Blockade runners asleep

[CSARebel]

In my current game I have about 4 transport units per blockade box. In past games I could count on getting about 3 to 4 war supplies per turn per pool with such a force. This game I have gone about 4 turns without anything from my runners. The union doesn't even have any ships in the gulf box. It is late 61 or early 62. Only thing I have really done different this game is I have placed all my Brigs(name?) in the raiding box. I am killing the union there. Some turns I am causing losses of over 100 dollars AND war supply per turn. Transports can run blockades, right?

[Jim-NC]

In my current game I have about 4 transport units per blockade box. In past games I could count on getting about 3 to 4 war supplies per turn per pool with such a force. This game I have gone about 4 turns without anything from my runners. The union doesn't even have any ships in the gulf box. It is late 61 or early 62. Only thing I have really done different this game is I have placed all my Brigs(name?) in the raiding box. I am killing the union there. Some turns I am causing losses of over 100 dollars AND war supply per turn. Transports can run blockades, right?

AFAIK, transports can not blockade run. You should use your Brigs for that. Transports are for supply transport (or unit transport).

EDIT- for a more in depth look, see this link:http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=12924&highlight=blockade+transport It has a great discussion, and some very useful information.

[CSARebel]

ARRRGH!!!! Another restart....in ACWII I hope there is better explanations in the tool tips for units before purchasing them.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CSARebel]

Very Unlikely... Why?... There are literally thousands of small details like this built into making the AACW game one of the best Civil War games ever produced. It would literally take years to keep the tooltips up to date with the evolving game as it continues to evolve. This does NOT even include the inherent delays associated with getting such changes retranslated into the different languages. The tooltip part of the LocalStrings.csv file always lagged behind the code/database changes and will ALWAYS do so.

Your best source of information for internal details for the AGEod games is these forum threads themselves. Starting over everytime you read a new inside detail will drive you Nuts. Just play on with your current game and enjoy it and apply the information going forward. The next game you initiate will be even better.

Wow, I can't believe I just read the above. Just so all know were I'm coming from I really do like the game and think it is a good design. But it really should be updated (tooltips) whenever needed. Paradox is able to update their tooltips. I am not trying to say one developer is better then the other, I am just trying to say is knowing what units do is IMPORTANT. How many people know, without spending much time here on the forums, what Naval Engineers, Engineers, Medical, Balloons, Marines, ect really do. Not in real life but how they effect gameplay. It should be a known, period. Yes I could continue my game but why? I have sunk alot of material into a no good transport fleet.

This is how I view transports instinctively: Can run a blockade as they have transport capability. Much more of a chance of getting caught as they are larger and perhaps slower since they are built to haul large amounts. But why design the way they are? No real need to answer, I am just venting, it is what I like to do when I hear someone say the attempt at perfection is too much like work. A whole game was designed and programmed (a very excellent game!) but some decent tooltips are really to much work?

[Clovis]

Wow, I can't believe I just read the above. Just so all know were I'm coming from I really do like the game and think it is a good design. But it really should be updated (tooltips) whenever needed. Paradox is able to update their tooltips. I am not trying to say one developer is better then the other, I am just trying to say is knowing what units do is IMPORTANT. How many people know, without spending much time here on the forums, what Naval Engineers, Engineers, Medical, Balloons, Marines, ect really do. Not in real life but how they effect gameplay. It should be a known, period. Yes I could continue my game but why? I have sunk alot of material into a no good transport fleet.

This is how I view transports instinctively: Can run a blockade as they have transport capability. Much more of a chance of getting caught as they are larger and perhaps slower since they are built to haul large amounts. But why design the way they are? No real need to answer, I am just venting, it is what I like to do when I hear someone say the attempt at perfection is too much like work. A whole game was designed and programmed (a very excellent game!) but some decent tooltips are really to much work?

Paradox is just bigger. In a perfect world, tooltips would be up to date. in the real one, you get the chance to have an improved game 3 years after its release. I almost can't believe that to be possible.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I would take an evolving and improving game with sometimes incomplete documentation over a stagnant game with good documentation. This type of mistake shouldn't cause a game restart anyway. Missing a few turns of blockade running isn't a big deal at all in the grand scheme of things.

[Peissner]

What kind of tooltips did Jefferson Davis have for his transports? i.e. the uncertainty factor actually can make the game more realistic.
(...and I hear Jefferson Davis's laptop ran really slow. Could've been a factor in their defeat.)

In some ways I think it's a bit artificial to read the AARs of experienced players who know exactly what the effect of every move will be. "Industrializing Georgia will pay for itself in xx turns..." etc.

If I make a small mistake when I am playing, I chalk it up to some historical glitch. Maybe the Confederates built some ships intended for blockade running that turned out to be inadequate for the purpose. Now they have to make the best of it.

I'll tell you from experience, good strategic-level Civil War games are hard to come by. What kind of tooltips do you think this game had?

