AGEOD Forums

Well I'm a complete newbie to AGEod...so I might be completely out of order but here goes.

Now I was also thinking of purchasing the Napoleonic game...to PBM I might add...but after trying to assimulate AACW I'm not now so sure.

True I can see a great game trying to get out but quite frankly I am extremely disappointed at the level of tutorial/guidance given with AACW. To put it mildly, given the complexity of the game, its poor at best and pathetic at worst. I can quite understand how some folks, (not mentioning names) post umpteen times on the forum seeking help for the most basic of info....a real terrier like myself...but I can well imagine how a casual convertee would be instantly put off.

It also makes me smile to see the answers to questions posed on this forum...just look at how many are given by developers/beta testers. Now at one level for such players/developers to take an interest is great..but if the game was truely understandable for the 'normal' gameplaying fraternity I'd have expected a higher degree of input from the 'experienced' player. If the level of experience required to comprehend the involved nature of the game requires beta or above level of experience of the game...then its a poor ....poor showing.

Its all well and good pointing folks to Wiki but that does not address basics as opening strategies. To me any wargame...and AACW is a wargame should point players towards what or what not to do to begin with...just to give newbies some idea how to group units together, create corps and move is simply not good enough.....in AACW what about supply, rivers, transport etc...grief I could go on and on and in some ways already have.

Frankly what annoys me the most is the almost expectation that somehow as a player I've experienced a game called BoA.... now what the H*** is that and what relevance to an individual purchasing AACW because they like the civil war concept does it have?

Hi, soundoff, and welcome to the forums

I'll start at the end; the game behind the acronym BoA is "Birth of America", which is AGEOD's first game, and is built on the same engine as AACW (actually, it's the other way round). Many of the concepts found in AACW have their origin in BoA, and a player familiar with BoA will have an easier learning curve with AACW than someone such as you (and me) who encounter AACW as their first AGEOD game. I do disagree, though, that there is an expectation that you are familiar with it, at least not that I have seen.

For the other things you talk about, I'm probably not the right person to answer. I imagine that you may have plunged right into the full campaign, perhaps even as the Union, and that's about a big a plunge as any you can take, I think. If this is the case, I recommend trying your hand at a few of the shorter scenarios first, and then choosing the CSA as your first game with the full campaign, at least if you wish to have the best way of increasing the complexity you face.

I will grant you that AACW is a complex game with many nuances that may be a bit difficult to really get the hang of. However, judging from my own and others' experiences, if you take the time to get familiar with the game, it'll be worth your while, especially if you are interested in the ACW

soundoff wrote:and AACW is a wargame should point players towards what or what not to do to begin with...just to give newbies some idea how to group units together, create corps and move is simply not good enough.....in AACW what about supply, rivers, transport etc...grief I could go on and on and in some ways already have.

BoA = Birth of America, AGEOD's first game in the series. It is also smaller and simpler than AACW.

Others have voiced a similar desire for guidance, but I disagree with you. AACW is a big game, and a complex one. However, once you have the basics, the rest should be up to you. What is the point in playing the game at all, if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what to do on turn 10 and turn 20? That's the heart of the game.

I could do a strategy guide telling you what to do for the first year of the war, but even if I gave you this on a silver platter, you wouldn't know what to do after that. What's the point? It needs to come from you, or you are not the player, are you?

AACW is best when played with a history book at your side. Use the game as a tool to understand and explore Civil War history. Historical context will guide your play and help you to decide what to move where and when.

Not willing to put in that work? Well, maybe the game isn't for you. It is not a beer and pretzels game. I'm glad AGEOD made this big Civil War game, because I had been looking for this kind of strategic level treatment of the subject for about 10 years from someone. Given the complexity though, it clearly isn't for everyone.

Well, it's hard to find that smiley face once you get to reading your post!

It seems you are quite disappointed with your experience so far. I do not think you are out of order at all by voicing your thoughts/feelings on your time with AACW so far. In fact, I think it can do nothing but help the developers continue to improve their product to hear all opinions of the game.

Now, to the meat of your post...

