Favourite game innovations and concepts

[Barney]

Most of you will no doubt agree that people who invest their leisure time in playing strategic simulations/ games are a demanding lot. They're often passionate about their favourite historical era, and after WWII and the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War is undoubtedly one of the most studied and researched periods of history.

Whilst we crave realism and historical accuracy we also want it with an intuitive UI and without huge micromanagement. If you've played Birth of America (BoA) then you will have a good idea of how well the Ageod development team managed to do this in their first instalment.

Over the next few weeks, whilst Ageod puts the finishing touches to the game prior to release, we in the beta forum thought we'd post some of our favourite game innovations and concepts to give you an idea of why we are so excited about this follow-up to BoA.

[MarkShot]

AGE innovations ... I am really more familiar with BoA, but the same will be true of ACW:

(1) A very elegant and intuitive interface ... very quick to learn ... very convenient to use ... once learned, the interface is a pleasure to use and does not get in the way of the game play itself (unlike other systems).

(2) A renewed emphasis on graphical quality and esthetics and atomosphere that actually take what would have been a great strategy game and turn it in to a work of art. Things such as the period feel of the map and interface ... the portraits on the pieces which personalize the interactions. For much of the industry, graphics are simply a matter of wowing players and reviewers, but has no intrinsic connection with the core game itself. AGE Studio has taken graphics and put it back in its proper place and perspective to the total experience of producing a quality PC game.

(3) A strategy gaming AI where the battlespace is huge, but instead of forgetting that the core element of the game is combat. AGE delivers a believable and immersive combat experience by having an AI that impresses in single player as opposed to leaving the playing smirking and saying "dumb AI". Unlike other strategy and GC games which try to mask their AI weaknesses by innundating the player in a million game play features, AGE makes the central theme of war believable and that theme is as well executed by the AI as is more commonly seen in tactically oriented games.

There is my list for starters.

[Chris0827]

Music
In most games the first thing I do is turn off the music. Haven't even thought of doing that with this one.

Map
The map is very pleasing to the eye. It doesn't overwhelm your senses with a lot of bright colors like some do. I'll never be 100% satisfied until there's a good civil war game with hexes but there are enough areas to allow some maneuvering. I was appalled when I saw the World at War game by Grigsby. France is 3 areas, Poland 2 areas, Britain 2. How can you maneuver on a map like that?

[Spharv2]

Yeah, I remember the first thing that attracted me to BoA was the map. It's just plain beautiful. The way the graphics were done take me back to boardgaming days, and unlike back then, rules aren't getting left out simply because I'm not a math wiz. Everything is brought together in a great interface that lets you see all the information you need, and if you want to get deeper into it, the option to do so is there. Things have only gotten better in AACW too.

After the graphics sold me, and I got the game, it didn't take long to realize that AGEOD had done something very few games manage to do, and that is blend a lot of historical accuracy and detail into a game that was actually fun to play.

AGEOD put in a lot of historical detail, but made the game simple enough that you can jump right into this game...not saying you'll do well without reading the rules, but you can still have fun going down in flames because you didn't read the rules.

As for new things this game has that others don't. I personally love the army/corps/division/brigade breakdown, and how changeable it is. Add that to the way they've set up the leaders, and the combinations are about endless. I really like not being locked to historical force structures and leadership. Plus, with all the historical info included, if you want to use the exact forces that were available, the option is there.

[Barney]

Home state bonus

From the manual "Local units gain a small combat benefit when fighting in their State."

AACW recongises that units will fight differently depending on their location. This is very intuitive, but I feel a lot of strategy simulations forget this important point. Men fought in the civil war for differing reasons. Some to prevent or preserve slavery, some for states rights and others to protect their homes from what they perceived to be an invasion from an oppressive Federal government.

It's absolutely correct that my Georgia brigades will fight that much harder when making a last ditch stand outside Atlanta as they are overwhelmed by Yankees and it's nice to know that this is represented in game.

