AGEOD Forums

Probably many of you that still don't own this game ask yourself will it be fun to play the game with just two sides after I finish it with both rebs and yanks. Here is my answer .

First of all, AGEOD boys offered us different starting points. you can start in April 1861 and build up from almost a scratch. You also can start in let say 1863 with all armies and leaders in their historical placesand try to do better.

If you want to play shorter game you can choose from few historical campaigns scenarios. Members of this forum are also creating new ones so you can download those too.

Speaking of mods there are few ofthem that either change game play and rules or just generals and their abilities. Once you download one of the mods it is a whole different story. Almost like a new game.

Then, you can choose how good AI will be by giving it some advantages or giving it more time to "think".

All in all I find this game replayable over and over and frankly don't see end to this as new patches from Pocus and new mods from our fellow gamers are beeing released almost on daily basis.

As for you that still didn'tbuy this game I hope this helps a bit .

Godspeed

Now, I have a suggestion to make things even more interesting. Perhaps I mentioned this before but...
Anyway, one of older ACW game did have an interesting unhistorical choices that could have happened and that made that game even more interesting and everlasting.

You did have an option to start playing rebs with Missouri or Kentucky already in their hands and fighting for their cause. This shifts front further north "asking" players to develop new strategies. It also helps Confederacy to stay in fight for longer time as it gets more resources and men.

Another choice was to include England on rebel side from beginning. With all those choices included you get almost a fair fight not to mention whole different ACW story.

I am interested in what you all think about this? Would it be possible to mod it? Will perhaps AGEOD team include it in some future patch or add on?

I'm all for what-if scenarios

The more scenarios, the more replayability, the better.

Only got this game a couple days ago - but yes I think that including early British involvement is a better idea that unrealistically beefing up the Rebs or toning down the Yanks in order to give the CSA a fighting chance.

I've never seen the brits, after playing the full campaign 5-6 times.

I'm playing as the CSA now for the 2nd time, and it doesn't look like they're coming any time soon ;-D

It would be nice to have a what-if scenario with increased chances of the Brits or French stepping in.

Crimguy wrote:I've never seen the brits, after playing the full campaign 5-6 times.

I'm playing as the CSA now for the 2nd time, and it doesn't look like they're coming any time soon ;-D

It would be nice to have a what-if scenario with increased chances of the Brits or French stepping in.

If I'm not mistaken, You can change the trigger levels for Foreign Intervention in the game Options...

Regards, Henry

A great idea!

Coffee Sergeant wrote:Only got this game a couple days ago - but yes I think that including early British involvement is a better idea that unrealistically beefing up the Rebs or toning down the Yanks in order to give the CSA a fighting chance.

A fighting chance to the CSA??? I totally steamrolled the USA in my 3rd full campaign game... This game is great in many ways, it´s the best around in civil war terms no doubt. But is longevity is still very limited... If a newb like me managed to win the game with CSA at the third attempt, what would I do with the US? Playing over and over is just boring I guess there´s no more challenge... And well the simple fact the game emulates a real war,in a real map doesn´t help either...

I have seen terrible games managing to extend their longevity, by simple random map features or something like that... In ACW this is just not possible.

The sad part is I really liked playing ( The division commander bug is annoying---if it´s a bug--- they earn the promotion, you read it in the message log, but when you go click on the stack, the promotion option is not available--- breaking up the division doesn´t help either )...This said, the game is fun, but with CSA I never got that desperation feeling, the hard fight for survival never happened!! I won every major engagement from the start...

I don´t know anything about strategy in this game, I won just by using simple common sense and a little patience... Waiting for Stonewall Jackson in the beggining...building a fort in Fredricksburg and pouring every available regiment in VA in there...then waiting for LEE in the East and holding Nashville untill A.S. Johnson appeared in the West...then it was a walk in the park!!

BTW...war at sea is a joke and so is the blockade!! I built every runner I could and not one was ever sunk!! I got maximum supply\money every time!

Insdustrialization was supposed to be a near impossible task to CSA ( inspite of the progress they made ) however in my game I never lacked money, ammo, or war supply !! The thing that kept me from buying more units wasn´t the lack of supplies, but the lack of generals to control everyone!!