It seems you are saying you want an improved tutorial and some tips on how to be a better player, yes? I say this forum is it. What better tutorial is there than the guidance and advice of the people who are playing the game? Where would you find better tips?

The fact is, the game is extremely comprehensive. The tutorial does what it should: teaches you the controls. Also, a tutorial that went into every nuance would take forever to get through, which would probably be just as off-putting to many gamers. I truly feel the best way to learn is through play. Even if that means taking a few hits to the chin along the way.

As far as tips... What kinds of tips are you looking for? What cities to take? What rails to cut? What brigades to build? Much of that is a stylistic choice and is different from person to person. Now, of course there is a clear set of things you ought to do... But hey, a veteran war-gamer like you ought to figure it out in no time! Right? The point is, many experienced players still learn new things by frequenting this forum. And we are incredibly supported by the development team in pretty much every thread.

I agree that this is not the game for the casual gamer. And further, many serious gamers would probably be frustrated by it as well. But I will say this: It's the best strategic-level game I have ever played. Just one man's opinion, but I am not alone in this forum.

I hope you stick with it and that you come to enjoy it as the rest of us do.

Aaron

P.S. - The relevance of BoA is that the engine started there. Then with AACW they built a much better car to stick it in.

runyan99 wrote:BoA = Birth of America, AGEOD's first game in the series. It is also smaller and simpler than AACW.

Others have voiced a similar desire for guidance, but I disagree with you. AACW is a big game, and a complex one. However, once you have the basics, the rest should be up to you. What is the point in playing the game at all, if you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what to do on turn 10 and turn 20? That's the heart of the game.

I could do a strategy guide telling you what to do for the first year of the war, but even if I gave you this on a silver platter, you wouldn't know what to do after that. What's the point? It needs to come from you, or you are not the player, are you?

AACW is best when played with a history book at your side. Use the game as a tool to understand and explore Civil War history. Historical context will guide your play and help you to decide what to move where and when.

Not willing to put in that work? Well, maybe the game isn't for you. It is not a beer and pretzels game. I'm glad AGEOD made this big Civil War game, because I had been looking for this kind of strategic level treatment of the subject for about 10 years from someone. Given the complexity though, it clearly isn't for everyone.

Now Runyan99, to the above I really could be impolite but I wont...just surfice it to say that if what you wrote is correct...then with a history book at my side there is only one outcome...a Union victory...or was that not the historical outcome. And please dont patronise me anymore. I may struggle to find the right words...to express the correct concept...but within any game, computer or otherwise there is the need for a basic level of understanding of the mechanics. Forgive me for expressing the view that AACW does not currently meet these basic expectionations. It's nothing to do with how to win 'the' or 'a' war it how to play the game without making a pigs ear of it

soundoff wrote:but within any game, computer or otherwise there is the need for a basic level of understanding of the mechanics. Forgive me for expressing the view that AACW does not currently meet these basic expectionations. It's nothing to do with how to win 'the' or 'a' war it how to play the game without making a pigs ear of it

That's fine. If you have questions about the mechanics, lots of people on the forum will be willing to help.

soloswolf wrote:As far as tips... What kinds of tips are you looking for? What cities to take? What rails to cut? What brigades to build? Much of that is a stylistic choice and is different from person to person.

I think this brings up a very good point. One of the reasons I like AACW as much as I do, is that there's a wide variety of strategies you can pursue, where there isn't necessarily one that is "the right one" and others that are "the wrong ones". Though the number of possibilities and the plethora of choices available may seem daunting at first, it is something you will truly appreciate once you become familiar with the game

And don't feel that Runyan is patronizing you; he's like that to most people at various points in time... One thing he has written that I would pay attention to, is his strategy guide (e.g. found at http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/AACW_strategy_guide ), which by far is the best summary of how to play the game I've seen.

No its much more basic than what cities to hold or take what brigades to build...