[ross_ntu]

Great idea- thanks a lot for doing this- should give us a bit of insight into the finer details. Can't wait for this game at the moment!

Ross

[gbastiani]

Can't wait for the release hopefully soon.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Home state bonus
From the manual "Local units gain a small combat benefit when fighting in their State."

This is a nice touch in principle.

It encourages players to be aware of the origins of their brigades, and to deploy them close to home if feasible. This seems realistic; though it could perhaps be described as micro-management (argh!).

[Barney]

Units must be trained and equipped before being sent out to battle

From the manual " Units appear the turn after you request them, but they start completely depleted (i.e. with 1 hit and 1 cohesion only), as they are gathering men and training them, collecting supplies, etc. Such units cannot be moved and are basically defenseless. Their status is indicated by a red label. After a while, they lose this special status and can be moved, but rushing those green units into combat should best be avoided. Ideally, you should wait until they have completed their training before issuing them orders."[/I]

This is a great example of the realism that is simulated in AACW. Whilst units do exist from the moment the State decides to raise them (ie simulating a State officially laying down an order to raise a body of volunteers, the game simulates the realistic position that Regiments were not raised in a single day and even once 1,000 men had been recruited, the men needed to be adequately trained so as to increase their effectiveness in battle. In Ageod's ACW, rushing your untrained troops into battle may plug a gap in your OOB but you should expect to suffer the consequences. Thus the AACW portrays the steps in creating a battle ready regiment, from calling for volunteers, waiting for the ranks to be filled, fitting out the unit with supplies and training them prior to marching them off to battle.

[marecone]

Thread updated. Be sure to check it out. I bet you'll like what you see

[Barney]

Prisoner exchanges

From the manual :Starting in July 1862, prisoner exchanges become an option for both sides.

In AACW Both sides can ask for a prisoner exchange each turn after July 1862. If both sides asked for such an exchange, then a number of prisoners of war (PoWs) held in camps are returned and sides get a small Victory Point (VP) or National Morale (NM) bonus.

Note that the number of PoWs gradually declines due to poor detention conditions (unless new PoWs are captured, of course).

A very historically accurate way of handling the enormous prisoner dilemma that the ACW created for both the Union and Confederacy

[Pocus]

also note that even if they are supposed to be paroled, the prisoners are in fact added to your conscript pool

[Spruce]

hello, can you please delete my post in this thread - together with all the non-beta or non-developer posts.

My proposal is to lock this thread and only beta's and dev's can post here. I think we should discuss specific topics in the general forum.

So we have a structured thread about the favourite game innovations and we can discuss topics more focused in dedicated threads.

just a proposal - don't shoot me !

[runyan99]

Prisoner exchanges

From the manual :Starting in July 1862, prisoner exchanges become an option for both sides.

In AACW Both sides can ask for a prisoner exchange each turn after July 1862. If both sides asked for such an exchange, then a number of prisoners of war (PoWs) held in camps are returned and sides get a small Victory Point (VP) or National Morale (NM) bonus.

Note that the number of PoWs gradually declines due to poor detention conditions (unless new PoWs are captured, of course).

A very historically accurate way of handling the enormous prisoner dilemma that the ACW created for both the Union and Confederacy

Great. I was hoping this would be included.

[Barney]

Fighting the war over hundreds of regions

For too long grand strategy games that have attempted to simulate the ACW have ignored the diverse range of regions over which the Union fought the Confederacy. Previous ACW games have divided the individual states in which the war was fought into five or six super regions ignoring the fact that many states had a multitude of geographic characteristics which played an important role in both defensive and offensive operations.

Ageod's ACW divides the United States into hundreds of regions based largely on the counties that existed at the time (although many counties are split further into smaller regions to give the player the more historic feeling that the war is being simulataneously fought over a huge and diverse nation). However, For those of you fearful of being overwhelmed by such a huge map, don't worry! As in Ageod's previous game Birth of America the large map scale is complemented by an intuitive user interface and a "drag and drop" style of movement as your Armies, Corps, Divisions and Brigades are transported across theatres via rail, horse, brown water transport, blue water transport and by foot.

