Ageod American Civil War 2!

[Captain_Orso]

And now an image for you. Free cookie, yeah!



[ATTACH]22643[/ATTACH]

WANT!!

[Overparduffer]

Yes, tutorials ... it is always difficult to make them good but they are very important, granted!

I initially tried this game some years ago by downloading the demo and playing the tutorial. I was overwhelmed and couldn't get into it. More recently I gave it another shot. I used the tutorial again which was pretty tough. It was only after using some of the resources here on the forum and watching some of the Youtube videos that I was able to get over the hump, get into the game and ring AGEOD's cash register with a sale. So yes, I will second the comment about improvements to the tutorial.

Now given the massive scope of the game... good luck with that! You're going to need it!

[John Schilling]

Agreed that the leaders for foreign factions need to perhaps be rethought; one three-star for each actual AHQ, no more, but add a reasonable number of one-stars.

Can we also perhaps do something about the attrition foreign armies suffer when locked in place awaiting intervention? The one time I as the CSA managed to get the British and French to join on my side, their armies were more chewed up from sitting around in Europe than mine were after two years of total war! Yes, the replacements that come with them are some help in that regard, but they cannot themselves be replaced, and after using them to bring the British/French armies back to full strength there weren't enough left to support any serious combat operations.

Perhaps the foreign forces could be treated as giant "flavor brigades" that arrive in the turns after FI triggers?

[Narwhal]

I don't think that AGEod will want to pay for a server just to counter cheating. Is cheating really that big of
a problem? I have yet to delve into PBEM gaming so I don't have a clue how bad it might be.

I will give you an example Recently, I was playing Rise of Prussia against another player, who had Prussia and was handling the turn resolution.

If you are not familiar with ROP, before the Russians spring into action, there are 2 cities they must take :
- Konigsberg, a massive fortress that usually take 6 months or more to take (1 turn = 15 days) thus delaying you one year, and causing you losses during winter due to the poor supply network,
- After Konigsberg, Kolberg, a smaller fortress but on the other side of a gigantic marsh - so supply issues, especially if the enemy plays his cavalry well in your back.


Both usually delay the Russians by 2 years, which is important for balancing.


I arrive in Königsberg... 2 turns later, Königsberg surrendersl. There still was a lot of non-empty supply elements inside, so that means I won the siege roll by quite a margin to have a surrender, then avoided the 95% of chance to cancel a surrender when a supply wagon is in a structure.

A few turns later I arrive in Kolberg. 2 turns later, Kolberg surrenders...

I was the Austro-Russian player, and after this I won easily.

If I had been a Prussian player with the Austro-Russian holding the turns, I would have most probably called bullshit on this, or at the very least become paranoid. The chain of events was EXTREMELY unlikely. With a third party handling the turns, less paranoia

[Ace]

Paranoia is the problem,not the actual cheating. Once playing as CSA, I won every embargo roll while my opponent lost one of his two embargo rolls. When Trent affair fired (10% probability) bringing me close to FI, I was almost embarrassed to send him turn resolution. The string of luck on my side was unbelievable. I know, if roles were reversed, I would be paranoid, I would have to control myself, hoping that my opponent is the honorable one - as we are all role playing honorable generals from the past.

[DrPostman]

BTW - I recognize almost none of the posters names here, but some of you have a lot of comments. Funny how they are mostly 2 sorts of AGEOD players :
- Those who play AACW and almost only AACW
- Those who play everything else (except maybe PoN) but not AACW

I tried a copy of AJE a friend had but just couldn't really get into it, and PoN got so "ponderous" though
playing the US and dealing with the Civil War was interesting. Some gamers really like certain eras and
mine are WW2 and the American Civil War. If AGEod ever comes out with a WW2 game I'd love to see
it.

[DrPostman]

With a third party handling the turns, less paranoia

I can see that now. Perhaps they'll work something in. I'll have to give RoP a look see
now too.

[Citizen X]

Paranoia is the problem,not the actual cheating. Once playing as CSA, I won every embargo roll while my opponent lost one of his two embargo rolls. When Trent affair fired (10% probability) bringing me close to FI, I was almost embarrassed to send him turn resolution. The string of luck on my side was unbelievable. I know, if roles were reversed, I would be paranoid, I would have to control myself, hoping that my opponent is the honorable one - as we are all role playing honorable generals from the past.

There's not only luck getting involved. Sometimes you are quite sharp and get a feeling on a players moves and counter them all the times. Or you get countered all the time. Then paranoia comes, too.

[Narwhal]

I can see that now. Perhaps they'll work something in. I'll have to give RoP a look see
now too.

