Initial Impressions?

[clandini5]

An excellent game, just playing the Bohemian Revolt I find myself playing turn after turn, so like TEAW I find the game quite addicting. The game is very good-looking with nice graphics and has been mentioned the counters and decision card being easier to read. Two touches that I like are:
1: While going through the tutorials I recall a mention of being careful of using an army of more than 10,000 men (due to supply, ect.). This is a nice change for people like myself who are used to games say from the Napoleonic era on of using armies of 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands.
2: In TEAW when you proceed to the next turn the cursor changes during the process to a shovel shoveling coal into furnace, in TYW it changes to a man firing a musket. (Kind of neat really).

[Boomer]

Waiting to pull the trigger on a purchase until at least an initial patch. The release version seems to have a few bugs. Looks good though. Never played a Thirty Years War game before. I think I would definitely choose TYW over Pike and Shot.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Currently I'm playing the Catholics, it's 1628 and I've built every possible unit and taken every city that is accessible by land and I have: 321EP, 126 Thalers, and 118WS. I just finished crushing the negligible Danish army and seem to just be waiting for Gustavus to enter...so there's been very little to do the past few years.

Then it sounds like the game should let you win already, not like the game is too easy. Historically, before Sweden entered the war, Tilly's imitation tercios and Wallenstein's mercenary doomstacks were utterly curbstomping the Protestants. If they had done it even faster and to an even greater extent, it might well be that Gustavus would not even have bothered to try.

The correct way for a wargamer or games designer to regard everything pre Swedish intervention is much like one should regard the opening moves of Operation Barbarossa: One player is positioned to utterly wreck the starting forces of the other, who will have to engage in delay, damage control and playing of the long game.

On the other hand, that would imply that connecting Swedish entry to Danish surrender is just bad design, since it renders pre-Swedish Protestant gains largely irrelevant. I haven't played the Grand Campaign yet, but it seems to me like it would be beneficial for the Protestant player to just game the system to trigger the conditions for Danish surrender asap to get Sweden in the game, rather than let Denmark die a slow death while the Catholics keep on accumulating resources.

Thus, for largely gamistic considerations, Swedish entry should be largely timed, rather than tied to conditions. Super-historical Catholic performance could slightly speed up Swedish intervention, and sub-historical performance slightly delay it, but not to the extent that e.g. it would pay off for the Catholic player to keep a crippled rump Denmark along just to keep Sweden out of the war. Either that, or allow the Protestant player a decision that simultaneously withdraws Denmark and introduces Sweden into the war.

[Leibst]

Hi Konrad. Interesting suggestion. Maybe it is complicated to implement but deserve a serious study.
First we need to see things going right as it is designed.
May it could be an alternate scenario, i will think about it.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Yeah, of course, first fix what's broken. Still, just changing the Catholic AI won't prevent players from abusing the feature, though I suspect most players would just house-rule it.

As a longer-term goal, instead of an alternate scenario, why not allow for several ways for Swedish intervention to trigger? It would allow the game to better handle various possible alternative outcomes of the Bohemian and Danish phases of the war. Making Swedish intervention impossible before October 1629 would be appropriate in any case, since until then Sweden was committed to the Polish war. A hard limit like that would give the Catholic player an incentive to smash the Protestants as fast as he can, especially if there's a possibility of early victory before Sweden intervenes.

[dinsdale]

I agree with Conrad about timed entry. It's so unlikely that a Protestant player will do so well as to void the reasons for Swedish entry. Ideally a random variation of 6 months either side of a fixed date would be perfect.

[Leibst]

We cant pretend to reproduce exactly the history in a game, against Ai or pbem. So if Denmark surrenders two things could happen. One is Catholic victory, the game ends. Other is Sweden enters, the game go on. But this should be independent of the year if we want to have fun and continue playing. So i can assume in an early surrender of Denmark Sweden enter the war against the Empire, not against Poland-Lithuania.

[Charles]

Been playing for about a week, very impressed so far. Very good representation of 17th century warfare.

The playing area is about the same as RoP, but it feels bigger because armies move slower and supply is tighter. The tight supply also means you really have to plan ahead to take advantage of the summer months.

the battle planner is also very well done, lot's of options. Would be nice to eventually be able to use it in PBEM games.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

I bought it because I want to support AGEOD.