I used to play this game about 15-20 years ago. apy:
As much as people say "wow I loved that old game," it was actually a pain to play, all those little cardboard squares - forget it if you had a cat or small child, any record-keeping was primative and had to be done on paper, was never updated, didn't have a forum, you couldn't save / play 2 games at once, etc.

That having been said, yeh, a few aspects of the interface are a little murky, but my point is they are pretty small in the whole scheme of things.

p.s. I stole that pic from a post by Pocus, I hope that doesn't break any forum rules.

[CSARebel]

I logged on tonight thinking I owed an apology for my venting earlier. And I do to some extent. My frustration was really minor, by that I mean I will restart the game having learned my lesson. I will also say, as I have, that it is a good game.

I am getting frustrated on a whole new level however. It isn't with the developers, although I do hope that when they come out with ACWII that it is more user friendly. It is with those that dimiss my concerns. No, Jeff Davis didn't have tooltips. However he did know if a ship was capable of shipping in war supplies if it didn't get caught.

And no, I am not an expert that could design a better game. I play games, I have designed games (board games for me and friends usage), but I am not a programmer or a designer of the sophistication of AGEOD. It doesn't mean I can't wish for a better product then I have paid for. In fact I wished for better documentaion in the next version.

You know, it says a lot about the company (AGEOD) that they have such a supporting fan base. But is the game PERFECT as is? If so then defend away. If not consider discusion about how to make it better. My guess is AGEOD plans a news version that they will make money on (yes, they supported this game immensly) and they will want to know what improvement are wanted and needed.

So far all I am asking for are better tooltips...oh yeah and a better union AI that will stop trying to invade from Western Virginia (it messes with my plans but I destroy them in the end...it feels almost like an exploit) I hope that my AI comment doesn't overly upset people.

[Pocus]

No game can ever be perfect... There are still issues in ACW, and there are many things which are fine for some and are not for others, so this second kind of stuff can't be "fixed" by definition...

We are not improving on AACW right now, except fixing bugs, simply because our financial resources don't allow for that. If we were Blizzard, I believe we could continue improving AACW with at least one person full time on it for years that's clearly not the case.
I truely believe we supported AACW a maximum, with the help of great volunteers, to the point it has endangered the finances of our studio. So until there is an AACW 2, nothing more than bug fixing can be done, and even that can only be done because the AGE engine has a huge common code base spanning over several games, with a ton of switches and flags to give specific behavior for the various games.

[CSARebel]

I appreciate the explanation Pocus. I also believe I understand the situation. I look forward to an ACW II one day. Thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Peissner]

I was attempting to offer a constructive perspective. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CSARebel]

I gave you a straight up factual answer above in my first post. If I had wanted to "dismiss" your concerns, I would not have even bothered to post an answer at all. Would you rather I had posted something like "We're working on it...", when we really weren't? Lots of other game companies do just that by the way. Here, I think the player/gamers deserve honest straight up answers.

I really appreciate Pocus making his statement here, because I've tried to get these same points across in other threads and no one wants to accept them as reality.

Argh again. Look back at my second post Gray. I know that AGEOD is done with the game. I SAID ACW II! Then you go on about how difficult it is to change the tooltips. I really don't understand how a game can be patched but the tooltip aspect is just a little to much. And I do mean that, I simply don't understand but hell I am barely computer literate, I feel lucky if I can download a patch correctly.

No I wouldn't want you to lie to me. But who wants to hear when they have a problem with a product that to make it right is just too hard. If you worked for me it would be the last time you said something like that to a customer. I hope you don't work for AGEOD, you seem to represent yourself as someone who does but I am guessing you are just a volunteer. Please don't respond with another "why don't you just start up a company then hire me then see if you can tell me what to say" type of responses. It is another thing you never tell/dare a customer to do, it WILL piss him off and you just might find out he does it and then competes with you.

Pocus responded with clear, easy to understand reasons why AGEOD is done with ACW, not a "it's hard" response.

Now we should try and drop this. It's lost all focus from "Blockade running". I thought I had ended it after Pocus responded but I hadn't it seems.

Edit- I started typing the above before your edit. Now that is an explanation that I understand and doesn't insult me as a customer or a business man. Thanks.

BTW is there an easier way to add updated/unclear information to the game then the tooltips. Perhaps another page in the ledger that the developer could add info to when deemed needed. Ex. Ageod notices that people keep asking on the forums how to run a blockade. They could add to the "Gametips Page" in the ledger a paragraph- How to run a Blockade. The forums are great but it sucks to have to always save and exit the game when you don't know how to do something or what something in the game does. Then have to wait for a response on the forum. It wouldn't solve all issues but it would solve many. I also think it might be easy to do...

[CSARebel]

I was attempting to offer a constructive perspective. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

Apology accepted and I would like to extend my own. I'm sorry for getting all worked up. I would also like to extend an apology to all others on the forum, even Gray . Peissner- The comment about "Jeff Davis didn't have tooltips" really did get me fired up because I KNEW someone was goint to say that when I first complained, it seems kinda funny now.

