AGEOD Forums

I have always loved the strategic level games over the many years I have played them but they have not loved me. Its hard to keep doing something you love for years thinking some day I will get it.....but I haven't.
I admire all of you who have the mind and skill to play and enjoy a game like this. My best friend over many years is like that. So logical, so organized. I just don't have the mental stuff to play a game like this. Some strategic games I can muddle through like FoF by not using certain rules, but I do not enjoy games like FoF because it is a nice game but to me it does not reflect or engulf you in the era.
This game does that and much more. In the striving for a game that is even more historically accurate some of us will be left behind. The interface of a game like this is huge and complex and there is much to do each turn and playing to enjoy the game in a "by the seat of your pants" is not possible for me. Even playing on the easy level for dificulty and agressiveness is over my head.
I just never seem to spend the money and WS and use the conscripts correctly. The whole concept of the supply rules and buying units and such just does not enter my gray matter. I mean I have enough problems just figuring out how to play the dam game and move and such.
Those who designed this game in there desire to be accurate have made it difficult for people like me to just play and enjoy the game because understanding and just doing the basic physical stuff takes most of my brain power.
There is so much I do not understand that is simple stuff to most of the good players out there. Like how a 300 point Reb unit can move by Washington and end up in the countryside, or a large unit can bypass Cairo and sit in the same area and not be attacked by the units in the cities. It is not the fault of the game if I can't seem to deal with and understand the concepts in a game such as this. I wish there were more options for making it easier for players like me. Perhaps making a game more complex to get a greater amount of historical accuracy by making it more difficult to play is not always good, and changing things at the request of the players may not be always a good thing.

Many of you have been helpful and I thank you but It is time to put this one away for awhile and play something I understand but do not really like and after some time and several more patch's I take this one down from the shelf and give it another go.

Madgamer

Perhaps this is the silent majority arsan was talking about.

Madgamer

How long have you been playing?

I just learned something new about this game yesterday....and I've been playing for over 10 months.

I know something that worked for me....was re-reading the updated game manual....over and over again. just over and over until I thought I had uncovered everything. Now, if this is something you don't enjoy...then perhaps this game just isn't for you. But it is the thing I love about this game....it's always got something new to throw at you....and right when you think you've got it all figured out too.

The BEST thing to do....get a really good PBEM partner to play a game with you. You'll more than likely take a drubbing, but that's what learning is all about and it's fun to find out more about the game. Anytime something happens that you don't understand....ask him. I'll volunteer myself if you want.

Believe me...we're all in the same boat as you....just to different degrees.

Don't get too discouraged....it's a great game.

deleted

How would more resources make the game more interesting for the novice gamer? I would think that more stuff on the map would make it more confusing. A good option to make things more interesting for the novice would be the ability to assign areas/states to the control of the AI. So you could put your rear areas under AI control and then they would raise troops and send them forward, beat up cavalry raids, send ships out to the blockade boxes and pull them back again when their organization got low, and otherwise handle the annoying micromanagement cr*p and leave you free to fight the war.

In August it's a year i've had this game. I studied a lot, the books, the history, the files, and I'm still learning today.

You shouldn't be so judgemental with yourself madgamer, it's just a game. There's only one way to improve, and it is: to play.

U must play and enjoy, that's all...and if you have a problem and don't know what's going on or what to do, use the forums and just ask

Don't let the pride and lack of self confidence put you down what u're feeling now we all felt and still feel at some point in time. Relax, play and enjoy, and if you need to know how something works, just ask...don't put the game on the shelf...that's an admission of defeat you can avoid. Declaring defeat to a game is silly. You certainly can win over it, it's a matter of patience.

deleted

GShock wrote:You shouldn't be so judgemental with yourself madgamer, it's just a game. There's only one way to improve, and it is: to play.

Indeed. I played my first PBEM a year ago. I still recall my horror at discovering that the wonderful strategies that I had worked so hard to figure out against the AI (losing many times in the process), just made me look foolish when I tried them on a human.

