1. Am I missing something or is the game's manual too shallow and poor detailed?

[Rongor]

I went through the whole manual and still see so much stuff in the game I never read about in detail. Lots of stuff seems to be not well explained, or lacks any documentation at all.
Do I have to accept that this game is only accessible for returning AGEOD veterans?

[Pocus]

The manual is most probably missing of the subtleties of the simulation, but can you point us more precisely on what is missing for you? We can't also deliver a 600-pages manual going into all details.

[ajarnlance]

I went through the whole manual and still see so much stuff in the game I never read about in detail. Lots of stuff seems to be not well explained, or lacks any documentation at all.
Do I have to accept that this game is only accessible for returning AGEOD veterans?

A lot of patience is required to master this very deep game. However, if you persevere it is a very rewarding journey. I find the forums very helpful and also the AGEOD wikis. I actually keep a file of tips that I pick up along the way. Sometimes it can be frustrating for new players (I include myself in this group) but these games are so rich in detail that complexity is a given. Actually I wouldn't mind a 600 page manual... but it would have to be continually updated as the devoted designers are always updating and improving their games...

[Nico165]

Changelogs are good places to look at to learn about gameplay changes from the manual (manual is only for version 1.00, lot of things have already changed) -> http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?37784-Public-beta-Patch-1-01-RC9-(upd-oct-31)

[Taillebois]

I don't understand the excuse of not updating manuals as new versions change certain things.

Indeed I think it was Slitherine who had an updated manual for Field of Glory with an online updated version so that it was always accurate for whatever was the current patch.

One of the bugbears for big games like the AGEOD ones is that changes and improvements make the manual outdated and so only a dedicated few can keep up with rule changes. In fact you end up fighting the rules rather than the AI.

Whilst I'm on about manuals, why do so many of them seem to miss the mark so often? I guess it is because they are written by people who are too close to the game to see it from a newcomer's perspective. Most things that should be in a manual should be indexed and in an appendix. The objective of the manual should be to get a newcomer within ten minutes to be thinking "wow this is great, I want to play this and do more" not "Oh no, another 100 pages of rules before I can play and enjoy this."

[The Guru]

Well, honestly, the depth of a game is kinda lost to me if I don't understand what is going on. As a wargamer, I like to try and design a strategy that makes the best out of the game mechanisms ( I mean playing efficiently by applying game mechanisms that simulate reality, not exploiting loopholes or incoherences, of course). This game demands too much investment to base your strategy on guesswork. And I don't want to spend hours running tests to try and extract the factors at stake in a given situation. In addition, some things might be intuitively obvious ( use mountain troops in mountain regions, for example) but other game mechanisms that can have a strong impact on the game are a fruit of the designer's historical interpretations and cannot be guessed juste like out of the blue, and may even contradict one's own. The capacity of the game to mobilize the player's intellect, and hence, the immersion and replayability also depend onhow clearly you "read" the game.
If you want to instill in a player the desire to perfect his game style, if you want him to ponder about alternate tactics or strategies, you need to give him food for the brain.

A manual is never too big. If you feel it is, skip the details. It's easier to skip a page than to try and guess the content of a missing section. I think a good manual should have the fundamentals highlighted so that the new player can, in a glance, understand what the whole thing is about, but provide sufficient detail for anyone (supposedly, any player that wishes to play properly) who wants to elaborate.

[Pocus]

I don't understand the excuse of not updating manuals as new versions change certain things.

Indeed I think it was Slitherine who had an updated manual for Field of Glory with an online updated version so that it was always accurate for whatever was the current patch.

One of the bugbears for big games like the AGEOD ones is that changes and improvements make the manual outdated and so only a dedicated few can keep up with rule changes. In fact you end up fighting the rules rather than the AI.

Whilst I'm on about manuals, why do so many of them seem to miss the mark so often? I guess it is because they are written by people who are too close to the game to see it from a newcomer's perspective. Most things that should be in a manual should be indexed and in an appendix. The objective of the manual should be to get a newcomer within ten minutes to be thinking "wow this is great, I want to play this and do more" not "Oh no, another 100 pages of rules before I can play and enjoy this."

Small, very small, team?

[Taillebois]

I realise, and sympathise. It must bug you that you produce all this brilliant stuff and still people seem to complain. But most people that come on these forums are players and like the games in one way or another. I've got pretty much all the AGEOD games (and Paradox, and many Matrix) so I'm almost a game developer support group because there is no way I can even play the scenarios I've got even once through. I almost always buy game manuals - it is a tangible artifact - and the CW2 and EAW manuals fit that. I even bought War In The Pacific - manual 328 pages (not read - game not played - about 4,000 units on turn 1).

What can I suggest that might ease the pressure so that you can cut back to only a 25 hour day and 8 day week?

