On the Fence

[bloodybucket]

I've tried the demo over the last couple of days, and I'm wondering about a couple of issues before I decide to buy AACW.

A glance at the forum tells me that the wait while the AI "thinks" has decreased. How much has it decreased? While not a deal breaker, it's a major annoyance. I'm running XP with a 2.66 Ghz P4 and a Gig of PC2700 ram.

In the campaign scenario in the demo, the amount of "housekeeping" detail is about at or over my max capacity to manage and still enjoy the game. Does this go up as unit density increases later in the war? Have patches reduced the either the amount of detail or the effort required by the player to attend to it?

I see that a filter for the minimap is planned that will show only "usable" units, and that's the sort of thing that would bring AACW more in line with my detail/fun limit.

Perhaps more time with the game and a further reading of the manual will help (although reading .pdf manuals ranks right up there with a visit to the dentist in my book). The tutorials didn't make me confident in my ability to easily grasp the details in AACW, but I think there may be tools that I'm not using.

There doesn't seem to be an option to have the computer take on the housekeeping for you. I don't think that's a bad thing, sometimes a designer has to draw the line at dumbing down a game that is meant to be somewhat complex.

Background info on what I prefer: Gary Grigsby's World at War is at about the right detail level for me, but I wouldn't consider letting the computer run production for me in that game because that would remove a enjoyable level of detail and decision making. Galactic Civilizations II would be another example of a complexity level I can easily digest.

Going back to the dark ages before PCs, I really liked A House Divided, the boardgame, but I also liked The Civil War from Victory Games.

I want to like AACW, but I don't want to work too hard to like it.

[Jagger]

You might want to read this after action report-http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3571

It will give you a decent idea of complexity.

[jhdeerslayer]

I've tried the demo over the last couple of days, and I'm wondering about a couple of issues before I decide to buy AACW.

A glance at the forum tells me that the wait while the AI "thinks" has decreased. How much has it decreased? While not a deal breaker, it's a major annoyance. I'm running XP with a 2.66 Ghz P4 and a Gig of PC2700 ram.

In the campaign scenario in the demo, the amount of "housekeeping" detail is about at or over my max capacity to manage and still enjoy the game. Does this go up as unit density increases later in the war? Have patches reduced the either the amount of detail or the effort required by the player to attend to it?

I see that a filter for the minimap is planned that will show only "usable" units, and that's the sort of thing that would bring AACW more in line with my detail/fun limit.

Perhaps more time with the game and a further reading of the manual will help (although reading .pdf manuals ranks right up there with a visit to the dentist in my book). The tutorials didn't make me confident in my ability to easily grasp the details in AACW, but I think there may be tools that I'm not using.

There doesn't seem to be an option to have the computer take on the housekeeping for you. I don't think that's a bad thing, sometimes a designer has to draw the line at dumbing down a game that is meant to be somewhat complex.

Background info on what I prefer: Gary Grigsby's World at War is at about the right detail level for me, but I wouldn't consider letting the computer run production for me in that game because that would remove a enjoyable level of detail and decision making. Galactic Civilizations II would be another example of a complexity level I can easily digest.

Going back to the dark ages before PCs, I really liked A House Divided, the boardgame, but I also liked The Civil War from Victory Games.

I want to like AACW, but I don't want to work too hard to like it.

WAW maybe be about a 2 out of 10 for complexity I think. Was too simple for me actually. I would peg AACW maybe at 4. War in the Pacific is a 10 for reference.

As a side comment, you may like Carriers at War which is maybe a 2 or 3.

Good luck but AACW is about a good as game as they get and you just have to decide your complexity threshold... BoA is about a 3 I'd say so another option using the same engine.

[blackbellamy]

A glance at the forum tells me that the wait while the AI "thinks" has decreased. How much has it decreased? While not a deal breaker, it's a major annoyance. I'm running XP with a 2.66 Ghz P4 and a Gig of PC2700 ram.

If you're talking about the actual time the AI "thinks" it's not very long. Not really even noticeable unless you have ADD or something. The long part is the actual resolution, where supply is pushed and units move. Since each turn is really 15 turns, each of those gets to play out on the screen and if you have tons of units moving each "day" then things can get slow.