If you are into AACW and WWII, I believe RUS is closer to AACW than any other AGEOD games. Plus, there are armors, trains, and all sort of stuff closer to the modern era you fancy.

Also, it is a civil war too.

Of course, if you don't know European / Russian 1910-1920 history, you'll be like "why the f*** do I have Czech in Siberia, Serbs, French & Americans in Northern Russia, Greeks in Ukraine and English in Central Asia ???

[DrPostman]

If you are into AACW and WWII, I believe RUS is closer to AACW than any other AGEOD games. Plus, there are armors, trains, and all sort of stuff closer to the modern era you fancy.

Also, it is a civil war too.

Of course, if you don't know European / Russian 1910-1920 history, you'll be like "why the f*** do I have Czech in Siberia, Serbs, French & Americans in Northern Russia, Greeks in Ukraine and English in Central Asia ???

I'm pretty well versed on the US involvement in the Russian Civil War with US troops fighting and dying near
Archangel as late as 1919. My grandfather served on the unit guarding the Siberian Railway and didn't
come home till 1919. I had pics from him when his unit was in Manila and what he termed "the remains
of the Russian fleet in Vladivostok" as well as several other treasures, including a postcard from Nagasaki.
Lost all of it in a fire in 2002

I'll definitely give it a look.

[Jerzul]

And now an image for you. Free cookie, yeah!



[ATTACH]22643[/ATTACH]

So does this mean the naval game in ACW2 is getting revamped? That we'll be able to build a more diverse river fleet than at present?

[Linstock]

How does this thing defend itself against air attack...?

[Linstock]

And now an image for you. Free cookie, yeah!



[ATTACH]22643[/ATTACH]

How does this thing defend itself against air attack...?

[DrPostman]

How does this thing defend itself against air attack...?

It sinks

[MarkCSA]

Paranoia is the problem,not the actual cheating. Once playing as CSA, I won every embargo roll while my opponent lost one of his two embargo rolls. When Trent affair fired (10% probability) bringing me close to FI, I was almost embarrassed to send him turn resolution. The string of luck on my side was unbelievable. I know, if roles were reversed, I would be paranoid, I would have to control myself, hoping that my opponent is the honorable one - as we are all role playing honorable generals from the past.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.........

[ltm6942]

I hope Bangor and Malone New York are on the map,,, We both have Civil War monuments....

[Carnium]

BTW - I recognize almost none of the posters names here, but some of you have a lot of comments. Funny how they are mostly 2 sorts of AGEOD players :

- Those who play AACW and almost only AACW
- Those who play everything else (except maybe PoN) but not AACW

Funny you say this
I remember when I fist came to this forum years ago there were many users that are MIA or "hidden" for a long time now. They seems to be interested in ACW only and since there was not much happening on this "front" they moved elsewhere or were only active on a small section of AGEOD forum.
Things will get back to "normal" very soon as AACW2 will be at least so popular it was its predecessor

[ltm6942]

I played a game very smiler to the first ACW back in the early 90's still have the 3.5 disk... It was American Civil War Blue and the Gray.

Ageod version is a lot better... Though I wish I could mess with the size and make up of the units.... And command the battles like the ACW version by Impressions. I think was their name... I should upload it must be over 20 years old,,,,

[DrPostman]

I played a game very smiler to the first ACW back in the early 90's still have the 3.5 disk... It was American Civil War Blue and the Gray.

That must have been this game: http://www.old-games.com/games/strategy/5
It was an awful mess but not even slightly as bad as the attempt to put Victory
Games ACW to the computer in the 1980s. You'd sometimes have an army with
a strength of 5 turn into one with a strength of 199, just for the hell of it. That,
and the graphics were very poor, even for the 80s. I played the one above a lot
but it was easy to learn how to beat and just wasn't really much fun. BTW, if
you're feeling nostalgic you can download the game at the link above. There's even
a version that will allow you to play it on a Win 7 computer.

BTW, there's a lot of good old games available for free off that link. I'm having fun just
browsing through the memories

[Ace]

Johhny Reb 2. First Civil war game I played. It was on C64. Given the computer possibilities at the time it was a good game too, but heavily unbalanced. When Union would bring its Rodman guns, the game would be practically over, they were invincible.

[Jarkko]

That must have been this game: http://www.old-games.com/games/strategy/5

The direct link:
http://www.old-games.com/download/5107/blue-and-the-gray-the


There is a review of it on grognard.com
http://grognard.com/reviews/bluegray.doc

It was at the time a game with marvelous ease of play for a computer strategy game (you know, you could click on a unit and you saw immediatly where it could move, without you having to calculate movement costs etc). But the game itself was rather shallow.