And I still learn new things about the ACW and about AACW, all the time.

I think the game has indeed a steep learning curve, in large part because there is little feedback provided by the game. for instance, you move into a region with enemy presence, sometimes there is battle, sometimes not, sometimes your order is not carried and the stack goes back to the original region...but you don´t have a clear explanation why is all that happening.

Jabberwock wrote:Indeed. I played my first PBEM a year ago. I still recall my horror at discovering that the wonderful strategies that I had worked so hard to figure out against the AI (losing many times in the process), just made me look foolish when I tried them on a human.

Happened the same to me, and i am positive, to everyone else.

Madgamer, play as the Union, there are different difficulty levels also to let newcomers experiment and improve.
You could find a n00b player to play as CSA and improve your confidence and morale by beating him easily

Everyone's been a n00b once...some of us, like me, still are after a year!

madgamer wrote:The interface of a game like this is huge and complex and there is much to do each turn and playing to enjoy the game in a "by the seat of your pants" is not possible for me.
Madgamer

I believe this is the core of the problem.

I am also a solo player; no interest in PBEM whatsoever.

The logic of some posters, that in order to learn to beat a weak (by human standards) AI, you must play (read "lose to") humans to learn is perplexing.

I play these strategic games to be immersed into the situation and the satisfaction of problem solving. A poor User Interface greatly ruins that experience.

Many, if not most, people here love this game and its developer (and his team). Me too!

That said, I don't think we should overlook the dismal interface as a major hindrance to learning and playing.

Hundreds of forum posts, including several of the above, mention the difficultly of forming divisions, lack of feedback (on map, in battles), lack of filtering/sorting reports, tedium of gathering recruits (i.e. recruiting depot option), only one kind of Sentry (my hobby horse!), lack of table of organization and equipment and the ability to easily change TO&E, etc.

Pocus' focus (sorry couldn't resist ) has been on fixing bugs and improving the historical accuracy of the game. Hard to argue with that, except that it's been almost to the exclusion of ease of use improvements.

I believe time spent of vastly improving the UI would result in gamers like Madgamer (and I include myself among them), being drawn into the game long enough to learn it all by themselves.

deleted

Dismal interface???
Of course it could be improved but IMHO is one of the best wargame interfaces around.

aryaman wrote:I think the game has indeed a steep learning curve, in large part because there is little feedback provided by the game.

That's very true. It's very hostile to analytical minds who wants to understand everything. Learning the game is more easy for 'systemical' minds (as in viewing the thing as a black box where certain stimuli usually lead to a certain response).
As poor analogy it's a bit like chess vs go

Note that bugs and AI improvements are done by the team, but that historical researches and improvements are done by volunteers we trust (after passing dozen of suprahuman ordeals, as you guess ).

Whole new features (Rule of Engagements from Napoleon) are added, right. But it is when the game supporting them is released and when we can rework the interface (artists are not free...). So eventually, you'll get more thing into AACW, interface-wise. I can tell you there will be a tremendous addition to AACW within some months even (perhaps in automn), thanks to Wars in America (BOA2).

What dismal interface?

I admit division and army formation to be rather unintuitive but frankly what wargame currently has so well implemented a drag and drop interface, a very large choices of screen resolutions and a greater clarity for data?

FOF? Guns of August? SSG games? The upcoming Grigsby game on ACW ?


Battle results are indeed poor but most of critics are focusing on this point on behalf of the Holy Grail, ie the strategical game incorporating highly detailed tactical engine built-in...Periodically one game tries to realize that and I totally convinced they are doomed to fail, totally or partially, because any game has to get a scope, and any game attempting to cover 2 different genres are genrally lacking in both.

I can see where the OP is coming from. This game does have a steep learning curve, particularly I would think with someone not versed in the ACW.

Fortunately, this IS the ACW game I've been waiting all my gaming life for and I like it just fine.

