AGEOD Forums

Dear players,

Check it in the new permanent thread set for all things important to AGEOD! (just above this one)

Wow this looks really great !

Do hope the game is released soon now though, because the suspense is killing me

At a quick first look, the manual seems impressive and should encourage people to buy the game (if any encouragement is needed).

As a professional writer, I quickly notice a couple of minor eccentricities:

1. The use of a monospaced Courier font for headings is unusual and slightly unattractive; but at least it's readable enough.

2. Apostrophes are used incorrectly, e.g. "There can be a variety of Force's in a region". Should be "Forces" without apostrophe, unless a genitive is intended (e.g. "the Force's elements include cavalry" would be correct).

Perfect! I have something to read this cold night
near a warm fire

Hi Pocus,

After reading through the manual i am now a bit confused about the different types of fortifications. As i take it there are pre-war forts (level one), earthwork forts (level two) and there are field fortifications (entrenchments) ranging from level 1 to 4 and then 5 through 8 if stacked with artillery.

Now the manual states "Fort level: Pre-war forts are considered level 1 forts while level 5+ trenches are level 2 forts". Does this mean that level 5+ trenches and level 2 forts are one and the same??, if so what do you build when you expand 2 supply wagons and 4 artillery units ?.

Also in the city icon list there is one icon for pre-war forts, then 8 icons for the different entrenchments, but four icons for forts called "Fort types (various levels with and without guns). Do these icons represent level 2 forts? and if so does this fort have 4 different levels then??.

Finally there is mention (and an icon) of a stockade, is this a seperate structure from the ones i discussed above?.

Hope you can clear this up for me

I just wanted to thank you for making the manual available. Yet another confirmation that Ageod has the best customer support of *any* game company I have ever seen, and, that they really *get* how to market their games.

Thanks!

daidojisan wrote:Hi Pocus,

After reading through the manual i am now a bit confused about the different types of fortifications. As i take it there are pre-war forts (level one), earthwork forts (level two) and there are field fortifications (entrenchments) ranging from level 1 to 4 and then 5 through 8 if stacked with artillery.

Now the manual states "Fort level: Pre-war forts are considered level 1 forts while level 5+ trenches are level 2 forts". Does this mean that level 5+ trenches and level 2 forts are one and the same??, if so what do you build when you expand 2 supply wagons and 4 artillery units ?.

Also in the city icon list there is one icon for pre-war forts, then 8 icons for the different entrenchments, but four icons for forts called "Fort types (various levels with and without guns). Do these icons represent level 2 forts? and if so does this fort have 4 different levels then??.

Finally there is mention (and an icon) of a stockade, is this a seperate structure from the ones i discussed above?.

Hope you can clear this up for me

You are right, the note about trenches being permanent fortification is very misleading. We will change that. Trenches are not structures, permanent fortifications are.

Stockade is a small wooden fort in the deep west (its a weakly fortified structure in game term).

Wasn't it supposed to be that the higher level of trenches eventually become permanent fortifications (a.k.a structures that can be sieged)

four icons for forts called "Fort types (various levels with and without guns).

This part still remains unclear to me, there are 4 icons for forts, 2 wooden ones (one with guns, one without) and 2 stone ones (1 with guns, one without). Do these actually represent different strenght levels of level 2 forts? or do these icons represent different garrisons ?

You have various level of entrenchment for units , white bags (lesser one) , wooden palissade etc... and if you see a black cannon icon with it , then the unit is entrenched with guns.

Wasn't it supposed to be that the higher level of trenches eventually become permanent fortifications (a.k.a structures that can be sieged)

no trenches stay trenches, you have to pay in units to get the fortifications structure.

Addenda :
Icons for entrenched units :

Level 1 : none
Level 2 : "white bags"
Level 3 : " sand and brown bags"
Level 4 : wooden palissade
Level 7+ : palissade and bricks ( not 100% sure).

See also manual p. 52.

Adlertag wrote:You have various level of entrenchment for units , white bags (lesser one) , wooden palissade etc... and if you see a black cannon icon with it , then the unit is entrenched with guns.

Thanks for the info, but my question was actually about the fort icons

four icons for forts called "Fort types (various levels with and without guns).

These icons are seperate from the 8 entrenchment icons and i was wondering if the 4 different fort icons means that a level 2 fort can have 4 different strenght levels (hence the four icons) or that based on the garrison the fort gets a different icon.

Thanks

Is the manual dedicated to Adam Bryant of MMG - Take Command fame?

I thought he was doing better, but the dedication seems indicate otherwise.

Yes this is Adam. There is hope and his fight continue, the man has great resources and a strong will !

Well if the fight continues, maybe you could switch to the present tense (strive instead of strove), because we the past it sounds as if the poor chap has passed away.

It is a very nice dedication though.

Ok, I've had a chance to read the manual once and am going through it a second time.

First of all, hats off to the AGEOD team, especially the manual's author. It is a definite improvement over the BOA manual.

The new gameplay features (over BOA) look great! One feature that I am really excited about is the ability to have an Army Force commanding separate Corps Forces in adjacent regions.