[Boomer]

The direct link:
http://www.old-games.com/download/5107/blue-and-the-gray-the


There is a review of it on grognard.com
http://grognard.com/reviews/bluegray.doc

It was at the time a game with marvelous ease of play for a computer strategy game (you know, you could click on a unit and you saw immediatly where it could move, without you having to calculate movement costs etc). But the game itself was rather shallow.

I thought it was an amazing game back in the day. Sure, AACW and other modern civil war games blow it away, but for the mid-90s, it was about the best we had as far as strategic level playing. I remember having to upgrade my Pentium with more RAM just to be able to play it. And now look at it, the entire install file is smaller than most mobile apps.

The same devs put out another game based on D-day the next year. Not as good, but at the time I really liked the interface and NATO icons. I thought a larger scale world war II game would have been really good, but the D-day game was the last one using that engine.

[richfed]

Somewhere in the corner of the Leader's counter a standard NATO military symbol (XX for a
division, XXX for a corps XXXX for an army) might work, or place it on the tab like how the
army icon currently works. I'm usually well aware of my troop dispositions but I can see how
that might help others, especially if you don't play the game as often as I do.

A Division symbol could be graphical ... like the diamond & star already on a Corps and Army [not played in a while; I think that is what they are]. I agree, when I am playing consistently, I usually know where my divisions are ... but, if I put it away for a few weeks, I often don't. Just makes it easier at a glance of the map. Plus a mini-ride to the guns feature for Corps, separated from Army that has attached divisions in adjacent regions

So, yeah, I would like that .. plus ...

-- smarter AI, particularly on deep penetrations in enemy territory [naval transport and debarkment, supply capabilities, etc.]. It would be great to have to defend the CSA on several fronts.
-- improved, much more detailed battle screen results
-- better graphics ... I see those are well underway [watch those Indian units! Not all tribes are the same!!]
-- better choices as for playing the game with historical options and not. I prefer historical and would like to see a better plan for drafts and volunteers, as well as in war supplies.
-- more emphasis on naval effects in gameplay
-- It would also be great to be able to build divisions from "scratch' without preformed brigades [possible exception on the "elite" brigade]

So much more ... I have great confidence in Pocus, Phil, et al to come up with a great game!!

[Jarkko]

I thought it was an amazing game back in the day. Sure, AACW and other modern civil war games blow it away, but for the mid-90s, it was about the best we had as far as strategic level playing. I remember having to upgrade my Pentium with more RAM just to be able to play it. And now look at it, the entire install file is smaller than most mobile apps.

Well, I used to play only board-games and the PBeM games mostly (like Austerlitz PBeMwhich is *still* running after all these year), and compared to those the game play was rather shallow. But at the time I was impressed by the B&G ease of play, I remember going ooh and aah many times at how marvelous it was to see stuff with just a click of the mouse

[DrPostman]

The direct link:
http://www.old-games.com/download/5107/blue-and-the-gray-the


There is a review of it on grognard.com
http://grognard.com/reviews/bluegray.doc

It was at the time a game with marvelous ease of play for a computer strategy game (you know, you could click on a unit and you saw immediatly where it could move, without you having to calculate movement costs etc). But the game itself was rather shallow.

Thanks, I thought I had posted a direct link, duh. Very good review there. I used to think
that holding down the shift key told us where a unit could move to. I never used it so I
have never quite figured out what that does. The manual and the wiki are very ambiguous
stating "See the nearby regions and nature of the links".

[Stauffenberg]

One issue I have thought needed to refine ACW is a far more rigorous command "inertia effects" for stacks of units that are "in the field" as opposed to in a city, port, fortress or depot. As it is now there is too much of a WW I style of occupy areas and entrench, when in fact most campaigns up until 1864 involved both sides sallying forth from their depot bases to campaign against the enemy. Witness Lee's moves north and what his army did after Antietam and Gettysburg: he took his army south into quarters in a major supply depot and refitted his entire command. He could do this and not be too concerned about what the Union was doing because he knew for a certainty the other side would be doing the same. This recovery period should be 6-8 weeks after a major battle. As it stands now your army is ready to march off again after 2-4 weeks and this is not realistic in many instances.

The ebb and flow of Army or stack activity as it stands is derived from activation penalties and delays in moving which is fine as far as it goes; however, I would like to see an Army command build up something like "Campaign Points" (CPs) by resting in a depot region X number of turns.