One example..now according to the rules if I target say a cavalry brigade marauding in my territory...as I understand it I can 'target' that brigade with a force of my own. Now how come that sometimes does not happen...that I dont get the 'targetted' box no matter how often or how many ways I try to do the targetting. If I were targetting infantry on a cavalry unit...that I could understand problematic ... If I were targetting with a mixed unit, cavalry and even horse artillery on a cavalry unit that I could understand...but cavalry on cavalry?....and no explanation as to why the targetting has not worked or has it worked and its just not showing?.

Now it you are telling me it's just a case of suck it and see..Sorry but if the game wants any real sort of fraternity other than at the edges thats not good enough.

Similarly and more importantly at one level... the tutorial works us through how to organise a corps...how to organise a division....how corps support one another... but a basic...an absolute minimum it does not teach is what about a corps where the corp commander comes up at inactive..but the generals below come up as active...what happens then. Of course I've managed to work most of that out...but not all...I'm still unsure if the Corp commander is active..whether that overrides the inactivity of his divisional commanders.... Similarly frontage and effects. Now forgive me for thinking that this is such a basic that there really ought to be something in BOLD somewhere in rules about this. This concept alone is greater than the experienced wargamers understanding that attackers need odds of 3:1 or greater.

Oh and just in case anyone attempts to level the charge at me...neither do I want to 'bend the rules' so to speak. As I said originally I've purchased in order to PBEM..... I dont want to create lots of Militia units.....then have them convert to regular over time ....and additionally give me lots of militia replacements ...as even the most experienced players on this board have advocated as a strategy for the confederacy...thats just 'playing the game'.

I just want to understand the basic concepts without the feeling that I'm drowning in a sea of sand....and the tutorial assistance that AGEod gives does not really help.

It is a wonderful game, and I do agree that the learning curve is pretty steep, but what I couldn't figure out on my own was asked & answered on this forum, so patience was all it took to start to get a good handle on the game.

I too have waited many years for a decent PC Civil War game to emerge from the many flawed attempts, and finally we have it.

I have not played BoA, so have had no previous experience with this particular game engine, but have stumbled my way through a few abortive attempts at the grand campaign after the tutorial.

I learned much more buy reading relevant posts here & continue to do so.

The points brought up are valid, but can be overcome if one is willing to invest the time required.
It is a very challenging game, both to learn & to master, but well worth the effort, and the support is top notch.

I'm quite willing to invest the time and effort into learning the game...indeed were I not to do so it would be a waste of £30 plus sterling. My central point though remains the same. I am floundering in a quagmire of non understanding of the basics of the game...not because I lack intelligence...merely because they are not well explained in the rules. And I still maintain that in todays society I should not have to purchase a game then have to access a community website in order to discover how to play the game to an acceptable level.

Currently I am ploughing my way through the numerous posts and topics in an effort to come up to some sort of speed and to understand why the AI is crucifying me every time I play. At the moment I am constantly shaking my head and asking 'why did that happen' or why does that not happen when I do it? ....without understanding there can be no advancement. Unfortunately I still contend that the tutorials for AACW do little to aid understanding.

My belief is I shall come to enjoy the game...despite AGEod's best attempts to put me off....As I said at the start somewhere in there is a good game.


P.S. There are other small companies where developer/beta support is just as good as AGEods.

soundoff wrote:
Similarly and more importantly at one level... the tutorial works us through how to organise a corps...how to organise a division....how corps support one another... but a basic...an absolute minimum it does not teach is what about a corps where the corp commander comes up at inactive..but the generals below come up as active...what happens then.

Only the corps commander matters. In any stack with multiple units and leaders, the most senior leader's activation is the only one that counts.

Of course if the corps commander is inactive, you could then take one of the divisions out of the corps, and use it independently. Then the division commander would be the senior leader of his own stack.

I've worked that out and will live with it Runyan but I dont like it. To quote extremes that means the whole command of an army can refuse to take active action but be over-ridden by the army commander. Musing and thinking on it....I suppose I'd concede the possibility.

But the reverse. An army commander refusing to move so the divisions attached to the army somehow disattaching themselves and moving independently potentially leaving the Army Commander totally isolated ....not quite right somehow even if the game allows it.