Yes, there is a steep learning curve, which maybe isn't everyone's cup of tea. But I've found after reading the manual and all of these helpful posts that the thing to do is to keep playing. I've restarted as the union several times, until I decided to just bull through, make mistakes, develop a methodical approach, learn and remind myself 'it's just a game.' And an enjoyable one, to boot.

No matter how much I plan and scheme, I find myself thinking "here goes nothing" when I hit the next turn button and more often than not the results are OK. If not, the posts often help me figure out what went wrong.

So, either try to enjoy yourself, or play something else. Life's too short, after all.

Yes the game is wonderful, as lots of different approaches arise.

As an example the results on first doing an economic option, the next turn another, or the other way round are just different, every one has its own advantages. You can not learn this on a manual, as there are a lot of combinations.

Replayability!

I ve played for a lot of months, first AI, once beaten, then PBEM, losing of course for a while until some posibility to beat an experienced human.

The game has some difficulties for a while, but every game you can learn a new thing, but these are only for the ultra micro managers doing extensive research on the databases.

Ignore new patches if you feel so. Im still playing games on 1.09, even knowing there are problems unsolved, just play until lose the game (or win). Then patch if you want.

My first post, but I felt it important since I am probably the silent majority of grognards. Over the years, I have searched and found some real gems in the realm of strategy wargame including: The Operational Art of War, Combat Mission, Hearts of Iron series, Parodox Games in general and now AGEOD's AACW. I've played these since 1972 with Avalon Hill, SPI and Game Designers Workshop. I am a history buff, well read and fairly critical in my entertainment. That said, I do play the mainstream stuff every now and then for short time, but always find myself back in front of my strategic maps of Europe and now North America.

I understand concessions must be made in order to place a game on the computer screen or cardboard map. Rules must be simplified and a compromise made between playability and realism. T. Roosevelt said that one should expect that 50% of the people to be angry 100% of the time due to any compromise. That applies to gaming as well as politics.

Sadly, we have to look to the EU to give us quality rather than populism. I say to myself, is it fun, immersive, does it give me a reason to keep a pad of paper handy to make notes, can it surprise me, when I go to bed after 2 hours of play time do I ponder my next move? AACW does that. Is it perfect, no. But no game on computer will ever be, as no game with cardboard maps and counters was. Some are better, some are worse. AGEOD has a winning design and I for one am glad to have discovered their company.

I am certainly not a fan boy but I am a realist and a pragmatist.

Keep up the good work. Use your best judgement in balancing play vs realism. Keep patching when you can. I am playing, watching and enjoying.

Smiley

Anyhow, I am diverging... I should be asking a question instead of making a confusing statement...

Would it be of interest to have the capability to have more resources (via a multiplier for example)?[/QUOTE]

Hay GL please don't take my post as a negative it was not meant to be. When anew game with new concepts hits the market most companies just keep coming out with #2-3-4 etc. You guys are awesome! The whole thing is that when you have a game with so many new concepts and play ideas it takes some time. You don't just come out with another game you keep at it and improve it.
It was late when I wrote that and I am still at it with 1.10c with aggressiveness at easy and difficulty at normal. no plus die rolls for activation for the reb AI. There are still things I do not understand but do not really need to understand and if I do I just drop a line here.
To answer your question I do not think a multiplier is a bad idea. What perhaps is needed are more options ffpr the player. A option for supplies could from very little to a lot and using a multiplier could do that. As a general rule of thumb the more options the player has the better.
A lot of us are so used to having things like zones of control and when we see a stack of units move right by our guys in the same area it is upsetting at first till you read the rules. The design features of this game that are new and different are what make it a great game and make it difficult to change and patch because like the old Rick Nelson song line "You can't please everyone just please yourself" is true in game design also.
The easy way to please a lot of folks is to ofer as many options as you can to allow the players to "roll there own" game.
The one real difference in playing the early 1.07 and the current 1`.10c is the flow is slower and you have to manage your forces much better because both sides don't have that massive overflow of supply behind them. This is hard for me and I would like to see some sort of adjustment for some of the rules like supply.