If no one else noticed this...but my opinion is that these aren´t very good news for the game´s future or this community.

P.S. - I play civil war games since North vs South in Amiga, and No greater Glory in PC, as the ACW as always been one of my favourite settings for strategy games. And so I had to buy this one...After so many years without a decent game...This one I really enjoyed, but I´m afraid it´s flaws will turn against it, even if somewhat unfairly, in the end.

Which settings did you play? Give AI more time and advantage in seeing stuff and it will be completely different story.

Aki Mackensen wrote:A fighting chance to the CSA??? I totally steamrolled the USA in my 3rd full campaign game... This game is great in many ways, it´s the best around in civil war terms no doubt. But is longevity is still very limited... If a newb like me managed to win the game with CSA at the third attempt, what would I do with the US? Playing over and over is just boring I guess there´s no more challenge... And well the simple fact the game emulates a real war,in a real map doesn´t help either...

I have seen terrible games managing to extend their longevity, by simple random map features or something like that... In ACW this is just not possible.

The sad part is I really liked playing ( The division commander bug is annoying---if it´s a bug--- they earn the promotion, you read it in the message log, but when you go click on the stack, the promotion option is not available--- breaking up the division doesn´t help either )...This said, the game is fun, but with CSA I never got that desperation feeling, the hard fight for survival never happened!! I won every major engagement from the start...

I don´t know anything about strategy in this game, I won just by using simple common sense and a little patience... Waiting for Stonewall Jackson in the beggining...building a fort in Fredricksburg and pouring every available regiment in VA in there...then waiting for LEE in the East and holding Nashville untill A.S. Johnson appeared in the West...then it was a walk in the park!!

BTW...war at sea is a joke and so is the blockade!! I built every runner I could and not one was ever sunk!! I got maximum supply\money every time!

Insdustrialization was supposed to be a near impossible task to CSA ( inspite of the progress they made ) however in my game I never lacked money, ammo, or war supply !! The thing that kept me from buying more units wasn´t the lack of supplies, but the lack of generals to control everyone!!

If no one else noticed this...but my opinion is that these aren´t very good news for the game´s future or this community.

P.S. - I play civil war games since North vs South in Amiga, and No greater Glory in PC, as the ACW as always been one of my favourite settings for strategy games. And so I had to buy this one...After so many years without a decent game...This one I really enjoyed, but I´m afraid it´s flaws will turn against it, even if somewhat unfairly, in the end.

Try my mod. CSA is starting with 10 war supply by turn.

Hey Aki, simply changing the settings can have you earning every little thing as the CSA and there are a couple of really decent mods out there that will make the game a tougher experience.

The real fun, and difficulty!, though is playing a PBEM game. I have 2 going on at the moment (one in mid 62, one in Dec. 61) and utilizing sound strategy and understanding the games mechicanics are a complete necessity. A human player obivously has a whole different outlook on things and would tear that strategy apart in a minute.

I can almost promise you that if you get a few PBEM games going against some of the quality players in the community you will have a completely different take on the longevity and difficulty. The AI, while really nice in this game as war games go, just isn't capable of the various and unexpected things a real, live player can (and most certianly) will do!

I will probably have an AI game going for the forceable future but it just doesn't compare to the competitiveness of a PBEM game

I have played "over & over" and am still enjoying the game. The AI has greatly improved, of late.

I have to say that Clovis Mod makes it lots more challenging. It would be even better if that mod existed for the 1862 scenario, because by then the situation is a bit better for the Union and combined with the restrictions in Manpower and supplies would make for a very challenging and interesting game for the CSA...

Aki Mackensen wrote:A fighting chance to the CSA??? I totally steamrolled the USA in my 3rd full campaign game... This game is great in many ways, it´s the best around in civil war terms no doubt. But is longevity is still very limited... If a newb like me managed to win the game with CSA at the third attempt, what would I do with the US? Playing over and over is just boring I guess there´s no more challenge... And well the simple fact the game emulates a real war,in a real map doesn´t help either...