How about separating bug fixes from changes and improvements? So often it seems that because these games are so complicated the introduction of a new feature will correct one issue but introduce another unforseen problem. Version 1.0n or what ever should just consist of version 1.0 plus corrections to actual code or text or other game errors.

(Incidentally, have you noticed that the picture on page 6 of the manual is the wrong way round?)

It seems to me that you have about 100 volunteers mentioned in the manual who have helped, many of the names mentioned I see on the forum. These are the guys whose enthusiasm helps you pick up issues before casual players like me; and they will play the games with a detail and depth that is lost for most people. But in their enthusiasm in some ways they burden you with living up to their expectations.

Your ideal customer in some ways is not someone who plays one of your games for 1000 hours, but one who plays it and all your others for 50 hours and buys the next game next year without thinking because they are satisfied.

And even though I suspect you will resist doing this - make at least one level of play so easy anybody can play without having to read a manual and check online for tips. My suggestion for this:

All stacks visible at all times - even if in a structure
No supply
No attrition
No activation
No command penalties

Just move the counters and see who wins.

You could retain intellectual superiority by calling this "newby" or "moron" level but "Casual, quasi-historical" might be better marketing.

[Pocus]

We are not elitist, at least we try not being it. We are very aware that the Ageod games are tough to get into and daunting. Having a 600 pages manual would not help, because 90% of the players will not read any manual. We are heading into making more efforts into better tutorial though. EAW tutorial is nice but can be better for example. We are aware that ideally a tutorial should be both fun and much more complete.

And I'm all for proposing optional simplified rule. You'll have noticed that by default in EAW Supply is on 'simple', i.e as long as you are not besieged and in a region with a structure, you are supplied.

[Lares Privati]

In many cases I found the best help for complicated system was coming from the game's wiki. The hyperlink system gives you the possibility to stay on the surface of things or to go deeper. It's a choice that really makes the difference and present informations in a less monolithic way.

[bob.]

In many cases I found the best help for complicated system was coming from the game's wiki. The hyperlink system gives you the possibility to stay on the surface of things or to go deeper. It's a choice that really makes the difference and present informations in a less monolithic way.

100 % agreed, you should concentrate on the Wiki instead of the manual IMHO. A manual can be a very cursory introduction and with a comprehensive (or at least as close to comprehensive as possible) Wiki you can always expand your knowledge as you want it.

[fred zeppelin]

It's difficult to write a comprehensive manual for a game of any complexity these days simply because so many details evolve with patches, DLC, etc.

[H Gilmer3]

They really don't need an easier option than the one they have now. Even I was able to beat it and I very rarely beat their games. Or maybe I'm getting better. But, I was having lots of issues in Civil War 2.

[Taillebois]

Just loading new 1.01 patch. Will report back later.


Thanks for the hard work guys, we love you really.

[Rongor]

Hi there.
Since I am the OP, I apologize for not having returned here earlier. I see, the thread has gained some opinions and I thank for everybody's view and the provided hints and helpful links. To respond, I feel happy to be invited by Pocus to make myself a bit more clear.
Let me begin to state, that this was not in any way meant as a pure ranting post nor some rage commentary by a guy giving up. I really try to like this game, I in fact already do, despite not yet understanding most of it. It is my ambition to learn it, and this is the biggest reason to run into frustration very quickly.
It is not the depth of this title or me being unable to cope with strategy games of a certain complexity. I am very used to stuff like that, I mainly aim for games like that and I probably wouldn't buy it if it wasn't that complex. I also concur with Pocus calling this game a simulation. So I think generally we are on the same side.
Without wanting to bore the readers, my wargaming experiences includes most of paradox titles, mainly HoI, CK and EU series. I also am a good customer over at the matrixgames, enjoying stuff like Command:MANO, Grigsby's War in the East, War in the Pacific and also Slitherine titles like Panzer Corps and Commander The Great War.
Strategy games in my opinion can and should offer vast possibilities, not necessarily the obligation but the option to micromanage and I accept that games of this scale mostly enforce a steep and prolonged learning phase. I have no problem with that. But to learn something, you need to have resources of knowledge at hand.
While reading the EAW manual, I often perceive that the author absolutely knows what he is talking about. He obviously knows the game very well. Maybe he knows it so well, that he misses the ability to imagine, how mysterious, hidden and even counter-intuitive several issues may appear to a fresh player that not only touched EAW never before, but also never even touched an AGEOD game.
It has come to my attention that apparently some AGEOD games share a common functionality regarding GUI and the mechanics offered to control stuff. Several threads in this forum and also the manual point to that assumption.
The manual often touches topics in a way, to mention specific features, but only touching them shallowish and not really explaining them. So as a reader I get overwhelmed by text telling me what nice amount of shiny features this game provides, without finding sufficient hint what benefit these features bring. To gain more understanding, I will tell you some few examples:

Army organization
On pages 32 to 37 the command chain gets depictured. I learn that you consider three units valid in this game. GHQ/Army Group, HQ/Army and independent stacks. At first I get informed that this game uses a model of command chain that by enforcing to have a whole army remaining stacked in the same region differs from what I know of reality, where the army HQ controls divisions via corps marching in adjacent or even more distant regions of a theater. While this is already hard to swallow and may appear confusing for the newcomer, the manual advises me to preferably not have independent stacks, as they suffer penalties. A view on the loaded game shows contradictionary, that Corpses are spread quite frequently all across the theaters, so it is hard to believe that these independent stacks are a formation to avoid. On the contrary I get the impression, that independent Corpses areabsolutely necessary to maintain a continous coverage of the frontlines. So although I understand the CP calculation which I have to consider while reorganizing stacks, I will have to ignore the independent stack warning. Still I am left confused. Why didn't the manual simply tell me that I can move armies or corpses independently and both stacks face different CP calculations? I needed some time to understand that, to rule out any disbelief in what was written.
I still wonder why you just didn't simply explain the CP distribution in a comprehensive chapter. On page 39 the manual titles "Out of command chain penalty - important". But only the very next sentence covers this announcement. Thereafter is a section listing options to generally increase the amount of CP. So this doesn't only address cases of penalty, so wouldn't it be nice to tell that even those players not facing a penalty right now? CP can be increased, don't keep that secret!

That symbol on the map
In my last rounds, I had a black ship's silhouette with a burning diagonal line on it. I still couldn't find out by the manual what this means. Tooltip by mouse-over isn't possible, since this happens in the turn calculation phase, when mouse movement is useless.

Submarine warfare
I wanted to do submarine warfare. So I read the according chapter starting at page 87 and send the Uboats into that shipping box. But now, does it matter which attacking/fighting stance I have to issue to them? If so, what are the differences, since the tool tips don't really appear applicable for naval warfare? Should I fear the far superior combat PWR value of the present opponent fleet? Do I have to tell my Uboats to avoid attacking warships to not run into trouble? What is the purpose of the Uboat commanders vessel? Does it provide supplies for the subs or should I leave it at home? The manual doesn't tell. It says I have to send the submarines into that box. I did. Everything else is left secret.

Army organization
On pages 96 and 97 I get a lesson about troop roles and organization. Probably one of the most important aspects of the game and even warfare in general. I read about lots of attributes. Artillery plays a pivotal role, Cavalry is useful, some artillery is best at corps level, some cavalry is sufficient for most purposes. Some units are usefull reserves. Sometimes it is even worthwile to create independent stats... These are all word by word statements of that manual. Well dear gentlemen, could you express it even more vaguely? Just tell me what all these units do precisely, what are their benefits, under which circumstances and facing which downsides. You leave me just guessing and I probably will besides try and error never come about the factors, which every general would most definitely take into account when organizing armies.

The Battle Planner
Manual tells me what the planner does: giving me the opportunity to select a deployment and a battle plan. Well. Nice. If I only had a clue what to choose. Yes, I noticed there being explanations in the tooltip when mousing over, I now know what my side is tending to do. But how on earth could I have an idea what is best for which situation? The manual tells absolutely nothing about it. Winning battles is not that unimportant right? Wouldn't this matter deserve a whole chapter alone? I can only assume that there is some paper-stone-scissor-mechanics behind it, but it is kept secret how it works. So it is a useless feature for me so far. Your "new battle plan" is probably a nice feature, but obviously not nice enough to bother with explanation how to use it efficiently.

These were some examples I stumbled over. There are more, several more points where the manual left me in disbelief, that a topic or feature was only named but not explained at all. Also often you seek information you have no chance to find because the manual puts it under a totally distant topic. I understand that developers don't want to create 600 pages manuals but also I don't think 600 pages would help here. What I miss is an understandable comprehensive coverage of features, after a systematic overview of basic mechanics. Maybe this would need 6 additional pages, maybe 60. Possibly it is not a matter of pages, it is a matter of perception. EAW is obviously a decent game with depth. It of course will be hard to learn it. Unfortunately the manual at least for newcomers who aren't used to AGEOD games is often not more than a confusing short overview, presenting uncounted features, lacking explanation of the latter. This unnecessarily increases workload for the beginner. I will probably manage to master it some day. But a good manual could have helped so much. Of course I can investigate in wikis and forums and I will do so. But you shouldn't deliver a manual with this possibility in mind. Whenever it gets necessary for the player to visit other sources to understand your game, you should ask yourself what you did wrong in the manual or in the accessibility of the game. If you ask me, both would benefit from improvement.
Of course this is only my opinion and apparently of some others.

Despite all that, great game, probably...