In the campaign scenario in the demo, the amount of "housekeeping" detail is about at or over my max capacity to manage and still enjoy the game. Does this go up as unit density increases later in the war? Have patches reduced the either the amount of detail or the effort required by the player to attend to it?

I'm not really sure what you mean by housekeeping. You don't actually buy and distribute the supplies, or pay upkeep, or reinforce individual units. You don't need to expand industry if you don't want to. You can choose the "easy" naval option if you don't want to bother resupplying and repairing ships. Each turn basically boils down to generating income/conscipts through economic/draft choices (and there's only a couple of each), and then clicking on the reinforcements you want to buy. Then you go and move all your units and click end turn.

Background info on what I prefer: Gary Grigsby's World at War is at about the right detail level for me, but I wouldn't consider letting the computer run production for me in that game because that would remove a enjoyable level of detail and decision making.

WaW has more complicated 'housekeeping' than ACW imo. There's politics and research and the production spiral forcing you to plan ahead, and moving supply stockpiles around, convoys, all kinds of minutia.

[Jamey]

In the campaign scenario in the demo, the amount of "housekeeping" detail is about at or over my max capacity to manage and still enjoy the game. Does this go up as unit density increases later in the war? Have patches reduced the either the amount of detail or the effort required by the player to attend to it?

It sounds like you and I have a similar micromanagement tolerance level. Here's where I stand on AACW:

I first bought and played BOA and loved it! I started following the development of AACW with anticipation because it looked like all the goodness of BOA, but with a period in history that I was more interested in.

Bought AACW, played the Shiloh tutorial and was in heaven. Better than BOA by far.

However, the AACW campaign game is something I just can't get into. I've tried three or four times. The problem is that, with the introduction of recruiting and technology that they have introduced in AACW, to me, the campaign scenarios become un-playable. I realize that others love this level of detail, this is just my personal opinion.

I am *really* looking forward to the theatre campaigns that Phillip is supposedly working on. If understand correctly, these will allow you to play a whole theatre but not have to worry about recruitment or technology. Unfortunately, I suspect that with the announcement of the new Napoleonic game, that these theatre campaigns might never see the light of day. I sure hope I'm proven wrong.

Anyway, just my two cents. I really wish there was an option where you could have the computer handle recruitment, technology, replacements, economy, and just let me handle the troops in the field, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Childress]

WAW maybe be about a 2 out of 10 for complexity I think. Was too simple for me actually. I would peg AACW maybe at 4. War in the Pacific is a 10 for reference.

Lol, what are you smoking, JHD? If WiTP scores 10 on the scale AACW merits at least a 7 or 8. The complex command system, the reinforcements, replacements, production, the naval sub-game, the vast number of territories depicted, etc. I mean, c'mon, you must be kidding with '4'.

AACW's an imposing and elegant achievement- you sit around admiring it- but I can frankly only imagine it as 'fun' in a multi-multiplayer (4+) setting. The scenarios subtract the green eyeshade aspects but I found them curiously unsatisfying. Also, they don't teach you anything about the other layers; essential knowledge for competing in that eventual mammoth MMP game. IMHO, of course.

[Zoetermeer]

I have to say that the AI "thinking" time, while substantially improved, is definitely longer than it is in most games. With the original version of the game I could end my turn, go to the kitchen and make a sandwich, eat it, and maybe do some dishes and by then the AI had probably finished thinking. I am not exaggerating here!

But after 1.04 (I think), they almost halved the thinking time. It seems fast to me now, because if I try to go make a sandwich while the AI is "thinking", I'll come back and the turn will already be resolved. But I still think a newcomer will be somewhat unpleasantly surprised at how long the AI takes to decide what it wants to do. I don't really mind it now, because I can occupy my time while the AI thinks, and I'm willing to sacrifice more time to the AI if that makes for a more competitive game.

[richfed]

Buy it, you'll like it!

I love the wide spectrum of stuff you have to manage in order to succeed - it's not JUST about the battles.

As for the AI, yes, it might be nice if it were faster, but if it were, I'd never get anything done! Now, I make my moves and during the AI phase I get to do my household chores.

You might say the game blends in seamlessly with my life!