I am still hanging in and learning but this is a fascinating to play and watch so keep at it we love it and your mix with the players approach to make it better approach Just keep in mind what you manted to design at the start. Listen to the players yes but remember we often do not have the over view that you have. That is why you have MOD"s.

Your devoted AACW addict
Madgamer

Don't let the pride and lack of self confidence put you down what u're feeling now we all felt and still feel at some point in time. Relax, play and enjoy, and if you need to know how something works, just ask...don't put the game on the shelf...that's an admission of defeat you can avoid. Declaring defeat to a game is silly. You certainly can win over it, it's a matter of patience.[/QUOTE]

Yes being an emotional person I am uncomfortable in new surroundings and this game is a totally new way to see the civil war. I went back and played the first few turns of 1.07,1.10a,b and c. The basic thing I noticed was the flow in the later versions is much better. You really have to think before that big battle and realize you do not have tons of supplies behind you and that your playing an AI that can give you a good game.
The thing that you got right is not to reproduce history and the Civil Was but to put you into the period with the same tools that were there and feel like the leader of the nation. Why trying to deal with the same things as and limitations as were present you do not have to reproduce the exact thing that happened in every battle and historical situation because history could have turned out differently.

So I am still here and will post some general thoughts in a day or two. till then its on to Richmond! Damn the torpedos
and full speed ahead!!!

Madgamer

Ignore new patches if you feel so. Im still playing games on 1.09, even knowing there are problems unsolved, just play until lose the game (or win). Then patch if you want.[/QUOTE]

Yes durring my recent attempts to play the game I had 4 games installed 1.07(when I bought it) 1.10a,b,c. I played th first several months as the North with the same settings in the option file.
It was a real learning experience as the flow of the game goes a bit slower and the player has to watch his supply and building habits. The AI is much better in the 1.10c than any of the others. So yes when you get done with a game update and play on.

Madgamer

Remember when u quote someone that u need to have a

text

difficultly of forming divisions, lack of feedback (on map, in battles), lack of filtering/sorting reports, tedium of gathering recruits (i.e. recruiting depot option), only one kind of Sentry (my hobby horse!), lack of table of organization and equipment and the ability to easily change TO&E, etc.

Interesting suggestions list.

Hundreds of forum posts, including several of the above, mention the difficultly of forming divisions, lack of feedback (on map, in battles), lack of filtering/sorting reports, tedium of gathering recruits (i.e. recruiting depot option), only one kind of Sentry (my hobby horse!), lack of table of organization and equipment and the ability to easily change TO&E, etc.

Korrigan wrote:Interesting suggestions list.

Thanks for considering what I hoped would be constructive criticism.

The perspective I'm trying to communicate is that of the non-grognard. Don't know what to call myself really, since casual gamers sure as heck don't play this game, maybe wannaJabberbe's ...

Certainly it's the grogs that suggest the vast majority of the improvements to the game. I'm grateful; I benefit; Bless their hearts!. I hope there are enough of them to buy these games and make developers rich.

However, if the game wants to reach a slightly larger audience, I believe it needs an improved User Interface. Obviously from some of the above posts, grogs don't agree... never expected you to.

This may be tilting windmills in a forum dominated by grogs, but I think the User Interface is an aspect of the game where more casual gamers can contribute. None of the above suggestions (and many like ones) are mine. They were simply collected from this forum. I'm hoping that the devs might consider placing a higher priority on feedback from the non-grognards among us.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:The problem is pleasing both sides... My thoughts are to get the historical accuracy built into it as the standard game, and have some more options for casual and beginning gamers to be able to choose things like more money, conscripts, and war supplies via a multiplier. This is one of the best ways to please both sides. Unfortunately, it takes time to fix things and I have been working at the historical accuracy part now for 9+ months and I am only now getting near to finishing certain aspects of it, with some of the other smaller items yet to be started. The RR part by itself was huge.