The reason I really like this is that I have been reading "How the North Won", by Hattaway and Jones, and I noticed that a good part of the time, a general attempted to put his army astride the communications of the opposing army, in order to force the enemy to attack him to clear his communications.

Being familiar with BOA, I was wondering how this would work in AACW, because it is fairly easy for a Stack to go around another stack in order to regain it's communications. In other words, it would be really hard to "force" and enemy stack to have to attack you in order to regain its communications; it could just go around you.

However, I'm envisioning that in AACW, if you can get behind your opponent and astride his communications and then spread your army out in, say, a three region line, one corps per region, then you have gone a long way towards either forcing your opponent to attack you in order to regain his communications or forcing him to have to march a long way around your army to regain his communications.

So, beta testers, does it appear to play out like this?

It's wonderful that you dedicated it to Adam. Bless you!

Jamey wrote:Ok, I've had a chance to read the manual once and am going through it a second time.

First of all, hats off to the AGEOD team, especially the manual's author. It is a definite improvement over the BOA manual.

The new gameplay features (over BOA) look great! One feature that I am really excited about is the ability to have an Army Force commanding separate Corps Forces in adjacent regions.

The reason I really like this is that I have been reading "How the North Won", by Hattaway and Jones, and I noticed that a good part of the time, a general attempted to put his army astride the communications of the opposing army, in order to force the enemy to attack him to clear his communications.

Being familiar with BOA, I was wondering how this would work in AACW, because it is fairly easy for a Stack to go around another stack in order to regain it's communications. In other words, it would be really hard to "force" and enemy stack to have to attack you in order to regain its communications; it could just go around you.

However, I'm envisioning that in AACW, if you can get behind your opponent and astride his communications and then spread your army out in, say, a three region line, one corps per region, then you have gone a long way towards either forcing your opponent to attack you in order to regain his communications or forcing him to have to march a long way around your army to regain his communications.

So, beta testers, does it appear to play out like this?

This work like you say, even a bit better, because corps can support each other if attacked (marching to the sound of gun), so even if spread adjacents, your army is still able to respond to any threat.

Also we now have a very detailed supply system (but with computing and pathfinding automatically done by the computer), so you can really cut lines of supply.

Great manual, really enjoyed, makes me want to play now. Could you post a screenshot of the entire map, to hold us over till release? Unless of course the release is tonight

Pocus wrote:This work like you say, even a bit better, because corps can support each other if attacked (marching to the sound of gun), so even if spread adjacents, your army is still able to respond to any threat.

Also we now have a very detailed supply system (but with computing and pathfinding automatically done by the computer), so you can really cut lines of supply.

Pocus, thanks for the reply. Your response reminded of one question I did have from the manual. It states in the manual that in the case you mentioned above, where corps from the same army are in adjacent regiions, they have the chance to march to the aid of a fellow corps and join in a battle, but that after the battle, the corps will then return to their starting region. I'm just wondering what the thinking was for having them march back to the region they were initially in after the battle.

It just seems to me that if a battle takes place and different corps join in from other regions, that after the the battle they would more likely stay consolidated, instead of each corps marching back to the region it started in.

Am I missing something?

partly done to prevent the cheap trick of sending a lone cavalry triggering the reaction on one side of your army (ie a corps to your left), thus leaving vulnerable the other side, which would be butchered by the main army. Remember that you don't have any input once the turn start to be solved, so as a safeguard we decided to put back in place the intervening units.

Also there are many others potential problems, some others: what if you leave a very high level entrenchements? Would you be happy to lose them just because your intervened in the adjacent region. Or what about a corps sheltered in a city which leave it to intervene? Perhaps you do not want to leave the location unguarded? Too much issues to solve, so the wisest way was to put the units back. At least this don't frustrate the player with all the side effects of an actual repositionning.

The center stack, with the army HQ and some corps is your 'reserve', it intervenes to your right, to your left, but remains in place.

Ah, makes perfect sense. I'm really impressed with how you have thought this design through.

Ok, enough is enough, I have read the manual twice and I can't stand it any longer! You have to release this game today! Who cares about some damn anniversary!

Pocus wrote:Yes this is Adam. There is hope and his fight continue, the man has great resources and a strong will !

Well done!

I'm sure he is very grateful.

Adam is a great guy with a true passion of the ACW.

Ray (aka LAVA)

The Installation section in the manual instructs the user to install DirectX 9.1 (included).

But in the System Requirements section of the manual, the recommended version of DirectX is listed as 9.0c.

noted, thanks. 9.0c is the one to have (9.1 not existing anyway!).
We will update the manual soon with the remarks you all did.

Is the manual worth printing out now or will there be any big chnages made soon with it?

No more major changes. May be a few small fixes here and there.

I am back from a trip and i see this... Congratulations!!!

The Manual is excellent. Another job well done by AGEOD!

Regarding the dedication ...

I wrote "strove" instead of "strive". Adam reviewed that dedication and approved it. The wording was chosen in recognition of work already accomplished as opposed to implying anything about his disposition. AGE Studio wanted to honor Adam's work and efforts to promote a better understanding of the ACW. We also wanted to express our solidarity with Adam as he struggles with his illness and continues to pursue his dream of designing/building ACW games.

That's it in a nutshell.