Though it does explain, which I had already discovered no thanks to the rules or tutorials, in my first few games one of the reasons why I was getting creamed. After all I looked at a stack commander and saw he could not do active movement. If he was Army or Corp it never occured to me that I could 'gameplay' and override his wishes by unilaterally creating independant forces.

As I said earlier I'll get there despite AGEod

Are there any questions you have?

Soundoff - I understand your frustration. I to am new to AACW and it's taken a bit longer than usual for me to understand the mechanics of the game. I would agree with some of what you've said about the game and a lack of instruction from the manual and tutorial. But rather than go into that, I'll tell you how I overcame those challenges:

Use the short scenarios as your own tutorials and when a question arises, go to the forums and search for the answer or just post and ask. This helped me get over the learning curve and after two short evenings of gaming, during which, I figured out supply and division creation (the two speedbumps that were keeping me from enjoying the game) and have enjoyed the full campaign since.

I know this does not necessarily address you initial post and what you call the shortcomings of AACW; however, I felt it more important to point to a possible solution for understanding the game and it's (sometimes) ambiguous rules.

soundoff wrote:
One example..now according to the rules if I target say a cavalry brigade marauding in my territory...as I understand it I can 'target' that brigade with a force of my own. Now how come that sometimes does not happen...that I dont get the 'targetted' box no matter how often or how many ways I try to do the targetting. If I were targetting infantry on a cavalry unit...that I could understand problematic ... If I were targetting with a mixed unit, cavalry and even horse artillery on a cavalry unit that I could understand...but cavalry on cavalry?....and no explanation as to why the targetting has not worked or has it worked and its just not showing?.

I'm not sure what you mean by a target box. If you drag and drop one of your units on an enemy unit, this tells your unit to try and intercept the enemy unit during the turn. If you did it right, a little scissors icon should appear above the unit doing the intercepting. (not sure why scissors were chosen, but don't really have a better suggestion) Your unit may or may not catch the enemy unit, depending on the movement of both.

My online name is GrudgeBringer.

If you have read the posts in the last month at all you will see I am one of those "you don't want to mention by name".

I ordered the digital game AND the hard copy of the game. It was around 70 bucks here in the states (I don't know your conversion rate) and they where back ordered so I couldn't even get the actual manual in front of me so that I could feel comfortable doing the tutorial's.

I have been playing war games of one nature or another clear back to the Avalon Hill days when you DIDN'T have a computer to figure the battle results for you.

I had a HORRIBLE time trying to go back and forth from the tutorials to the online manual.

Also, it seems that some of the info in the tutorials is out of date so it really was/is a bad way to learn this game.

Now I don't know if you have ever heard of a Game playing community called 'Leadeaters' but about 10 years ago it was a place that you could record results of games that where played in the war gaming community and it gave points to EACH battle so that you could play different games but be compared to others in the WHOLE gaming community. More points...Higher Rank, that simple. I retired as the only 5 star general that they ever had.

I only say this (I Havn't thought about Leadeaters in years) to show that I have played all sorts of games. Good ones, Bad ones, and everywhere in between.

The depth in this game is what drew me to it and i'll be D****d if I will let this game (much less an opponent) beat me until I see if this game is what I had heard it was.

IF you would have taken the time to read some of the reviews at different sites you would have known going in that this ISN'T a game for the typical (and yes I have it too) Rome Total War player who wants to battle first and think later.

I am VERY impatiant and so I decided to read every post, AAR, and the manual a number of times and I STILL have posted over 40 times with questions (how to and detail questions mostly) and this place has responded WONDERFULLY!!

There are a few VERY knowledgeable folks on here that STILL read the posts and will always answer the questions you have. You usually get more than one response so you get different views on the same subject which helps alot.

If they all point you to the Wiki...then I suggest it is a question EVERYONE asks and you will more than likely need to figure it out on your own or never understand it.

As far as the Beta Testers and other 'Officials' of AGEOD being the only ones answering your questions.....be glad that someone with some knowledge of HOW the inner workings where done and WHY they did it that way answers your questions and NEVER once tell you to just read the Wiki everytime (or how to cheat and bypass it).