Anyhow, I am diverging... I should be asking a question instead of making a confusing statement...

Would it be of interest to have the capability to have more resources (via a multiplier for example)?

Now I know most of what I am going to say is not implementable, not unless Pocus and the team brings out a ACW2 but I do accept that there is a body of casual and novice wargamers who will condemn this game to the shelves purely because they perceive it to be too difficult. So my, far from complete, list of additions/amendments that would make the game 'easier'.... though for the old hands probably less enjoyable would include

1. Being able to turn off or amend Supply or perhaps always being in supply if you have a supply wagon present. As it is for the casual player how supply works and how it gets from A to B is not easy to understand and is extremely difficult follow.

2. Have the ability to raise units in designated locations. So when you create that perfect 18 element division it raises in a single location, rather than in different parts of the country and then when it does raise you have to remember which bits go together because they dont all come online at the same time.

3. Better battle reports. Too often you hav'nt a clue why you won or lost a battle you have to second guess it. I notice for example that in the current Grand Campaign that Banks' had recieved a battle report that indicated that both sides were in a defensive posture so the battle could not have occured....but it had.....and no-one knows why. Such things are accepted by the experienced player but for a newcomer can be infuriatingly offputting. And such head scratching situations are not uncommon....just look at the threads regarding 'how could this battle outcome have occured?'

4. An ability to scroll through or ignore units better. It nots just bypassing units that you want to leave on sentry duty its also being able to easily recheck those units you gave more than a 15 day move order to that you may want to amend.

5. Reduce the turn timetable from 15 days to 7 so that units at times dont appear to move with the speed of light.

6. Get rid of the difference between static units that wont move out of a region and locked units. I know that a locked unit may become unlocked but in the majority of cases that never occures so the difference between the two types is usually artifical.

Now thats 6 ways for starters to make the game easier for the casual/beginner gamer.

As for me though despite my very first post when I cursed the game...over some things I still do....I love it

I am all for helping Pocus and company "improve the game". I think there is room in terms of interface and assisting players in managing the units.

I think there is room for "tweaking" the model(s) to improve both historical accuracy and playability (two objectives that are naturally at odds).

But I also would voice concerns about making a "eliminating" strategic choices in the game with respect to supply. Campaign planning, which in my opinion is a key aspect of this game, is fundamentally impacted by a thing called "feasibility". In particular, the operational and strategic logistical concerns. Both in an strategic and operational sense, logistics is and was a key factor in planning and execution of military campaigns. Creating more "transparancy" to ensure that player understands how supply works both as a function of affecting operations and impact by player decisions is a good idea. Eliminating supply as an issue undermines one of the more important elements of the game.

Keep the supply issues at the front in terms of game play but find a way to provide some kind of way to provide the player the information/understanding to assist the decision making process.

denisonh wrote:I am all for helping Pocus and company "improve the game". I think there is room in terms of interface and assisting players in managing the units.

I think there is room for "tweaking" the model(s) to improve both historical accuracy and playability (two objectives that are naturally at odds).

But I also would voice concerns about making a "eliminating" strategic choices in the game with respect to supply. Campaign planning, which in my opinion is a key aspect of this game, is fundamentally impacted by a thing called "feasibility". In particular, the operational and strategic logistical concerns. Both in an strategic and operational sense, logistics is and was a key factor in planning and execution of military campaigns. Creating more "transparancy" to ensure that player understands how supply works both as a function of affecting operations and impact by player decisions is a good idea. Eliminating supply as an issue undermines one of the more important elements of the game.

Keep the supply issues at the front in terms of game play but find a way to provide some kind of way to provide the player the information/understanding to assist the decision making process.

I would echo your main point about supply.

If you take supply out of the equation. Then it's just "Risk" with pretty unit cards and neato General statistics.

It would take the legs right out from under the game IMHO.

deleted