AGEOD Forums

Pocus wrote:What's for sure is that before having tactical control, if we ever reach this point (for solo games, PBEM would have to stay with full automated battles), there will be a period in the future where more and more visual feedback on battles will be shown to player. Such time has already begun, as we are improving the reporting on battles for VGN... perhaps not to the extend many would like but we are doing our best.

kafka wrote:well, crown of glory has a fully implemeted tactical layer and from what I can see at the matrixgames forum there are a lot of pbem games going

True. With CoG, all battles in PBEM are instant battles. The detailed combat or any user interaction is not possible with PBEM. In other words, it's exactly like AACW is today.

Pocus wrote:What's for sure is that before having tactical control, if we ever reach this point (for solo games, PBEM would have to stay with full automated battles), there will be a period in the future where more and more visual feedback on battles will be shown to player. Such time has already begun, as we are improving the reporting on battles for VGN... perhaps not to the extend many would like but we are doing our best.

And when will come the time for a little screenshot or two on this topic?

Not too soon...

The simulator that RTG pictured looks alot like the one that "Forge of Freedom" uses for a Quick Battle. Basically all you do in that is place your regiments on the board and the battle plays out with out any additional human decisions. You see the battle play out and it gets rather exciting when each side only has a few regiments left and the battle can go either way. How difficult would it be to do something like that?

Patrick

I understand that the player wants absolute control and micro-management about everything, that is the biggest request in every game I have been playing, discussing, or involved in. However, a good game forces things out of the player's control, so you avoid the 'winning by micro-managing' strategies that have become commonplace. In life, you can do your best to prepare, but eventually you have to hand off the reigns to someone else to actually go through. I view AACW as you are the strategic head of everything, you assign commanders and dictate where they go, but it is up to them to actually fight out the battles. As a leader, you put your best men and best leaders (if possible) in the best situations, and it is up to them to organize the battles.

With more control you really eliminate the issues of poor leadership, or awesome leadership, as you now take the role of Robert E Lee and George B McClellan. Very few players will play like McClellan, so the Union will win in the first few battles (one of the reasons why AACW is good, because you are stuck with your poor generals as the Union).

McNaughton wrote:With more control you really eliminate the issues of poor leadership, or awesome leadership, as you now take the role of Robert E Lee and George B McClellan. Very few players will play like McClellan, so the Union will win in the first few battles (one of the reasons why AACW is good, because you are stuck with your poor generals as the Union).

There are times when I enjoy some micro-management, though I admit I am no expert at tactical issues. I appreciate games (like the Total War series for example) that allow one to go in and manage the battles, and also to stay out of the fray and auto-resolve them...one gets a choice. That's really cool.

On the other hand, I appreciate that a project like this has limited resources and that adding too many layers of complexity will take time from other tasks. All in all, if there has to be a decision made about where to put the priorities, I'd say to get the grand strategy and AI "smarts" right, and then add the chrome like tactical battle management later, as time and resources allow.

For now, I just hope they focus upon getting the grand strategy done really, really well, because that is what I am looking forward to the most. Tactical battle resolutions can come later, or not at all, if that is the choice that must be made by the developers to get the game out in top form.

Goodaye,

As already pointed out I don't think anybody here is asking for absolute control and micro-managment abilities with regard to tactical resolution of battles.

What a number of poster have suggested is that there be either a bit more involvement in the process or alternatively more feedback from the game engine on battle resolution.

Personally I find a screenful of numbers and icons telling me the results of a momentus battle somewhat 'dry' and lacking in excitement.

Cheers,
Plugger

McNaughton wrote:With more control you really eliminate the issues of poor leadership, or awesome leadership, as you now take the role of Robert E Lee and George B McClellan. Very few players will play like McClellan, so the Union will win in the first few battles (one of the reasons why AACW is good, because you are stuck with your poor generals as the Union).

That's the very reason that put me off from Matrix's Forge of Freedom. When I want to micromanage stuff in this period I play Battleground