I guess I should have stated that a bit different. What I think happened, was in order to make the game interesting, the devs unrealistically beefed up the CSA and toned down the Union and adjusted some rules that favored the CSA (e.g., effectiveness of forts against naval bombardment). What I was trying to say was instead of doing that, what they could have done would be to make foreign involvement easier.

veji1 wrote:I have to say that Clovis Mod makes it lots more challenging. It would be even better if that mod existed for the 1862 scenario, because by then the situation is a bit better for the Union and combined with the restrictions in Manpower and supplies would make for a very challenging and interesting game for the CSA...

one day...I'm now finalizing a new version of the april 1861 mod. I guess after I will have more time, as the primary changes will have all be made to work on other scenarios.

Of course one of the best ways to add replayability is to find a human opponent. Several games in a row with the same side and the same opponent would still end up being challenging and different.

Crimguy wrote:I've never seen the brits, after playing the full campaign 5-6 times.

I'm playing as the CSA now for the 2nd time, and it doesn't look like they're coming any time soon ;-D

It would be nice to have a what-if scenario with increased chances of the Brits or French stepping in.

Well I've seen the British, together with the French, both had large fleets and armies, I was overwhelmed. I was shocked at first, they were all over the place, together with the CSA I really didn't have a chance. I don't look forward to seeing them again, I would suspect one is enough but not both.

I don't really understand the problem here ... marbles, jacks, checkers, chess ... how long have they been around? And how many variables are there in these relatively simple, yet classic, games? AACW is a complex mix; it is constantly being improved by a devoted design/support team. Re-playability is there. Change settings; try different strategies; find a human opponent; wait for yet further improvements ...

I've been playing since the game was released. Beaten it many times. It gets better and better. Just played an extraordinary game as the CSA ... Started out with an aggressive and disruptive AI [Union], but I eventually stabilized things and began preparations to take St. Louis, Louisville, and DC with 3 armies. Louisville - easy. St. Louis - under siege, but Sherman kept driving my force back and I had to redo. Around DC - I was slaughtered. Major battle in Maryland on July 4, 1863 ... very Gettysburg-esque ... heavy casualties for both sides; Confederate defeat. However, I was still strong there, refitted, and attacked DC. To my surprise, the forces there fought only enough to escape and I rather easily took the city with a large corps [Holmes]. Jacksons corps was in the next western region, with Lee and a large force just across the river. A division under Longstreet was holding ground for Holmes to retreat to, if necessary. Disaster. Holmes moved into the city and was besieged. Longstreet was killed by a Union corps. A huge Union army came out of nowhere, crossed the Potomac and destroyed Lee's force - Lee ending up in a hospital. Jackson tried in vain to relieve Holmes, but couldn't, and after several turns, Holmes entire corps surrendered. The Union took Fredericksburg and streamed toward Richmond, defended by the CSA Army of the Potomac ...

I - not the computer forces - was demoralized. I am starting over ... soundly thrashed in this game! That is re-playability to me. The AI has forced me to think again. It is a different game!

Richfed, Coffee and all the others... It seems we all have our own visions and personall opinions and expectations regarding PC games, and this one in particular. For one side it´s the way it should be, because it´s what forums are all about...

Answering each other posts it´s a sign of interest and respect to this gamer community and the game itself...This said I would like to add a few other brief considerations regarding your posts and my own personall views on these matters.

First of all, I feel that a game doesn´t survive only on a handfull of hardcore gamers..like we all are...I hope you can see how few we are in comparison to the computer game player universe. Remember the fate of even bigger strategy game companies that went down simply because these kind of games isn´t appealling to most people who are currently playing games. Can you understand what I´m saying here?
Pleasing us...it´s much easier than bringing enough new people to our side to make hese games last...Research and development it´s costly thing and I really thank these companies which still keep making games like these, for people like me...regretably they are lesser and lesser...It´s a fact.

Now most people simply won´t even buy games like these, expecting the few that do buy the game to wait untill the game flaws are all solved is, in my view, wishfull thinking...It just doesn´t work that way.