Any Army engaging in movement or combat with 0 CPs suffers significant reductions in combat strength, movement rate and MTSG capabilities. With CPs generated the command can launch an extended campaign without having to rejeuvenate in a depot. Say, 2 "Campaign Points" per turn saved resting in camp, and 2 expended out of camp per turn when moving into enemy controlled territory or engaging in any sort of combat. And so historically Lee sets out on his Gettysburg campaign beginning of June '63 with 8 CPs and over the course of 3 turns expends 6 CPs. After the failure of the offensive on the 3rd turn Lee is obliged to fall back on his depot in the Shenandoah south of Harper's Ferry, expending the last 2 of his available CPs. Meade's pursuing force is also out of CPs to push things further so both sides settle into their camps to regenerate.

CP recovery and expenditure tied into Army command capabilities.

Major and minor depots. A major depot (made by expending another 4 supply elements in an existing region with a depot) would give you full depot effects for recovering cohesion, supply and replacements for the area it is in and all adjacent areas occupied by friendly units. Thus Lee could hold the Rappahannock line, as could Grant later on east of Petersburg by having a major supply depot built in City Point on the James.

MTSG within a major supply radius (3 regions wide) automatic for subordinate Corps. Interception (see below) possible one region beyond this.

Another item high on my list would be some kind of reaction zone of control for Armies in depots, but also for regions adjacent to a major supply depot region. Clicking an interception button for any Army or Corps command in these areas will allow it to attempt to intercept any enemy force moving past its position; i.e. no more marching around Richmond for US Corps while a befuddled Lee simply sits and observes--Lee can and will intercept every time given his command rating--an army under McClellan less likely.

Finally more admirals for the South as they certainly had the available talent, not just Semmes and Buchanan.

[Wraith]

Finally more admirals for the South as they certainly had the available talent, not just Semmes and Buchanan.

HALLEUJAH! Please, for the love of God and all that is Holy... my fleets are constantly bashed by the Union for not other reason than the want of a damn leader.

[Narwhal]

The ebb and flow of Army or stack activity as it stands is derived from activation penalties and delays in moving which is fine as far as it goes; however, I would like to see an Army command build up something like "Campaign Points" (CPs) by resting in a depot region X number of turns.

Any Army engaging in movement or combat with 0 CPs suffers significant reductions in combat strength, movement rate and MTSG capabilities. With CPs generated the command can launch an extended campaign without having to rejeuvenate in a depot. Say, 2 "Campaign Points" per turn saved resting in camp, and 2 expended out of camp per turn when moving into enemy controlled territory or engaging in any sort of combat. And so historically Lee sets out on his Gettysburg campaign beginning of June '63 with 8 CPs and over the course of 3 turns expends 6 CPs. After the failure of the offensive on the 3rd turn Lee is obliged to fall back on his depot in the Shenandoah south of Harper's Ferry, expending the last 2 of his available CPs. Meade's pursuing force is also out of CPs to push things further so both sides settle into their camps to regenerate.

CP recovery and expenditure tied into Army command capabilities.

As a future AACW2 player (though I did not play the first one), and as a player of everysingle other AGEOD game, I am not too much in favor of this, which is in my opinion simulated as a proxy by supply / ammo level.

If you want to fine tune, wouldn't that be better simulated by tying better the level of cohesion, supply & strategic rating. For instance :
- A good strategic rating would allow commander to have more supply/munition than the "normal" maximum, [say up to 200% for a level 6 strat general] provided they get from one of those major depots.
- In addition to allowing to hold longer, having more than 100% of the maximum supply / ammo would give a combat bonus
- Having less than 75% of the "normal" maximum would give a cohesion malus. Currently, a player only has a malus when the supplies reach 0.
You would have to take the supply wagons out of the equation, though.

Still not in favor. Would be in favor of having [current ammo / total ammo] have an impact on combat efficiency.

"Intercept" => I am in favor in theory, but I see so many issues with it. The worst issue would be how to determine how strong a force should be intercepted. If the enemy tries to sneak some light cavalry, or some partisan, should you all army follow suit and lose its better position.

[jimwinsor]

"Campaign points" sound interesting, my only worry being is that they might deter a March-to-the-Sea type operation.

[Wraith]

I think the game already is prohibitive of several of the situations that both sides found themselves in during the course of the war, most especially the Seven Days' Battles, the early Shenandoah campaigns, et al.

But again, as I wanted to push in my cri d'coeur, since we've had only a few lines from AGEod about how their newest iteration is turning out--and given how soon it's coming out--I'd assume that it's in feature lock at this point. I'd really like to see some Dev Diaries, especially going over any new systems or features for the game and how they expect it to interact, but none have been forthcoming.