In the game, States are accurately portrayed as the diverse landscapes they were in reality. Take for instance South Carolina

[ATTACH]273[/ATTACH]

The state is broken up into 43 distinct regions. From the marshy swamps around Jackson in the south, to the forests around Barnwell County in the south-west and the cleared famland of Chesterfield County on the North Carolina border, your units will face a multitude of geographic challenges that will have an effect on combat just as was the case historically in the Civil War. Choose your ground carefully when you seek the enemy in battle or prepare to suffer the consequences from your decision to attack an enemy deployed in a wilderness area!

[daidojisan]

In this last screenshot Fort Fischer is depicted as a level 1 brick fort. in reality is was totally made of earthworks and greatly expanded as the war progressed eventually becoming probably the stongest coastal fort in the entire south, shouldn't Ft Fischer be a level 2 fort ?

Thanks

[PhilThib]

Level 1 fort is the "pre-war" type of fort...it also allows the display of the proper graphics...
To represent what you mention, you should have a CSA force outside the structure and building strong fortifications over time (i.e. the earthworks types you cite)...this is feasible...just leave the units outside and wait

[DennyWright]

This game is a dream, and it's coming true! Unbelievable work! So much better than Forge of Frustration.

[Pocus]

Where did your heard from us? It would be interesting to know how we can have more players know about our project.

[Barney]

Hi Denny. I see you're new to the forum. Welcome! Have you played Birth of America yet? It's an excellent example of Ageod's game design and a good way to pass the time prior to the launch of AACW. BoA provides a great entry point into how movement, combat and leadership are modelled under the Adaptive Game Engine. Let me know if there are any concepts or innovations you would like clarification on.

[DennyWright]

Thank you Barney and Pocus. I have been boardwargaming since 1970. I bought Birth of America online from Matrix, liked it and looked up AGOED.

Birth of America is so different from the run-of-the-mill "hexes and counters" games, so I'm hooked. Because it's different it has been quite a steep learning curve (especially as I managed not to download a manual) but it's been very rewarding, and I'm using it as a trainer for the ACW game. The UI is just right, and the play is very natural and intuitive compared to your competition. Especially the great disappointment of Forge of Freedom.

[marecone]

I am just reading Grant's memos. Great stuff. Why am I saying this? Well becouse of two things.

First, I am reading about Corinth, Vicksburg and west and the map I use to track all those stories and events is the GAME MAP. It is done so well that you can take any book on any ACW campaign and follow it in game. As far as I know, no other ACW game has that.

Second are SUPPLIES. Since I became beta tester I thought that supplies are a bit too expensive and too important. Now I see I was wrong. Game handles this part more then excellent. Don't build a depot or go too deep in enemy country withot wagons and you are doomed.
Great work AGEOD guys. I appreciate it much more now that I am reading more about ACW.


Godspeed

[Barney]

National morale

As a civil war between a people who valued their democratic rights above all else, the will of the people was an important component in the decision making process of the leaders of the Confederacy and Union. During the conflict there were a number of times when one more major defeat could have resulted in an overwhelming clamour for peace from the people that Lincoln may have found hard to ignore. This was a major factor in Lee's decision to invade the North in 1863 in an attempt to conquer a peace.

It would be remiss of any grand strategy game about the American Civil War to ignore such an important component and one of the things I like most about Ageod's ACW game is the impact that the concept of National Morale has on your decisions in the game.

For both sides in the conflict, the will of the population to fight is tracked by their National Morale (NM) which alongside Victory Points (VP) determines which side is the victor in the conflict. Automatic victory or defeat is achieved when one side reaches its minimum or maximum NM.

These thresholds will vary during the course of play depending on the political situation such as if you are playing the 1864 campaign when the Union is more vulnerable to defeat through morale loss, as this scenario models the pressure on Lincoln to continue to achieve significant military victories in order to be re-elected President and win the mandate to continue the war.