I liked this game I shall probably return to it in the future simply because I love the setting and it´s really well made the AI isn´t dumb or predictable, it´s just AI...The game is complex and far reaching in scope...However PBEM is not a solution for me, ( It´s as unappealling to me like turn based games are to most people nowadays ) it´s a time consuming boring solution providing a decent MP solution isn´t expecting much from a game is it? Even in the case of a strategy game...or probably especially in the case of strategy games ! Refusing to accept this doesn´t help...Only by increasing the number of players will AGEOD survive and have profit ( I guess it´s not a charity institution ), haven´t you noticed that these games aren´t available in store shelves? There are more reasons to this than just, because...

When I spoke of my experince with the game, I was just voicing an honest opinion, I paid 60 euros for this game more than the average "store game" and so I am entitled to have expectations and a view on what I think should be improved...just like everyone else here I guess.

Giving unrealistic bonus to the computer side to increase the fun levels was always a poor atempt to hide some underlaying problem. This said I hope you can forgive me for not joining the cheering side, and mentioning only the "good" side of the game, thanking poor old AGEOD fellows so dedicated and honest that keep striving to develop AI and patches....Well if they want to keep their jobs they better do it! that is if they want people to come back and pay another 60 euros for ACW II. If not, no problem they will keep working in some other place and I´ll just choose another game to buy, life goes on...

Aki Mackensen wrote:First of all, I feel that a game doesn´t survive only on a handfull of hardcore gamers..like we all are...I hope you can see how few we are in comparison to the computer game player universe. Remember the fate of even bigger strategy game companies that went down simply because these kind of games isn´t appealling to most people who are currently playing games. Can you understand what I´m saying here?
Pleasing us...it´s much easier than bringing enough new people to our side to make hese games last...Research and development it´s costly thing and I really thank these companies which still keep making games like these, for people like me...regretably they are lesser and lesser...It´s a fact.

Now most people simply won´t even buy games like these, expecting the few that do buy the game to wait untill the game flaws are all solved is, in my view, wishfull thinking...It just doesn´t work that way.

I liked this game I shall probably return to it in the future simply because I love the setting and it´s really well made the AI isn´t dumb or predictable, it´s just AI...The game is complex and far reaching in scope...However PBEM is not a solution for me, ( It´s as unappealling to me like turn based games are to most people nowadays ) it´s a time consuming boring solution providing a decent MP solution isn´t expecting much from a game is it? Even in the case of a strategy game...or probably especially in the case of strategy games ! Refusing to accept this doesn´t help...Only by increasing the number of players will AGEOD survive and have profit ( I guess it´s not a charity institution ), haven´t you noticed that these games aren´t available in store shelves? There are more reasons to this than just, because...

When I spoke of my experince with the game, I was just voicing an honest opinion, I paid 60 euros for this game more than the average "store game" and so I am entitled to have expectations and a view on what I think should be improved...just like everyone else here I guess.

You just about described in full what this game is, a Niche game which by definition is a game that encompasses one small specific thing and which only a small portion of the overall gaming market is interested in. You sound as though you believe thats a bad thing, I believe it a very good thing.

As for store distribution, the download only or purchase via the web only isn't a bad thing and for a lot of small developers a complete necessity. The expense and small returns for in-store products just isn't worth it for the vast majority of small, niche, independent developers. I have been there, done that.

deleted

Ja, that's the dumbest thing those other makers do.

Ban or remove and critism of the game.

Hooray for Pocus and Phil T!!!l Buy their games ... and enjoy them ... still and tomorrow. T

Aki Mackensen wrote:Richfed, Coffee and all the others... It seems we all have our own visions and personall opinions and expectations regarding PC games, and this one in particular. For one side it´s the way it should be, because it´s what forums are all about...

Answering each other posts it´s a sign of interest and respect to this gamer community and the game itself...This said I would like to add a few other brief considerations regarding your posts and my own personall views on these matters.