To be honest, aesthetically and in terms of immersion, I personally find it very disappointing. It's not even comparable to the great artistic work of RoP, WiA, etc. The UI-overlays (+the font) lack the atmosphere of the period or even a common theme, it just looks cold and modern-technical. The unit-pictures are quite disappointing, as they look as if they were taken out of some of the bad Osprey-booklets, the proportions are off somtimes, but was is more important: there is no "theme" to them - they remind me a lot of the "pike-and-shot"-game in a very, very bad way. The map doesn't stick to the period either. RoP and WiA-maps, for example, were pieces of art, very "artistic" in their approach, whereas the current map just looks a bit too much like a a satellite map, too "realistic" (well okay, there are some rather words in a rather ugly and non-contemporary fracture script on it that doesn't go well with the map-style). So, this might sound harsh, but visually, I'm afraid, the game does not look finished at all and turns me off. It looks as if the budget for immersion has been cut to 10% of what it formerly was. The decision-images are images look as if they have been found somewhere else, simply cobbled together with no effort to give them a common style.

There are also many small things that stand out in a bad way. E.g. why are the imperial city-flags neon-yellow? It's ugly and does not fit to the yellow of the region-control-coat of arms at all. Then there is that extermely low-quality smoke-animation in pillaged regions....(why animations in the first place?!). And why is there a power-point-esque colour-transition (from black to concrete-grey) in the unit-info-bar? It's so ugly! And the script seems to be offset in many occasions - it's often not in the centre where it is supposed to be, touching and overlapping bars and boxes.

The music, while being catchy, fits better to a WWII-hollywood movie than the baroque.

And what's up with this new UI-style. Why have the very handy stance- and ROE-buttons been discarded in favour of two overly huge buttons that plop up the options when you click on them? The same goes for the map-overlay-buttons. The UI in general needs a lot of work imho.

I'm sorry to say that but it seems as if the days in which ageod games were dreams of historical immersion come true are over. It's a pity, since I can imagine that the awesome aesthetics might have attracted new customers in the past. I don't think that TYW will manage to pull that off as it stands now. I wonder why it is that no company manages to get this particular period even slightly right in terms of immersion. I can't judge the gameplay and I'm probably not going to play TYW anytime soon. Lacking immersion, 30 day-turns and huge mega-campaigns turn me off. I stick to beaaauutyfull RoP.

[elxaime]

Based on a PBEM that lasted about 25 turns, I think this is a very good game so far. But there is at least one unfortunate issue that needs attention. The auto-garrison rules apparently eat one replacement chit every time you muster an auto-garrison. We had to end our otherwise enjoyable PBEM when it became apparent that a cavalry unit could ride across a number of enemy fortress cities, muster their auto-garrisons, and thus empty the enemy replacement pool. Posted a thread on this already. That seems the only significant issue, although some minor ones exist like needing to add event messages where an event happens so the players don't think its a bug. Great game though...

[Templer]

Someone from the canard PC french forum bought the game and played a full campaign one evening. The reviewer is well aware of Ageod game and love especially civil war 2.

The review was not very positive. May i share with you a resume of the report it could be interesting :

The reviewer complained of the following things :

- Bad balance of...

It is quite typical for AGEOD to publish their games first "unfinished" (which I do not like :cursing and then, with time, to patch and fine tune their games (which I liked a lot).

I bought it because I want to support AGEOD.

Thirty Years War is published by AGEOD. However, the developer is Miguel Santacruz aka Leibstandarte.

To be honest, aesthetically and in terms of immersion, I personally find it very disappointing. It's not even comparable to the great artistic work of RoP, WiA, etc. The UI-overlays (+the font) lack the atmosphere of the period or even a common theme, it just looks cold and modern-technical. The unit-pictures are quite disappointing, as they look as if they were taken out of some of the bad Osprey-booklets, the proportions are off somtimes, but was is more important: there is no "theme" to them - they remind me a lot of the "pike-and-shot"-game in a very, very bad way. The map doesn't stick to the period either. RoP and WiA-maps, for example, were pieces of art, very "artistic" in their approach, whereas the current map just looks a bit too much like a a satellite map, too "realistic" (well okay, there are some rather words in a rather ugly and non-contemporary fracture script on it that doesn't go well with the map-style). So, this might sound harsh, but visually, I'm afraid, the game does not look finished at all and turns me off. It looks as if the budget for immersion has been cut to 10% of what it formerly was. The decision-images are images look as if they have been found somewhere else, simply cobbled together with no effort to give them a common style.