In the game as was historically the case, NM is influenced by several factors:

• Capturing key objectives increases the capturing nation's morale and lowers the opponents. This accurately reflects situations such as the capture of Vicksburg which had a serious negative impact on the morale of Confederate citizens

• Winning a battle will boost the winner’s NM while reducing the opposition's and is influenced by the scale of casualties in terms of men and is also impacted by the deaths of generals (Impact of Stonewall Jackson's death anyone!)

• Since many generals were political appointments to appease influencial State governors, your decision to relieve an officer from his Army command will also entail a loss in NM, the scale of which wil be influenced by how much Political clout he had.

• When playing the grand campaign war weariness will also gradually reduce NM reflecting situations such as those experienced by the Confederate population as the Union armies marched across the South in the latter years of war

• There are also other factors that will affect NM such as a decision to raise exceptional taxes reflecting the increased tax burden that such a decision places on the population

• Below a certain level, as long as the Confederacy or Union is still in control of its capital, it will start to regain NM simulating war resilience, an historic example of which was the Southern populations ability to endure hardships for the good of their cause.

NM can also effect the cohesion of units simulating the impact that the civilian morale can have on the fighting men which historically was conveyed through letters to husbands, sons and brothers in far off warzones. Unit cohesion impacts how fast Brigades and Divisions march (low morale more stragglers, desertions) and how well they will fight (ie less inclined to fight for a lost cause).

NM is also important as it effects economic output, simulating the productivity of factory workers (high morale = greater output)

Finally, NM also impacts the level of recruitment which is very intuitive. In the early days of the war, a high NM meant that many men flocked to the colours but as the war drags on and war weariness increases recruitment historically became harder.

As you can see National Morale will be one of your major factors when making decisions in the game. No point throwing your troops away in fruitless battles as this will have major impacts on the home front and economic output and recruitment whilst you may have to just persevere with a Political general to keep a section of the population happy.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

This mostly sounds good except for:

National morale
Automatic victory or defeat is achieved when one side reaches its minimum or maximum NM.

I can understand getting an automatic loss if morale reaches minimum, but getting an automatic win if morale reaches maximum? That doesn't sound right. Ignore the military situation: distribute ecstasy pills!

Surely you haven't won until the enemy stops fighting, however good your people feel about the situation.

[Chris0827]

And the enemy stops fighting when their morale gets too low.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

And the enemy stops fighting when their morale gets too low.

Sure. Which is why I said, "I can understand getting an automatic loss if morale reaches minimum ..."

[Pocus]

Your point of view would be exact Jonathan if the Morale feature was not nearing a zero sum variable in the game. ie, if you could sit and gain morale points each turn, from sound economic reforms and such (or eating some weird pills ). But this is not the case, as in the game you get morale by beating the enemy and capturing important cities, and your enemy lose this exact same value.

So to win by reaching your maximum, you have to fight.

The only thing that can restore a bit your morale is National Resilience, which can help you stay around 50-60 Morale and prevent a too fast demise, but this can't help you win.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Your point of view would be exact Jonathan if the Morale feature was not nearing a zero sum variable in the game.

OK, if that's true in the game. I don't think it was true in reality. At the start of the war, both sides had high morale simultaneously. Near the end of the war, Confederate morale was surely low but I don't think Union morale was correspondingly high. All those high casualty figures from Grant's offensives were not making people happy, even though the Confederacy was losing and in retreat.

I think it tends to happen in any lengthy war that the morale of both sides decreases with time. People get sick of war. Understandably so.

[Chris0827]

Union morale was high enough for Lincoln to be reelected even after the heavy casualties of 1864.

[marecone]

If their moral was so low then they would want to change something. They did have an option; McClellan. He lost to Lincoln 212 to 12 or 21. Not 100% sure.
Anyways, it was complete fiasco for George . People showed that despite all those losses they are ready to go to the ultimate victory in this war.
Just my two cents