I would also like to thank Jim-NC for answering my question. Thank you sir.

Good day to all,
CSARebel

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jim-NC]

I would also like to thank Jim-NC for answering my question. Thank you sir.

CSARebel

Your welcome, it's what I do sometimes (the rest of the time involves wild goose chases).

[Yee Haa]

Argh again. Look back at my second post Gray. I know that AGEOD is done with the game. I SAID ACW II! Then you go on about how difficult it is to change the tooltips. I really don't understand how a game can be patched but the tooltip aspect is just a little to much. And I do mean that, I simply don't understand but hell I am barely computer literate, I feel lucky if I can download a patch correctly.

No I wouldn't want you to lie to me. But who wants to hear when they have a problem with a product that to make it right is just too hard. If you worked for me it would be the last time you said something like that to a customer. I hope you don't work for AGEOD, you seem to represent yourself as someone who does but I am guessing you are just a volunteer. Please don't respond with another "why don't you just start up a company then hire me then see if you can tell me what to say" type of responses. It is another thing you never tell/dare a customer to do, it WILL piss him off and you just might find out he does it and then competes with you.

Pocus responded with clear, easy to understand reasons why AGEOD is done with ACW, not a "it's hard" response.

Now we should try and drop this. It's lost all focus from "Blockade running". I thought I had ended it after Pocus responded but I hadn't it seems.

Edit- I started typing the above before your edit. Now that is an explanation that I understand and doesn't insult me as a customer or a business man. Thanks.

BTW is there an easier way to add updated/unclear information to the game then the tooltips. Perhaps another page in the ledger that the developer could add info to when deemed needed. Ex. Ageod notices that people keep asking on the forums how to run a blockade. They could add to the "Gametips Page" in the ledger a paragraph- How to run a Blockade. The forums are great but it sucks to have to always save and exit the game when you don't know how to do something or what something in the game does. Then have to wait for a response on the forum. It wouldn't solve all issues but it would solve many. I also think it might be easy to do...

I know this is an old thread, in fact I cant remember how I got here but I feel I have to make some sort comment on CSARebel's rant. Most importantly I dont believe that Gray represents himself as working for the AGEOD at all, what I do believe is that in my short time with the forum and being an active player that with perhaps the exception of POCUS, Gray has answered more of my questions, cleared up my ambiguities and generally helped me get the most from AACW (a grantedly imperfect Strategy Wargame/ a perfect one I dont believe exists or is even possible). If he isnt paid then he deserves too be, unfortunately I suspect that AGEOD supporting games already 3yrs in print are probably stretched to the limits financially anyway. Browsing these forums you can easily ascertain that without the volunteers like Gray,Rafiki and team we would be playing a far less perfect game without 1/10th of the support we ENJOY at the moment. In response to your point that Jeff Davis would have known the capabilites of a vessel he purchased, I disagree, history is littered with examples of weapons systems and all sorts of war materiel produced to perform a particular role and once deployed proved completely incapable of doing so. I personally believe that Peissner's point about chalking mistakes (either personal or due to the particular mechanics of the game engine) up to unseen historical factors is a good one. I have studied my fair share of civil war history and one thing I have concluded is that the best laid plans fail in the execution, (both tactical and strategic), usually because people communicate imperfectly especially in an age when instant communication was science fiction and a commander had to hope that a subordinate interpreted his orders the way he intended and that in the case of hardware and equipment that the designer or producer or both were all on eactly the same page. Yee Haa

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I know this is an old thread, in fact I cant remember how I got here but I feel I have to make some sort comment on CSARebel's rant. Most importantly I dont believe that Gray represents himself as working for the AGEOD at all, what I do believe is that in my short time with the forum and being an active player that with perhaps the exception of POCUS, Gray has answered more of my questions, cleared up my ambiguities and generally helped me get the most from AACW (a grantedly imperfect Strategy Wargame/ a perfect one I dont believe exists or is even possible). If he isnt paid then he deserves too be, unfortunately I suspect that AGEOD supporting games already 3yrs in print are probably stretched to the limits financially anyway. Browsing these forums you can easily ascertain that without the volunteers like Gray,Rafiki and team we would be playing a far less perfect game without 1/10th of the support we ENJOY at the moment. In response to your point that Jeff Davis would have known the capabilites of a vessel he purchased, I disagree, history is littered with examples of weapons systems and all sorts of war materiel produced to perform a particular role and once deployed proved completely incapable of doing so. I personally believe that Peissner's point about chalking mistakes (either personal or due to the particular mechanics of the game engine) up to unseen historical factors is a good one. I have studied my fair share of civil war history and one thing I have concluded is that the best laid plans fail in the execution, (both tactical and strategic), usually because people communicate imperfectly especially in an age when instant communication was science fiction and a commander had to hope that a subordinate interpreted his orders the way he intended and that in the case of hardware and equipment that the designer or producer or both were all on eactly the same page. Yee Haa

Here here!