First of all, I feel that a game doesn´t survive only on a handfull of hardcore gamers..like we all are...I hope you can see how few we are in comparison to the computer game player universe. Remember the fate of even bigger strategy game companies that went down simply because these kind of games isn´t appealling to most people who are currently playing games. Can you understand what I´m saying here?
Pleasing us...it´s much easier than bringing enough new people to our side to make hese games last...Research and development it´s costly thing and I really thank these companies which still keep making games like these, for people like me...regretably they are lesser and lesser...It´s a fact.

Now most people simply won´t even buy games like these, expecting the few that do buy the game to wait untill the game flaws are all solved is, in my view, wishfull thinking...It just doesn´t work that way.

I liked this game I shall probably return to it in the future simply because I love the setting and it´s really well made the AI isn´t dumb or predictable, it´s just AI...The game is complex and far reaching in scope...However PBEM is not a solution for me, ( It´s as unappealling to me like turn based games are to most people nowadays ) it´s a time consuming boring solution providing a decent MP solution isn´t expecting much from a game is it? Even in the case of a strategy game...or probably especially in the case of strategy games ! Refusing to accept this doesn´t help...Only by increasing the number of players will AGEOD survive and have profit ( I guess it´s not a charity institution ), haven´t you noticed that these games aren´t available in store shelves? There are more reasons to this than just, because...

When I spoke of my experince with the game, I was just voicing an honest opinion, I paid 60 euros for this game more than the average "store game" and so I am entitled to have expectations and a view on what I think should be improved...just like everyone else here I guess.

Giving unrealistic bonus to the computer side to increase the fun levels was always a poor atempt to hide some underlaying problem. This said I hope you can forgive me for not joining the cheering side, and mentioning only the "good" side of the game, thanking poor old AGEOD fellows so dedicated and honest that keep striving to develop AI and patches....Well if they want to keep their jobs they better do it! that is if they want people to come back and pay another 60 euros for ACW II. If not, no problem they will keep working in some other place and I´ll just choose another game to buy, life goes on...

Ok.....so is there ANY game out there that suits your expectations...or visions...or what ever you call them? I think you should move on with your life and us few in numbers will enjoy this site quite well without folks like you....but then ya paid your 60 Euros so you get you say. Well, I think you got your Euro's worth so have a good life

Madgamer

Gray_Lensman wrote:Look at all the actual updates, and direct response you get from AGEod, or WCS or other small companies, then compare it to a company like CA (Creative Assembly), who took 6 months to put out the first faulty patch to Medieval Total War II, then another year to follow that patch with another relatively incomplete patch, and then moved on to an expansion game without fixing the bugs in the main game. They virtually ignore gamer input, and post very few responses on their own official forums. And whatever you do, don't you dare post a thread about any flaws in their games on their official site, or you can end up banned. I know from personal experience about that policy.

CA is like Electronic Arts.
Same policy: Build game, make 2 patches, build expansion (as in case of CA) or following game (Madden 2006 -> 2007 -> 2008) in the case of EA and abandon project and players to their doom (and bugs).

This policy is ethically wrong but it sells because they have a big brand, huge ad/marketing campaigns and work on "popular" niches.
I completely agree with you Gray, and i wish to add, us original betatesters of Shogun TW (CA) were not given any free copy (though promised in exchange for our contribution) and mass-boycotted all CA games because apart from that, whatever we asked to implement was NOT implemented, just like our contribution was only accepted as far as they wanted, completely disregarding what we wanted for the community.

The results are evidently :
1) AgeOD rules!
2) 80% of RTW/MTW copies are hacked

I think this game has got tons of re-playability, im close to finishing (and winning ) my second full campaign game as CSA, OK most of my game settings are on easy mode until i get to grips with the game, but am looking forward to my campaigns as the North and certainly bumping up the AI setting to create a harder challenge.

First I love to play this game.As close to real life as can be . But saying that do we want a game or to relive History? I have been a war gamer for 40 years. I want to replay history not relive history,saying this I could not find a better game than AACW or BOA.I want to get as close as I can to the real history but we still must remember that if Lee did not get command or if Johnson did not die or other events the war would have been different.what if Washington dies at New York?You see this is a part of the game what if this or that. We can change history with a game and AGEOD"s does this better then anyone else could or will.
Joe Bukal