[H Gilmer3]

Ageod probably does need at some point to spruce up their manuals. I remember my first Athena game was American Civil War and I didn't even play it for a couple of years, because I just couldn't get my mind around it. Then I got RoP and I played it more (and read the manual more). And I started understanding more stuff. Then, I read some of Loki vs Narwhal excellent AARs. I really have not read their manuals for some time because I know what the engine does, mostly. I only read the air warfare section in this game to see how it was handled.

I think what they mean by independent stacks means they aren't even corps. They are just a grouping of units with insufficient leaders. You would certainly not want to have many of those. I only have those types of formations when I conglomerate a bunch of units to make it easier to move them to the front to then be dispersed out to leaders and already formed armies.

I don't use the battle planner.

I think the black silhouette ship means there is some skirmishing between naval units but not big enough to give you a battle report. You should see something in the messages saying that such and such unit took battle in the blockade box or something.

I cannot tell you about submarine warfare. I tried to use them and all they did was get bludgeoned.

You bring up some good points and I think more than you have had issues like this. I feel sad about it, because many get really turned off from the game when they run into this, and I myself was sort of turned off from it because of that at first. Some get really mad and never come back and some are able to work through it. These wargames are truly different wargames and I think that is what fascinates me about them. Most wargames I had played up until these were straight hex games and you move one or two hexes and attack per turn. There's a lot more going on here.

[operating]

Noticed the degree of criticism about this game both here and over at Matrix, but what sold me into buying this game (box in route) is the AARs, otherwise I don't think I would have bought it, with the perception that it would just be one long headache to understand and play. I'll confess I am a fan of CTGW, which has it's complexities, but simpler and fun to play, but has limitations as to it's scale, that's where I find a drawback, hence that is why I am here. Also noticed that the sales of EAW is just barely bumping along. The community over at Matrix concerning this game is no where as robust as is here, personally I prefer the Matrix site at present for various reasons. What the AARs do: is give the game "LIFE", to the inexperienced player or would be buyer. Many facets can be viewed from AARs in a multiple of ways, first which: Is they are like a tutorial. What Rongor writes hits a nerve with me too, as well as so many others who post here. OK, I put a lot of importance to understanding a game from the manual, for both you and I should be on the same page throughout, or up to date "read me first" patch stuff, that can be referenced and if there is a monster 600 page manual out there "put it on line". I believe that nobody wants to waste their time with a game if there is no reference to some aspect of the game that is relevant. My goal is to play the game in MP on a level playing field. Chao.....

[Pocus]

Some very good remarks. Indeed, manual can probably benefit from being re thought from the start, on some parts. It should also be less vague on some points, although its intent is not to be a strategy guide either. We know AARs are important indeed.

[Taillebois]

With the demise of retail outlets for games I guess recommendation or web search are important sources for new customers.

This is why making a game easy to play at first sight is so important, even if there is a huge depth of detail to be got into by serious players.

If you look through some of the war game forums you will find people asking for game recommendations for Napoleonic, or ACW or whatever - yet quite often I see people saying they tried AGEOD games but just didn't like it or understand the system. Now I think that's quite a serious comment because it will put many people off. These comments aren't from people who have never played a war game, they are commenting on a war game forum.

It's good that many AGEOD games have a free demo but I really believe that the first few minutes with a game are crucial to hooking new players and customers.

[The Guru]

I agree with Rongor 150%. I basically expressed the same frustration, while in a less articulate and pedagogical way, in my last post on the Western 1914 scenario. I really don't mind complexity, in fact I revel in complexity and that's why I like playing wargames rather than shooting zombies or something. Playing wargames is all about intellectual gymnastics, developing strategies, maximizing parameters, but for that... you need to understand how things work. For that first scenario turn ( I never even went beyond it) I felt like a passive and ignorant spectator: I couldn't understand 5% of what was going on. I couldn't guess if this or that outcome was the product of finely tuned parametres, or a bug. The narrative of the battle is split into several fragmentsin different areas, you get some vague explanations in the message log, some others require clicking on an icon on the battle log. The actual dual movement phase is too rapid, you don't get any sens of what is coming from where, at least, I don't.

Now, if I devote some time writing what I hope is perceived as constructive criticism, it's precisely because deep under, I sense some potentiality in this game. I was an admirer of the original paper wargame and was really impatient to lay my hands on a proper WW1 computer wargame. AGEOD has a reputation of good product follow-up, I think that's what we need here.

[vaalen]

In many cases I found the best help for complicated system was coming from the game's wiki. The hyperlink system gives you the possibility to stay on the surface of things or to go deeper. It's a choice that really makes the difference and present informations in a less monolithic way.

Does anyone have the link to this games wiki? When I tried to find it on the internet, I ran into a wiki for a movie with the same name. Thanks, Vaalen.