Should I go for it?

[Serge Renault]

Some years ago I've tried Europa Universalis II. One key aspect which called my attention was that developers stated that province annexation would be difficult and so, gameplay would feel real: not a world conquest kind of game. The fact is that I got disappointed, since later I discovered that, aside from playing with minor nations, world conquest was not difficult and players would always create great empires easily. Another thing which got me disappointed was the lack of attention to provinces naming (extremely imprecise).
Reading about Ageod games I couldn't avoid noticing the similarity with EU. I've got attracted at first sight, but began to ask myself if it would be as easy to just go around conquering as it was with EU. How does the AI play? Does the game places a challenge or will it resume to: good players get an overwhelming victory, bad players get a simple victory? I'm not asking about the engine complexity and challenge in mastering it (EU players would sometime state it as if substitute to AI challenge).

Another aspect of the game that really attracts me is the fact that Ageod seems to be representing multiple periods (napoleonic, WWI, etc) using basically the same approach. Since I don't have the time to learn multiple computer games, to have a similar system for different periods is a great plus for me. How similar are those game? Do they share the same quality?

[GraniteStater]

I'll try to answer this, having a lot of experience with a certain Swedish company's products:

* The Swedish company makes good games, but you have never experienced real logistics until you play AEGOd's American Civil War. It only took me about 20 (yes, twenty!) game starts (as the Union) and much reading and cogitating to truly understand what I had to do to keep people in Supply. I was losing formations to malnutrition and attrition badly, at first. This is the best model for logisitcs I've ever seen.

* Some other concepts will be familiar to you (Cohesion = Organization). In general, though, the AI in AGE Studio games is much better as a tactician. We who are comfortable with the mechanics do have a few disappointments - it's just code, after all, and can't think, but, in general, this AI is a worthy opponent.

* If you are knowledgable about the Civil War, I would recommend the Civil War game first and foremost, heck, even if you aren't familiar. It's probably the deepest and richest game currently.

And I haven't even played the Confederates yet. Or 'Hard' difficulty.

Buy AACW. But it NOW.

[dooya]

[...]
Another aspect of the game that really attracts me is the fact that Ageod seems to be representing multiple periods (napoleonic, WWI, etc) using basically the same approach. Since I don't have the time to learn multiple computer games, to have a similar system for different periods is a great plus for me. How similar are those game? Do they share the same quality?

Please note that WW1 is based on a different engine. Nevertheless it is a lot of fun.

[caranorn]

I'd actually recommend you start out with WiA as it's easier to learn. I'm also quite familiar with Paradox' games, I think I bought them all until quite recently and expect to continue buying some of their games. But I find that Ageod's games are more complex, more challenging, have more replayability etc. But you should also note that there are major difference in game philosophy between Paradox and Ageod. For one Paradox produces "real time" strategy games (I contest that there is such a thing a real time in a strategy game) while Ageod has an excellent turn based system (plan your moves and the computer executes them simultaneously, sorry forgot the specific term for that type of game). Until now Paradox has also focussed on games spanning the whole world over a long period of time while Ageod has been limiting itself to local conflicts (Vainglory of Nations I expect will change that)...

I could probably list a hundred significant differences, to be short, Paradox and Ageod cannot really be compared. So just try one of these games and see whether you like it or not...

[GraniteStater]

Birth of America 2: WIA is cool and I enjoy it, but I'm an advocate of jump right in. I would hazard that AACW is probably the most complex AGE-engine game - once the OP learns the mechanics, he'll handle WIA easily.

Remember, in WIA, you don't really get to build your army, you just 'ask' for replacements for existing formations. I do appreciate the recruitment (and 'going home' aspects) of WIA - it's authentic - but a beginner at least gets to build what he wants to in AACW.

Plus winter is absolutely brutal in WIA. A good half of the game turns are dormant, except for the Deep South.

[Serge Renault]

Thanks for the feedback.

One thing I stated that is very important to me is how comprehensive a system is or promises to be. I don't mind facing the learning curve for a complex system, but then I won't do it for one which only treats a very specific period. See, I'm not really stuck to a determinate historical period, so I don't want to learn a different system for each time period or each conflict and spend my already scarce playing time reading manuals. That's why I love Toaw, for instance.

What are the Ageod games based in this system? and what games are they planning using it? Also, how good they are if compared to ACW?

One question that also remains unanswered is: how difficult it is to win the different scenarios? I don't refer to learning the system, but for the difficulty of the scenarios once one is already used to the game system. Will it be like EU, i.e. just seeing how overwhelming and fast your victory will be? If so, will it be easy to find opponents to PBEM? (Being turn based is already an advantage in relation to EU)

Once more I thank for the already very useful feedback and apologize for all those questions.

[enf91]

You can see the AGE-based games in this forum's homepage. To win, most of the time you just have to have more VPs than your opponent (ACW) or satisfy certain victory conditions (BOA2, NC). These can be found in the "Objectives" menu. PBEM opponents can be found in another sub-menu. Just follow the menus.
BTW, also a TOAW fan. The games are similar, except TOAW is operational-level and strictly turn-based, while all the AGEod games run the turns simultaneously and are grand strategy.

[GraniteStater]

BTW, AFAIK, AGE stands for 'Athena Game Engine' - Athena, as she is called, is the AI. AGEOD is AGE Online Delivery.

Except, as noted, the WWI game for instance, the games have a commonality with the AGE. There are some differences, but much of the general system is similar. I have AACW and WIA and a demo of Napoleon's Campaigns (NCP). Once you know one, the rest are easy to pick up.

Still, I highly recommend AACW - I think you would find it the most rewarding for gameplay and challenge.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

Nay. Nay. Correction: AGE stands for "Adaptive Game Engine"

I must admit, she can be quite adaptive...

ouch! What happened to my guys??!!??

