically accurate" and Commander:the Great War). I have got a mate at work who is into PC strategy games too and he said today that the RTS games with lots of players can be a bit frantic. You really need to understand the game very well and have very sharp "hand-eye" co-ordination to do well against experienced players. A considered strategic approach is not always possible or desirable, he said. Seeing as I play my turns at the speed of a tortoise then I think perhaps I should avoid this genre of game! lol So thanks again - at least I know now to look carefully at the small print of a game to see if it is turn-based or not in future.

[Boomer]

Hey, I know! Let's convert the upcoming ACW 2 to an RTS! Hahahaha... Can you imagine trying to form divisions, upgrade iron factories in Georgia and promote generals all the while your enemy is flooding 70,000 troops towards Atlanta? Jeez, RTS AGEOD games would be absolutely schizophrenic.

[loki100]

I have got a mate at work who is into PC strategy games too and he said today that the RTS games with lots of players can be a bit frantic. You really need to understand the game very well and have very sharp "hand-eye" co-ordination to do well against experienced players. A considered strategic approach is not always possible or desirable, he said. Seeing as I play my turns at the speed of a tortoise then I think perhaps I should avoid this genre of game! lol So thanks again - at least I know now to look carefully at the small print of a game to see if it is turn-based or not in future.

I think he's right, you also tend to see a MP approach that is very simplified as you can only concentrate on the essentials. The advantage of the turn ending approach is you can fuss around sorting out all your options with some leisure and really immerse yourself in the game.

To me, the Slitherine model is a throwback to the old paper and counter games where one side would move, then the other (with limited interaction). It seems to work ok in the only 1 of their games I have (WiTE).

The Paradox model is great for single player, because you can pause as you wish and take your time.

[Philippe]

The first use of simultaneous movement that I can think of was in a set of very optional rules for Avalon Hill's 1914. I'm not sure when it came out exactly, but I remember playing it with a few friends in the spring of 1969. The system had a few rough spots, but the main feature was similar to what you find in Paul Bruffel's ancients tactical games over at HPS.

The WEGO system has been around in force since the early seventies. The main pioneers were at SPI which had a number of ex-Avalon Hill designers. It was called Simove back then, and was used primarily for 20th century armor games. To play it you used special color-coded turn submission sheets, and I still had a few packets as recently as ten years ago.

WEGO is a generally superior system, but a designer has to be careful about how he uses it. It is in fact not that realistic to play turns in WEGO if the slice of time represented by the turn is too large relative to how far the units can move. So if you're going to use it you probably need to ratchet down the time-scale to the point where the slowest unit can only move about one hex or its equivalent in one turn.

There was a phenomenally successful adaption of WEGO to modern computer games in the 'nineties by Atomic Games. Atomic made a series of games (the last couple picked up by a re-incarnation of Avalon Hill) that covered famous battles of WW II at an operational level. These were fairly equivalent to John Tiller's WW II Operational games. But as much as I love the JTS/HPS WW II games (and I've modded more of them than I'm willing to admit), there were an awful lot of things that the old Atomic Games games did better (and half of the time when I'm making mods I'm just trying to make HPS look not like the Talonsoft predecessor but like the Atomic Games masterpieces).

And yes, those were games about armored warfare.

[stockwellpete]

The Paradox model is great for single player, because you can pause as you wish and take your time.

Yes, I was just thinking about that. Something like Europa Universalis IV, when it appears, would not be off-limits to me and would appeal to me primarily because it fills a great big gap in my historical knowledge from around 1500 to 1700 - so I could just play as a single player and get a few history books out of the library too and that would be just fine. And I can play online with the WEGO and IGOUGO games. I would say that Slitherine's "Commander: the Great War" is quite good as far as it goes, but when you compare the scope of that game with what is contained within World War One Gold (I have downloaded the manual now after having heroically fought my way through the tutorial!) then it does look much weaker - whole areas covered by the AEGOD game (such as diplomacy) do not feature in the Slitherine game - as yet anyway. In the last week or so, I have started to read up on the Seven Years War, both in Europe and in North America, and I can tell now that BOA2 "Wars in America" is a very interesting and intriguing rendition of the war in that theatre.

[stockwellpete]

I found this today too and it is quite interesting (probably written in 2011) . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based#Turn-based

[Taillebois]

Wasn't Diplomacy effectively a WEGO system?


Edit . Well yes it was and I wouldn't have had to make this post if I'd read the above thread link first.

It's an age thing, so to speak.

[Baris]

One disadvantage of turn based system is they need some kind of anti-cheat mechanic for re-loads and such. For big games such as JTS/HPS wargames as Philippe mentioned it is not sometimes possible to play it through in one session. Though they are also great games. IMHO WEGO system is the best. For playing multi play Paradox games I can not imagine how boring it should be with possible mandatory pauses in realtime waiting for other players.

[Hobbes]

Hi Pete, I just noticed your comments on the King William's War scenario. It's a little unfortunate that you chose to play this scenario early on as it is a mod of mine and there are a few things that may be a little confusing as there are a few differences from the standard scenarios. Normally to build a fort you have to convert quite a few artillery and supply units but as there are few available in this scenario I thought of allowing a player to build stockades in certain places through the events you mentioned. (stockades are weaker than forts - and forts can still be built in the usual way should you somehow manage to amass enough supply and artillery). As it is a mod this method is not mentioned in the manual (the information is in the scenario notes). I can see how this can be confusing to a new player! You also mentioned how many colonists could be lost to a small number of indians - for this you just need to look at the stats of the units to see how much more powerful the smaller indian units are - but the power value shown for a stack should be a fairly good guide. Colonist units represent untrained citizens just reaching for their weapons while trying to defend their families. The militia units are a step up and represent men that have at least a small amount of drill training. I find the best way to learn is to play a very small scenario against myself (turn off the AI) and repeat the battles a few times until you understand the combat results and also get the hang of supply this way. I hope you persevere with the AGEOD games - the investment of time really does pay off.

Cheers,
Chris

[stockwellpete]

Hello Chris. Yes, I have just started at the top of the list of scenarios (Pequot War) and I am slowly beginning to work my way down them. I am looking at the large campaign for the French and Indian War now. I am a very slow learner of these type of games because I end up with my head stuck in various history books half the time! I enjoyed your King William scenario very much and I will return to it once I have worked my way through the list of scenarios. The supply units generally only have 2 elements in your scenario, unless they come from England when they have 4 elements, so requesting supplies from England seems to be key if you feel the need to build forts. I was able to build stockades on the lakes anyway to threaten Quebec and Montreal so Ifelt like I had got the hang of it in the end. I will try this idea of switching off the AI too - thanks for that.

I do like this AGE engine system very much and I have got Rise of Prussia and Revolution Under Siege as well now. I like the fact that once you have learnt one AGE game then that gives you a foothold in other titles. I appreciate that some new elements have been added in recent games concerning army organisation and structures. I think the thing that flummoxed me at first was the sheer size of these games. My old lap top could only run smaller games like Field of Glory so I was unprepared for the scale of these titles - and typically of me I blundered in and tried World War One Gold first, when it is probably the biggest AEGOD game in terms of its scale, and it uses a completely different engine from most of the others.

[Hobbes]

The supply units generally only have 2 elements in your scenario, unless they come from England when they have 4 elements, so requesting supplies from England seems to be key if you feel the need to build forts.

I think that's a bug - well spotted I'm the same with the books - but that's part of the joy of these games.

Thanks,
Chris