AGEOD Forums

26 features so far, if you keep at the same pace and if the game is released in late February this means a total of about a hundred features.

Don’t you fear AACW might get too complex by implementing too much micromanagement into the game ?

Are there provisions to have the option to put the AI in charge of the some of these micromanagement features ?

This is a legitimate concerns for every grand strategy games, and there are numerous examples of failures.

The AGEOD engine has been designed from the scratch by Pocus and PhilTib to allow both complexity in the game mechanisms and simplicity in the player experience.

When you play with the AGEOD engine, you are the commander in chief. You care about strategical decisions. Actually, this has been of the critics against Birth of America: Some players would have liked to manage more (economny, diplomacy, tactical battles, etc.). Some games have made this choice, as far as I'm concerned I tend to get tired tired very quickly with this kind of games: I can never finish a campaign in a reasonable time, I tend to lose the focus on my strategic plans to sink in a sea of tiny adjustement and a level of control that is just not realistic.

Back to AACW:
Pocus has begun to expose some features of the incoming AGEOD's American Civil War. These features exposed how the game will be richer and deeper compared to BoA. It also shows what has been changed to simulate the ACW.

However, if you have a closer look, you realise that the BoA spirit is still alive and kicking. The new mecanisms provide you with new game experiences, but don't add to your management workload.

For example: Supply. Supply will be modelised in a much more detailed manner in AACW: You'll have supply sources, supply stock and supply lines. However, if you read the "Supply feature of the day", you see that the player attention won't to need bother with more than strategic common sense. ie: Build supply depots close to the front line. Don't let the ennemy cut your supply lines.

The only supply micro-management as such, the player will have to take care of when playing AACW will be to insure himself to take supply chariots with his army if advancing deeply in ennemy territory. But, it's still common strategic sense, isn't it?

This is AGEOD philosophy, and the Beta team is the guardian of the gameplay temple.

Best,

Korrigan

well said Korrigan.

Our design philosophy is not to bog down into needless details the players. Perhaps some of the new features can appears "daunting", but really most if not all the features added are sparing you most of the micro-managment found in others games. For another example, see how the Domestic Policies screen addresses historical decisions like suppressing the Habeas Corpus and such. In others games, I think you would have to decide in each region what to do, not so in AACW. On the same trend you will soon discover how you buy units. This is all done into a centralized interface, and you don't have to click in each city on the map.

Another thing to understand is that many features work 'implicitely' to further the realism but don't add complexity (or only a tiny amount). Here too common sense prevail to understand the rule. For example the Military Control feature tell you that if you have some % of control in a region where you cross a river, you don't have to suffer the crossing under fire penalty. That's common sense. You possess the region enough, with a bridgehead, to secure the passage. And I don't think it really add complexity.

Anyway, I have to disapoint you now, there won't be one feature a day until february. The One day, one feature threads will stop december 24. Starting with january we will post at irregular time some new features or screenshots, and some AAR, but thats it.

Korrigan wrote:This is a legitimate concerns for every grand strategy games, and there are numerous examples of failures.

The AGEOD engine has been designed from the scratch by Pocus and PhilTib to allow both complexity in the game mechanisms and simplicity in the player experience.

When you play with the AGEOD engine, you are the commander in chief. You care about strategical decisions. Actually, this has been of the critics against Birth of America: Some players would have liked to manage more (economny, diplomacy, tactical battles, etc.). Some games have made this choice, as far as I'm concerned I tend to get tired tired very quickly with this kind of games: I can never finish a campaign in a reasonable time, I tend to lose the focus on my strategic plans to sink in a sea of tiny adjustement and a level of control that is just not realistic.

Back to AACW:
Pocus has begun to expose some features of the incoming AGEOD's American Civil War. These features exposed how the game will be richer and deeper compared to BoA. it also shows what has been changed to simulate the ACW.

However, if you have a closer look, you realise that the BoA spirit is still alive and kicking. The new mecanisms provide you with new game experiences, but don't add to your management workload.

For example: Supply. Supply will be modelised in a much more detailed manner in AACW: You'll have supply sources, supply stock and supply lines. However, if you read the "Supply feature of the day", you see that the player won't to bother with more than strategic common sense. ie: Build supply depots close to the front line. Don't let the ennemy cut your supply lines.

The supply micro-management as such, the player will have to take care of when playing AACW will be to insure himself to take supply chariots with his army if advancing deeply in ennemy territory. But,it's still common strategic sense, isn't it?