You obviously don't own CW II.
The graphical UI there is much more 'sterile' and robbed much of the atmosphere.

The decision-images are images look as if they have been found somewhere else, simply cobbled together with no effort to give them a common style.

What many don't know: you can not just take pictures from somewhere and then stick them elsewhere for public use (Yes, rights could be violated!). Often you can, but then you have to pay for this rights/permission! Thus the AGEOD games would be more expensive.[/QUOTE]

There are also many small things that stand out in a bad way. E.g. why are the imperial city-flags neon-yellow? It's ugly and does not fit to the yellow of the region-control-coat of arms at all. Then there is that extermely low-quality smoke-animation in pillaged regions....(why animations in the first place?!). And why is there a power-point-esque colour-transition (from black to concrete-grey) in the unit-info-bar? It's so ugly! And the script seems to be offset in many occasions - it's often not in the centre where it is supposed to be, touching and overlapping bars and boxes.

I can well imagine that on this will be a rework.

And what's up with this new UI-style. Why have the very handy stance- and ROE-buttons been discarded in favour of two overly huge buttons that plop up the options when you click on them? The same goes for the map-overlay-buttons. The UI in general needs a lot of work imho.

There are alternative buttons to select in the option menu.

[Templer]

I bought it because I want to support AGEOD.
...The unit-pictures are quite disappointing, ..., the proportions are off somtimes, ...

I will unfortunately have to agree here.

[ATTACH]34923[/ATTACH]

1. Different proportions, and then
2. the same body. Only their heads were replaced.

I don't like this! Actually unacceptable.
Something like this shouldn't be at high standards!

[Pocus]

Replacing heads while using same bodies, with only sometime a tiny variation is there since 2004 and BOA, sorry to disappoint you. Most of our games have more than 500 portraits and they can't all be brand new, lets be pragmatic and realistic.

[Ardashir]

My own impression is that the game is easy for the catholics. By 1630 I've conquered all cities on the map (save neutral France and Saxony), defeated all swedish armies and find myself just clicking "end turn".

There was an english I believe force (Under Hamilton) that landed in Pomerania at Kolberg in 1631, but I've beaten them soundly.

I am under the impression taht the game needs some sort of Catholic "sudden death victory". It should tigger if the Catholics control all Baltic ports and also have a wide enough advantage in Victory points over protestants.

Another thing is taht I believe the Polish-Swedish war of 1621–1625 and the war of 1626–1629 should be both featured in the game, with actual units moving around etc. Otherwise the Swedish intervention feels forced and the "Gdynia obligatory reinforcement" even more artificial.

Overlal its not a bad game, but really needs three things
- More specific sudden death victory conditions
- More detailed Swedish gameplay mechanism, with the Swedish-Polish wars included on the map as an integral part of the game.
- In the same vein, the Dutch-Spanish war in the Low countries should be a part of the game. I was dissapointed about not being able to attack Bergen-op-zoom as my historicla Spanish counterpart had. Leaving the Dutchg-Spanish and Polish-Swedish conflcts out relaly downgrades the gaming experience and limits the big strategy options.

Then it sounds like the game should let you win already, not like the game is too easy. Historically, before Sweden entered the war, Tilly's imitation tercios and Wallenstein's mercenary doomstacks were utterly curbstomping the Protestants. If they had done it even faster and to an even greater extent, it might well be that Gustavus would not even have bothered to try.

The correct way for a wargamer or games designer to regard everything pre Swedish intervention is much like one should regard the opening moves of Operation Barbarossa: One player is positioned to utterly wreck the starting forces of the other, who will have to engage in delay, damage control and playing of the long game.

On the other hand, that would imply that connecting Swedish entry to Danish surrender is just bad design, since it renders pre-Swedish Protestant gains largely irrelevant. I haven't played the Grand Campaign yet, but it seems to me like it would be beneficial for the Protestant player to just game the system to trigger the conditions for Danish surrender asap to get Sweden in the game, rather than let Denmark die a slow death while the Catholics keep on accumulating resources.