[Spharv2]

I've never had AI thinking times over 2 minutes, but the speed of resolution has been reduced 40% minimum from the demo, so there's that.

As for complexity, I don't know what Childress is talking about, WitP is so far out of the league as far as complexity goes, it's not even a real comparison. AACW is not terribly complex because there's so much that's "under the hood" so to speak. Supply is generally handled by the CPU, you can choose to build up a supply network to make certain things easier, but you can get by using captured depots and rail, so if you want to ignore it, you usually can. The only attention you always have to pay is keeping your rail network under control and intact, unless you go haring off into the wilderness. Even if you choose to mess with it, it's limited to mostly buying supply wagons and deciding where to build depots.

The economics isn't too terribly hard. I think it should probably be a bit less forgiving myself.

Honestly, the most complexity in the game is really trying to figure out how well attacks will go. There you're balancing troops and their cohesion, leadership qualities, the terrain, and a ton of other factors.

If you jump right in and try and play the campaign, it will probably seem to be a bit much. But I think most people come to that"Ah-Ha!" moment, when everything just seems to fall into place, and you're wondering what the heck you thought was difficult about it.

All that said, if you don't think the demo is your cup of tea, give it a couple of weeks until they release the updated one and give it another shot.

[bloodybucket]

Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to hear that the AI "thinks" faster, and on my rig, there is a phase before the moves are played out where the computer "generates AI files", and that is what I was referring to.

I might have been clearer on what constitutes housekeeping to me. I don't find buying reinforcements and replacements such a chore, but searching through the map looking for units that can move....yuck! Since I've read that the jump map will probably pick up a filter for units that can move, I'm less concerned. Transporting reinforcing units from backwater areas to the front would be less annoying if I could quickly find them...once again perhaps I'm missing a new unit filter that would stay open while I found them all.

Perhaps the best way to explain my view of "housekeeping" is that scrolling the map and clicking on every region that I think might have an unit eligible to move is "housekeeping". Moving easily identified reinforcing units and stacks away from rear areas to useful areas is not housekeeping as long as there aren't scads and scads of units to move every turn. Having to monitor the supply levels of every unit is bordering on housekeeping, but having a message in the mailbox that "Jackson's Command has only 20% ammunition left!" would help remove the need to look at every formation every turn.

I am a little confused at the chain of command/seniority/promotion functions, but since the latest and greatest looks to be somewhat different than what is in the demo, I'm not too eager to master the demo version's CoC rules.

It's news to me that there is an easy naval option. How do I find that? I honestly haven't devoted time to studying what's needed to keep the naval units happy insofar as supply and cohesion go.

Interesting to see the old complexity scale return...was it Avalon Hill that used it?

The more I play the AACW demo the easier some of the nitnoids get, but if I just used the tutorials and a session or two to judge it the initial impression wouldn't do the game justice.

[Jagger]

Honestly, the most complexity in the game is really trying to figure out how well attacks will go. There you're balancing troops and their cohesion, leadership qualities, the terrain, and a ton of other factors.

My copy of AACW is in the mail. However with BOA, it might take me five minutes to plot my moves and housekeep in a big campaign. But it can easily take me thirty minutes to determine what is the best strategy to achieve my objectives before I take the couple of minutes to actually plot my troops movements. Easy to plot a move but challenging to determine the best move. Sort of like chess in that aspect.

[Jabberwock]

I might have been clearer on what constitutes housekeeping to me. I don't find buying reinforcements and replacements such a chore, but searching through the map looking for units that can move....yuck! Since I've read that the jump map will probably pick up a filter for units that can move, I'm less concerned. Transporting reinforcing units from backwater areas to the front would be less annoying if I could quickly find them...once again perhaps I'm missing a new unit filter that would stay open while I found them all.

Perhaps the best way to explain my view of "housekeeping" is that scrolling the map and clicking on every region that I think might have an unit eligible to move is "housekeeping". Moving easily identified reinforcing units and stacks away from rear areas to useful areas is not housekeeping as long as there aren't scads and scads of units to move every turn. Having to monitor the supply levels of every unit is bordering on housekeeping, but having a message in the mailbox that "Jackson's Command has only 20% ammunition left!" would help remove the need to look at every formation every turn.