This is AGEOD philosophy, and the Beta team is the guardian of the gameplay temple.

Best,

Korrigan

I completelly agree.
I do not think you find useless micromanagement in these games right now. AACW is adding a new level of depth that BOA was missing... something that a lot of people was crying for. apy:

[quote="col.kurtz"]26 features so far, if you keep at the same pace and if the game is released in late February this means a total of about a hundred features.

Don’]

Pocus makes some of those features sound more complicated than they really are. With one exception, I think they've done a very good job of keeping the complicated stuff under the hood and keeping things simple from a user's perspective.

Originally Posted by Korrigan

Some games have made this choice, as far as I'm concerned I tend to get tired tired very quickly with this kind of games: I can never finish a campaign in a reasonable time, I tend to lose the focus on my strategic plans to sink in a sea of tiny adjustement and a level of control that is just not realistic.

Well, actually I feel exactly the same. I played several ACW (cupboard and paper) wargames, but so far the game I liked best was the old “A House Divided” by GDW, which is fun and easy to play, but quite realistic anyway. The designer was able to address the strategic issues without adding too much complexity to game mechanisms. I hope (well actually I’m confident) Pocus and Philippe will do the same with AACW.

Frank E wrote:Pocus makes some of those features sound more complicated than they really are. With one exception, I think they've done a very good job of keeping the complicated stuff under the hood and keeping things simple from a user's perspective.

which one? unit production? command chain?

Pocus wrote:which one? unit production? command chain?

Replacements.

I also find the amount of detail in the announced features rather intimidating.

I like to feel that I'm the commander in chief: I want to spend my time thinking about grand strategy, not dealing with endless minor chores.

The comments here are somewhat reassuring, but I'll be interested to see how much micromanagement is actually needed to play the game.

I myself will never complain of too much detail in a game - especially the ACW with so few options in regards to games (grand strategy - that is).

I would think there would be a few options that will reduce difficulty for those that are intimidated!!! I can't imagine being in such a state in this genre!

After spending alot of hours learning Forge of Freedom, I am actually looking forward to the release of this game, as the interface seems much easier to handle (I own BOA) and it looks like it willgive good accuracy of the Civil war. Plus it looks like you can tweak things to make it more or less accurate and more or less minco managed. Given a choice I think most players will find this game alot of fun. I don't aways have alot of time to play these games to micro management i can live without

bountyhunter wrote:I myself will never complain of too much detail in a game - especially the ACW with so few options in regards to games (grand strategy - that is).

I would think there would be a few options that will reduce difficulty for those that are intimidated!!! I can't imagine being in such a state in this genre!

Presumably, then, you like dealing with lots and lots of minor chores, and you have nothing else to do in life.

Myself, I have a job and a family. I have neither the time nor the desire to mess around with details that real-life commanders-in-chief would have delegated to subordinates. When I say that the details seem "intimidating", I mean that they seem likely to take up more time than I can spare.

However, it is possible to put details into a game without requiring work from the player. If that's what the designers are trying to do, I wish them all possible success.

Jonathan Palfrey wrote:Presumably, then, you like dealing with lots and lots of minor chores, and you have nothing else to do in life.

Myself, I have a job and a family. I have neither the time nor the desire to mess around with details that real-life commanders-in-chief would have delegated to subordinates. When I say that the details seem "intimidating", I mean that they seem likely to take up more time than I can spare.

However, it is possible to put details into a game without requiring work from the player. If that's what the designers are trying to do, I wish them all possible success.

You presume wrong...
Hmmm, lets see I have commanded real soldiers in combat, and it doesn't come close to any experience I will ever have in a computer game (a minor chore indeed). And I would also say that if a commander-in-chief was inclined to not delegate "chores" to a subordinate I would say that is quite historically accurate in some cases (both Civil War presidents come to mind). Figuring out how to manage everything, including time should be part of the challenge of the game. Finding good subordinates to delegate orders to was a challenge in and of itself for both presidents. When they couldn't find someone reliable to do their chores what did they do? Oh by the way I have a family, too.

My argument is that no one here should tell the developers to take anything (ie feature) out but instead give the option to the player at the start or during the game. Since everyone here is not like you with so little time, it should be up to the player to manage his own time, not pass a vote through a forum of strangers.

bountyhunter wrote:You presume wrong.