If you really have a lot of why/howto/detail questions read my posts they list one after the other in a span of about 10 days. I promise you I have asked about every question you can ask and am STILL asking them. But now I see when I ask that I MISSED something not that I didn't know how to do it (I guess thats progress). I am CSA in the fall of 62 and am 15 D**N points from a victory and they JUST WON'T COME!!!

Sounds like your a Brit so you will relate to this. I am 57 and have played Rugby (Union) for 33 years and am still playing (age divisions here in the states also). I wouldn't quit in the final 3 minutes of a game and I'll be go to hell if I let a GAME make me quit until I decide the game is junk or just a challenge. (BTW, I will be in Scotland for the Golden Oldies in September).

One last thing...You mentioned that you didn't want to build a lot of Militia and let them turn into Conscripts and in the meantime they guard your rear area towns from raids? Well, If you don't then DON'T play the CSA Because you will have a bunch of Horsies runnin around behind your lines taking your unguarded cities and towns and tearing eveything up.

You don't think that is factual in the Cilvil War?

Then I suggest you glance at 'Smithsonian's Great Battles and Battlefields of the Cilvil War' (A Definitive Field Guide by the National Museum of American History).

You might be suprised at how close this game mirrors the actual war.

WELCOME to the forums!!!

We can always use someone not afraid to speak thier minds.

Play the shorter games; read Runyon's AAR; read Laurence's AAR on Austerlitz in the NCP forum (same game engine) I am an avid student of the ACW; this game is a jewel. Best designed game I have ever played, and, I have played a lot of games. I suggest you read: Shelby Foote, "The Civil War a Narrative." Reads like a good historical fiction piece. T apy:

Hello soundoff

Welcome to the forums. I understand your point - the tutorials and manual are out of date. It's bound to happen in a game that has experienced so much development (and growing pains) in a relatively short period.

The manual is being worked on, but the wiki really is the place to go for rules clarifications. It is much easier to keep current. I don't have an answer for the tutorials.

Almost all those people with beta tester labels started out buying the game, they were conscripts on this forum once, too. Some have an easier time remembering that than others, but they all want to help. The reason you don't see more colonels and generals answering questions is that by the time they achieve that rank, they've usually been invited to change their title to something else. (I personally like being a general).

Hmm - re: division commanders who go tearing off on their own, the best examples I can think of are Kilpatrick's Richmond raid (think he was a brigade commander, though) and McClernand's Arkansas expedition. There are historical inaccuracies, which are bound to crop up in any attempt to model a complex situation. Trust me, AACW gets it right more than anything else out there, by about 100x.

runyan99 wrote:(not sure why scissors were chosen, but don't really have a better suggestion)

I think they're supposed to be crossed sabers.

I do believe that they are crossed sabres. I think it is meant to represent, for the unit in question, to "cut across" the expected path of an enemy force with the hope of intercepting them.

Soundoff made an excellent reference to a Corps Commander overriding his subordinates but that the subordinates NOT taking matters in thier hands.

I suggest we look at a example a little closer to English or Europeon history in WWII when 'ol Georgie Patton' decided to make an end run around sicily AGIANST orders to stay put and beat Monty to ...Messina maybe? It happens in EVERY war and whether your a hero or not depends on the Victor as he is writing the History for the future

Don't give up on this game...You sound like you have the right stuff AND the desire to master it.

Its just a matter of going thru the frustration, asking the questions and trying different tactics to find your style of play.

Noone on here is beating on you...We ALL have gone thru the same thing and have survived AND thrived.

We ALL thought about throwing this D**N game into the snow at one time or another but SOMETHING keeps us trying.

And by the way, be prepared to start the April '61' Campaign over more than a few times (as dumb as I am I started it over 26 times by turn 17 to 20) because I found I was doing the SAME things over at the start and was hoping for a different outcome (DUH!!).

Good luck and hopefully we will be seeing you on here helping other folks as they go thru the same things you did!!