AGEOD Forums

I've just logged in and for the first time since I joined the forum....way back in the distant past of February 2008 I find no new posts in the last 20 hours. Indeed apart from a couple of minor additions nothing really new for 2 days or more. Hence my question. I do so hope not and am keeping fingers, toes and everything else crossed but I am beginning to get a sneaking suspicion, given the age of AACW that until AACW2 is released (I do hope so) I might be right.

Mind you....just so long as I can find someone 'daft' enough to give me a game I'll remain a contented bunny.

Strategic games usually have a tougher time keeping a large devoted audience over time. Usually because the audience isn't that large to begin with. But overall I don't think AACW is doing too badly. There are some forums over at Matrix that don't get a post for days or weeks.

Don't worry.

• It's a weekend.
• It's football season in the USA. All USA males go brain dead for 12 hours [I'm about to switch off ]
• AGEOD crew is like a duck right now: paddling like crazy under the water, calm on top

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:... There's a surprise coming in the near future, if I can get the darn thing to work right. hehe

OooOOo OooOO!!! Give us a little hint pleeeease!!!
ompom: ompom:

W.Barksdale wrote: OooOOo OooOO!!! Give us a little hint pleeeease!!!
ompom: ompom:

+1 +2 +3 +4....can I keep going

deleted

Ahh... sweet modding goodness for the win!

Indeed

You can add me to the new fan list. This is a great game!

deleted

I think this game can go and go for a good while yet!

Speaking as a beta tester, I can assure you that stuff is going on behind the scenes. Beyond that, I can't say more.

deleted

deleted

Good.
But I am not really that worried about AACW. Even if it was to remain like it is, it has already given me (and surely will still give) more gaming-hours of pleasure than any other strategic game. And it is only natural that AGEOD will, in the more or less near future make a final patch for AACW as they did for Boa (I predict 3-6 months, tops). Life goes on, after all

Gray_Lensman wrote:Ah... Side issue discovered... Fort Monroe's Garrison always started outside the Fort (as did Ft Pickens'). This was a problem, because placing them inside the fort after the game started cost them their Level 4 starting entrenchments. They will now start inside their respective forts retaining their Level 4 starting entrenchments. Cool. This might be related to my "other things" post above. Gotta test it. Be a bit.

Interesting how, troubleshooting can lead to new discoveries.

Found it, did ya?

deleted

deleted

I'm worried too!! The rules and patches are starting to eat at the playability of the games. When that happens . . . Katy bar the door, IMHO. apy:

I have yet run into a problem that was bone crushing with this game.....anything the AGEOD team does is going to be great. This game is soo much fun....thanks guys

tagwyn wrote:I'm worried too!! The rules and patches are starting to eat at the playability of the games. When that happens . . . Katy bar the door, IMHO. apy:

I'd be very curious to hear specifics on what rules/patch changes have negatively impacted playability? I haven't experienced this, but it would be valuable to the team to know what kind of changes have negatively impacted playability to some.

Andru: Latest example: Tried to download several units onto transports in Boston harbor. Lots of room, loaded three brigades but a general at the site was activated and would not join the amphibious force. 1861 campaign. In Shiloh battle scenario, playing as CSA, defeated Grant's forces in W. and Middle Tennessee. His losses exceeded the number of troops he began the battle with!! I won total victory. Held on Memphis and Corinth. Tried to retake Nashville, went out-of-supply in Middle Tenn.!! Army got seperated on withdrawal. Amphibious attack launched on Memphis but Buell's army would not leave transports for some reason. I will report more problems as I continue to inevitably encounter them. t

deleted

soundoff wrote:I've just logged in and for the first time since I joined the forum....way back in the distant past of February 2008 I find no new posts in the last 20 hours. Indeed apart from a couple of minor additions nothing really new for 2 days or more.

On the other hand, if you gauge interest by the number of Forum viewers and lurkers (numbers shown on the main Forum page), the interest in AACW evidently remains high.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:The number of men, horses and guns are just "flavor" numbers having nothing to do with the actual way the combat is calculated, and never did. They are based on the original TOE numbers. Unfortunately, the actual units in the field hardly ever kept their original assigned TOE numbers, so the beta team is working to reduce the so called "flavor" numbers to a more realistic percentage, so that they don't "appear" so high.

Some questions along these lines, Gray:

When you say "working", does that mean this a difficult change to make? My impression from reading Clovis' notes for SFV is that somewhere a database gives the nominal figure as 1000 men/rgt, and all he did was change it to 750 - which in my view has worked pretty satisfactorily. Have I misunderstood the complexity of the problem?

The main problem I've encountered so far is the high casualty rate in battles, especially large army-level engagements (I've already posted an extreme example elsewhere here). Given that the combat engine uses elements to calculate, won't the cosmetic change to nominal head-counts still leave battles just as bloody as before, as measured in elements if not in men? I gather that is a trickier problem, requiring adjustments to the combat calculations - but I do hope the beta team will eventually be able to solve it, since so far it's the only major reservation I have with a game which is otherwise magnificent.

As for being out of steam - I sure hope not, and given how fast the patches have come since I bought it (three offical or beta patches in about two months), it sure doesn't seem like its moribund.

I'm surprised there isn't more interaction at this forum too. It's not the game because it's about as good a PBEM strategy game as there is, with constant updates. Methinks not enough people have been made aware of the title. I only found out about it from a buried, obscure review at Gamespot touting it as awesome.

Daxil wrote:I only found out about it from a buried, obscure review at Gamespot touting it as awesome.

I can't remember how I found out about it, but it was someplace equally obscure. Ageod had better increase their ad budget by a few million.

Gray: Thank you for your comments. t