So you have no objection to games that give you lots of minor chores to attend to, but you wouldn't say that you actually enjoy the chores. Hm, OK.

bountyhunter wrote:I have commanded real soldiers in combat, and it doesn't come close to any experience I will ever have in a computer game.

Indeed. This is one reason why I prefer strategical games to tactical (battle) games -- neither is close to reality, but I think the strategical games come a bit closer.

bountyhunter wrote:My argument is that no one here should tell the developers to take anything (ie feature) out but instead give the option to the player at the start or during the game.

We can agree on that. I have no objection to micromanagement options that I can turn off. However, such options create a lot of work for programmers and beta testers: the game should be tested with options on and off.

Back to the original point, AACW has a lot of features, but with AGEOD design philosophy which are:
a) to not get any design idea for granted, just because everybody is doing the same thing does not means that we should do it too. Example in most if not all games on the market, you earn money every turn regularly from most of your cities (if the asset is represented in the game, that is). Except that this is not historical for the ACW at least (and midly historical in many war games what's more!). So the use of special options, 'one-shot' which simulates how the war was financed. Benefits being: historical, fun and need zero micromanagement.

b) to have the players act as the Commander in Chief, with petty tasks handled by the AI. Like the replacements of men in the regiments of your nation. Or the fact that even if we provide you with a detailed OOB, you act at the unit level (= division or brigade), and you don't have to manipulate each regiments and artillery batteries. Here too, there is less micromanagement compared to more classical designs (that start to get old).

These are excellent principles. I look forward to seeing how it works out in practice.

bountyhunter wrote:
My argument is that no one here should tell the developers to take anything (ie feature) out but instead give the option to the player at the start or during the game. Since everyone here is not like you with so little time, it should be up to the player to manage his own time, not pass a vote through a forum of strangers.

If there is some equivalent to a vote here -- and I agree with you there should not be, as the designers have to have some faith in their own ideas -- I would vote with you. As a designer myself, one of my credos is to let the players decide how they will play the game, rather than forcing my own ideas of fun upon them.

B.C. Milligan

My two cents...even if there's a lot of micro-management going on here (and from what the guys are saying it's not bad), it'll still be turn based. No stress pressure trying to manipulate every brigade and every supply depot when you have an entire turn to do it before clicking "Next Turn."

I can do it all. (Now I'm sounding like McClellan.)

Remise wrote:If there is some equivalent to a vote here -- and I agree with you there should not be, as the designers have to have some faith in their own ideas -- I would vote with you. As a designer myself, one of my credos is to let the players decide how they will play the game, rather than forcing my own ideas of fun upon them.

B.C. Milligan

Certainly you're right to a degree -- you don't want to create stereotyped play. But on the other hand I think the crucial issue for game designers is to focus (subtly, perhaps) player's attentions on a limited set of crucial and compelling decisions.

He who programs everything programs nothing.

Carrington wrote:I think the crucial issue for game designers is to focus (subtly, perhaps) player's attentions on a limited set of crucial and compelling decisions.

He who programs everything programs nothing.

I second that

I think there is a tipping point where too many features mean the game ceases to be enjoyable and becomes a chore.

I think BoA and ACW have the potential to be one of those games you just go back to over and over again.

Please stick with the strategic overview and don't go down the micromanagement route.

Remise wrote:If there is some equivalent to a vote here -- and I agree with you there should not be, as the designers have to have some faith in their own ideas -- I would vote with you. As a designer myself, one of my credos is to let the players decide how they will play the game, rather than forcing my own ideas of fun upon them.

B.C. Milligan

Yes but to a certainl degree only : do you negotiate the rules when you play chess ?
I think that a game (like a book or other creative stuff) is a "proposal of fun" by the designer(s). You can like it or not, but they don't have to make you, and everyone happy.
IMHO if for example you put aside the command and the supply system the game becomes "broken" - like a book where you'd have cut some parts to make it thinner

no new feature since this tread! leure: why?

bill wrote:no new feature since this tread! leure: why?

Hopefully because they are working on completing the game instead.

no new thread from us, but you are welcome to start discussion on anything you want. We will also try to post a first AAR soon.

Pocus wrote:no new thread from us, but you are welcome to start discussion on anything you want. We will also try to post a first AAR soon.

Hmmmm... I just saw this Is it "soon" now?

Betas are on the new version and several expressed the interest in making one. Let's keep our fingers crossed...

Crossing fingers right now