Thus, for largely gamistic considerations, Swedish entry should be largely timed, rather than tied to conditions. Super-historical Catholic performance could slightly speed up Swedish intervention, and sub-historical performance slightly delay it, but not to the extent that e.g. it would pay off for the Catholic player to keep a crippled rump Denmark along just to keep Sweden out of the war. Either that, or allow the Protestant player a decision that simultaneously withdraws Denmark and introduces Sweden into the war.

Strongly agreed. There should be imho two triggers
1 - Danish surrender, as it is now
2 - Alternative -if Sweden is not at war by early 1630, it should enter automatically regardless of the situation.

Same thing with Denmark - it should have a "maximum war entry date", so the protestants have an actual reason to defend Heidelberg, while the Catholics have a reason to take it in a decent amount of time.

You obviously don't own CW II.
The graphical UI there is much more 'sterile' and robbed much of the atmosphere.

CW2 was dreadfull in many ways, but the map graphics were indeed annoying and sterile. TYW imho ha spretty good map graphics - not as cool as the original WIA or CW1 ones, but still quite decent and nicer than for example than the AJE games.

[Hrothgar]

I think modifying the criteria for Swedish entry sounds like an excellent idea. As others have mentioned, the Imperialists can delay Swedish entry by refraining from conquering Denmark, allowing the Imperialists free rein on the continent, while Sweden sits impotent in Stockholm.

It must be possible to devise other triggers, not subject to the manipulation of the Imperial player.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Danish entry into the war isn't tied to the fall of Heidelberg, or as far as I know, anything else. In my current Protestant campaign, Denmark entered the war just fine without Heidelberg ever falling.

[Ardashir]

Danish entry into the war isn't tied to the fall of Heidelberg, or as far as I know, anything else. In my current Protestant campaign, Denmark entered the war just fine without Heidelberg ever falling.

Thanks for clarifying, now that makes more sense.

I've given the Swedishg entry more thought and I now think the Polish-Swedish wars of the 1620s should be a part of the game, with the map open and actual polish and swedish units moving across the map controlled by the player etc.

The game should keep track of objective hexes on the baltic controlled by oth sides, with 3 possible outcomes:

1) The Swedish goal at that stage should be to take all of Livonia, and all Polish cities in Pomerania, Danzig and "Royal Prussia" (Prussia owned by Poland). Once this happens, a peace is signed, Livonia and the Baltic ports are ceded to Sweden and Swedish forces are free to join the TYW at once.

2) If by autumn 1629 Sweden still does not controll all the baltic cities, then a "compromise peace" is signed (like the historiucal truce of Altmark) - Sweden gets a part of Livonia, and is then able to send forces to germany.

3) If Poles manage to keep their baltic ports as well as conquer Estonia, then a peace unfavourable to Sweden is signed - Sweden loses Estonia and the catholic player gets additional Polish mercenaries to enlist (including heavy cavalry). Sweden, now weakened is still allowed to intervene in the TYW at that point.

I think it would give the player more grand strategy options and allow for a smooth and natural transition of Sweden to the TYW (as was historical - the reason why Sweden intervened so late was because iot had its hands full with Poland in the 1620s).

[Philippe]

But what if the player is the Imperialist and not the Protestant ?

[Konrad von Richtmark]

I'm not sure directly including the Polish-Swedish War would be good game design. If Poland will just be yet another Imperial sub-faction, it would allow the Imperials to pool their resources a bit too well, make Poland support the Imperial cause in a way it shouldn't, not directly taking part in the TYW. On the Protestant side, it would give Sweden the possibility to ignore Poland and just pile into Germany from the start. Also, as far as I know, Polish-Ottoman wars are a major reason why neither took much part in the TYW. All in all, adding the Polish-Swedish War would just open a can of additional complexities that can't be adequately represented by the simplified, bipolar politics of having only two factions divided into sub-factions.

[Ardashir]

I'm not sure directly including the Polish-Swedish War would be good game design. If Poland will just be yet another Imperial sub-faction, it would allow the Imperials to pool their resources a bit too well, make Poland support the Imperial cause in a way it shouldn't, not directly taking part in the TYW. On the Protestant side, it would give Sweden the possibility to ignore Poland and just pile into Germany from the start. Also, as far as I know, Polish-Ottoman wars are a major reason why neither took much part in the TYW

Well, I was thinking of having the Polish-Swedish war theatre separated from Germany by a row of impassable border areas (as is with Denmark at the begining of the game). Only once that Polish-Swedish war is resolved are the border areas passable, in turn Poland becomes neutral and unpassable again.