[Schattensand]

I'm quiet happy that I found Ageod at last. Just the right games for a playfull history freak. One bad aspect, as all computer games one lives on the creativity of other people. This is really a Nischenprodukt, desirable only for few people. The caring in the forum is quiet amasing.
Prior to this I played Total War games, but the last one Empire was a desaster. No Caring, almost no more possebility for modders and the patch worse than the original game.
Nach uns die Sintflut - to say it in German with Pompadurs words.
Hopefully You will not fall in the same trap here. Fight on

[gchristie]

And I am truly humbled... They mentioned me personally in the credits. This is the first time I've noticed that. Wonder how long that's been in there?

Quite a while, at least a year if memory serves. The accolades keep rolling in!

In spite of the many frustrations, I hope you keep improving this game.

Regards.

[Banks6060]

I've really only played AACW in any length and therefore have a bias toward that game. It is the richest and most in depth strategic/operational ACW game I've ever played....and I've played plenty. (the old "The Blue and the Gray", all of Tiller's tactical games, the battleground series, Madminute's tactical games, Forge of Freedom, Grigsby's latest "War Between the States"...the list goes on).

Needless to say, I've played just about EVERY ACW title there is and this is BY FAR...the best simulation of the period. I bought this game in January of 2008...and it's taken up 90% of my gaming time since I bought it.

I would, however, caution you that playing against the AI...at least for someone as experienced with the period as myself...is nowhere NEAR as enjoyable as playing against a human opponent via PBEM. This is where the game's true strengths shine.

As far as the other games. I've not tried either of the BoA games...NCP is good...though it falls a bit short of ACW in its strategic depth...(you're not able to BUILD your own armies and make important political, economic and financial decisions).

I strongly reccommend you start with ACW and then go from there. It's WELL worth the money.

[GraniteStater]

I'm leery of PBEM because of one respected poster's characterization of it as 'raid and counter-raid.'

Not that the AI doesn't raid, although it's been toned down significantly, from what I see.

[KevinStorm]

I'm a new member to the board, but I've played AACW off and on for a little while and it is absolutely brutal to new players that aren't used to the engine. It's very frustrating, but not in an unfair advantage kind of way, more of a "crap, I didn't even think to defend that spot" kind of way. Right now I'm the Union in July 1861 and Joe Johnston snuck past me into Pittsburg and has it under siege. But the game is fun in its frustration and is very addicting.

[soundoff]

<snip>



I'm leery of PBEM because of one respected poster's characterization of it as 'raid and counter-raid.'

It does not have to be. You can always agree a house rule with your opponent beforehand if needs be. You might also be pleasantly surprised at the number of players out there who do not excessively utilize raiding as a tactic.

[It's a Trap]

+1 I have a game going with MrT right now in which we agreed no leaderless/suicidal raids. Of course with the new Cav rules (at least with the union sense its working:bonk you only get 1 or 2 turns to raid otherwise your going to lose the unit to supply.

[GraniteStater]

Thx for the replies.

[Big Ideas]

AACW is well worth the money AND more important your time you invest into the game. I don't anyone who has bought the game and taken the time to learn the system and played PBEM has walked away from the game with big regrets. I have played in ten PBEM campaigns and never once used cavalry swarms and stuff like that. You can agree on house rules as well. There is also a couple of tourneys going on at the moment for people who like the smaller scenarios, so there is always lots happening here.

I'm sure will find AACW to be a favourite of yours for a long time.

BI

[mikee64]

I'm leery of PBEM because of one respected poster's characterization of it as 'raid and counter-raid.'

Not that the AI doesn't raid, although it's been toned down significantly, from what I see.

GraniteStater: I know others have responded and I hate to be repetitive, but I would also say emphatically that the 'raid and counter-raid' problem is certainly not a reason to avoid pbem. Ther are alternatives via house rules, or I actually play games w/ no house rules where there is not much raiding at all w/ recent versions.

I know you are a serious player and can see how your "beat the historic USA timetable" can make for a challenge. You are an outgoing poster and should have no problem finding what I call a "compatible" partner; I think I can also say though that once you try pbem you will not regret it!

regards.

[GraniteStater]

GraniteStater: I know others have responded and I hate to be repetitive, but I would also say emphatically that the 'raid and counter-raid' problem is certainly not a reason to avoid pbem. Ther are alternatives via house rules, or I actually play games w/ no house rules where there is not much raiding at all w/ recent versions.

I know you are a serious player and can see how your "beat the historic USA timetable" can make for a challenge. You are an outgoing poster and should have no problem finding what I call a "compatible" partner; I think I can also say though that once you try pbem you will not regret it!

regards.

Thanks for the encouragement - appreciate it.

Now all I hafta do is figger out how to use the Internet

[Banks6060]

Considering the "raid and counter-raid" comment. I'd like to offer what I feel is at least somewhat of a remedy to raiding.

If it's in swarms...then yes it's hard to deal with, but when you consider MC and ZOC rules as well as the command penalty associated with having no leader attached to your raiding cavalry and the subsequent movement penalty associated with it....if you do too much raiding in loyal enemy territory...along enemy rail lines...against enemy cavalry that have leaders attached....you're kind of sending your raiders on suicide missions.

If reaction cavalry have a leader attached...they can move faster than your non-led raiding cavalry...the reaction cavalry can use rail lines for fast reaction movement. As long as a reaction unit can simply "catch up" to a raiding cavalry regiment...they can usually trap and destroy it.

I don't do the deep raids...not because I think it's gamey (which it kind of is)...but because I'd rather save my cavalry instead of sending it on suicide missions just to cut rails that will be quickly repaired anyway. Better to use cavalry in larger raids that can take depots, destroy them, and then get out quickly IMHO.