The Polish-Ottoman war pretty much had its own reasons and the Polish-Turkish relations had a dynamic of their own. Poland did not take part in the TYW not just because it had its wars with Sweden and the Ottomans, but primarily because it culdn't for political reasons.

First and foremost Poland was a "noble's democracy" and the parlaiment would not allow the King to make war in Germany. Poland had religious tolerance and many of the nobles in the parlaiment were non-catholics. The nobles had an interest in keeping religious toleration and keeping tensions at a minimum. Nobody wanted to blow up the religious powder keg in Poland, as people had ample evidence what it can lead to looking at Bohemia. An open Polish intervention on the catholic side would threaten the stability of the nation and enrage local protestants.

Secondly, the Empire was seen with some level of distrust by the parlaiment. The King loved the empire, but the parlaiment far less so. A suggestion to move the regular polish army to Germany would likely be seen as "reckless adventurism". Nobles still rememebr how the intervention in Russia went a few years back. Moreover, the Emperor would need to offer some sort of prize for Poland to be gained - for example Silesia. The emperor wasn't really considering such an option in the first place.

Thus the reasons why Poland fought the Swedes but did not fight in the TYW are many and complex, but the end result was rather predictable. Poland would have sent far more mercenaries though if Sweden were to be decisively defeated, or if there was a threat of the Emperor losing very decisively (as in the fall of Vienna and whatnot).

All in all, adding the Polish-Swedish War would just open a can of additional complexities that can't be adequately represented by the simplified, bipolar politics of having only two factions divided into sub-factions.

I see what you mean, as far as the game engine goes. Still, adding the Polish-Swedish war and the Dutch-Spanish wars would have created new "fronts" in the game and allowed for more interesting theathre-to-theatre strategic moves. That's why IMHO "Hannibal:ToR" ended up an interesting game.

TYW isn't bad, but it feels very "scripted" and "on rails" so to speak. There's really just one logical way for eahc side to move, specific ways of advance at each part of the war. As a result each playthrough feels much the same as the last one. I think addition of the Dutch and Polish theathres would help change this for the better.
I think the game somewhat underutilizes the potential for variety that the conflict had - possibility of a different Turkish/English/Polish/Dutch/Swiss participation depending on the situation ingame would help to spice things up a bit and make subsequent playthroughs more varied and interesting.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for making the game.

[elxaime]

My own impression is that the game is easy for the catholics.

Right now the main problem is that the early to Danish period doesn't seem to function that well. The Danes get a lot of money initially, but once that runs out you can't really count on any significant finances. Apparently Denmark generates no yearly income. EP production is minimal. And the Catholic side can simply delay Danish surrender for the whole game if they want, by simply not taking that last northern most city on the Jutland Peninsula. The incentive for the Protestants in the Danish phase is almost to try and lose as fast as they can, because otherwise no Sweden. But the Protestant player has no control over that. We just ended our PBEM in late 1631, since the Protestants had no units, just leaders, hadn't gotten any money for about two years and had minimal EP. The Catholics had 100 percent loyalty in all the Bishoprics and were working on starting to reduce Brandenburg loyalty. The Protestants had decent loyalty in United Provinces, France, Sweden and England, but nothing can happen unless the Danes surrender.

One of the problems is how opaque the diplomatic system is. Unless you burrow into the code itself and try to understand what the events scripts mean, you have little idea of what it means to get country X to loyalty level X. There is no clue as to when/how a country enters or leaves the war, again unless you scour the forums or parse the game code itself.

I would hold off PBEM for this one, as I don't see how Protestants can pose a challenge. The NM divide snowballs once the Catholics inevitably start taking major cities and once you get a 30-40 point NM difference the steamrolling picks up speed.

It is otherwise a great effort with lots of promise.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

One thing I realized playing a Protestant campaign that I won against the AI without ever bringing in Sweden, is to aggressively use the event cards for requisitions and contributions. After Denmark has entered at the latest, you should have plenty of cities in North Germany far from the frontline, cities that can be farmed for money without the resulting pillaged status screwing up your supply. Between running out of the large initial warchest of Denmark and the start of French subsidies, doing that was critical for keeping the warmachine going.