Hello bloody, and welcome -
There is no new unit filter, yet, but you can use the 'e' and 'r' keys to cycle through all unlocked units. They save lots of scrolling time.

[Zoetermeer]

I wish I could have gotten thinking times under 2 minutes. You must have a fast machine.

My box is a 3.2 GHz Xeon with 4 gigs of RAM, and I think now maybe with the patch I get around two minutes of thinking time, maybe more - but I haven't timed it so I could be way off.

[Spharv2]

Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to hear that the AI "thinks" faster, and on my rig, there is a phase before the moves are played out where the computer "generates AI files", and that is what I was referring to.

I might have been clearer on what constitutes housekeeping to me. I don't find buying reinforcements and replacements such a chore, but searching through the map looking for units that can move....yuck! Since I've read that the jump map will probably pick up a filter for units that can move, I'm less concerned. Transporting reinforcing units from backwater areas to the front would be less annoying if I could quickly find them...once again perhaps I'm missing a new unit filter that would stay open while I found them all.

Perhaps the best way to explain my view of "housekeeping" is that scrolling the map and clicking on every region that I think might have an unit eligible to move is "housekeeping". Moving easily identified reinforcing units and stacks away from rear areas to useful areas is not housekeeping as long as there aren't scads and scads of units to move every turn. Having to monitor the supply levels of every unit is bordering on housekeeping, but having a message in the mailbox that "Jackson's Command has only 20% ammunition left!" would help remove the need to look at every formation every turn.

For finding units, the "E-R-T-Y" keys are your friends, they cycle though units so you don't have to use a visual search. As for supply levels, the icons give you some help there. There are dedicated supply and ammo icons that tell you what level you're at, but you have to select units to see these. Using the colored bubbles can be an indicator too, if you see a force that has something aside from green bubbles, you need to devote a more attention to them. These track cohesion too, so it might not be a supply problem, but low supplies lead to cohesion reduction, so they usually go hand in hand. The messages you receive also tell you if a force is completely unsupplied.

I am a little confused at the chain of command/seniority/promotion functions, but since the latest and greatest looks to be somewhat different than what is in the demo, I'm not too eager to master the demo version's CoC rules.

It's news to me that there is an easy naval option. How do I find that? I honestly haven't devoted time to studying what's needed to keep the naval units happy insofar as supply and cohesion go.

That should show up in the updated demo, it was a recent addition, so it's not in there yet. Basically, you'll get an option where you don't have to shuttle ships in for supply/repair if you don't want to. This does however, reduce the effectiveness of the fleets to simulate that portions of your fleet would be coming and going to perform these actions all the time.

The command portion isn't too bad. In beta, I played one game knowing nothing about the new command structure, during the course of which, I had it figured out. After that, it was pretty simple and intuitive. Not much will change with the removal of division HQs, you'll still have the three levels in the army, Divisional, Corps, and Army. The difference will be that the only one you need an actual HQ unit for will be the Army level. One thing that might be considered housekeeping is the monitoring of seniority to ensure that you're promoting and using the proper generals, but you can sort by seniority in the roster screen, so you've got a single screen that you can see everyone's ranking on, so that's not so bad.

[Spharv2]

I wish I could have gotten thinking times under 2 minutes. You must have a fast machine.

My box is a 3.2 GHz Xeon with 4 gigs of RAM, and I think now maybe with the patch I get around two minutes of thinking time, maybe more - but I haven't timed it so I could be way off.

Not really, mine is about equal, with less RAM. P4 3.2 GHz 2 GB of RAM. I'm not sure why some machines seem to have issues with slow times, especially when it's two pretty similar systems. Have you tried turning off the "Give AI more time" option? They've said in the past that it doesn't have a terribly large effect on the AI.

[Wilhammer]

I found the economics and unit purchasing to be rather straight forward after getting a year done.

There is a flow to it, and it gets rather routine at times.

On many turns, my levels of purchase activities consume not more than 10 minutes of that time planning time and it is often less.

[pasternakski]

WAW maybe be about a 2 out of 10 for complexity I think. Was too simple for me actually. I would peg AACW maybe at 4. War in the Pacific is a 10 for reference.

As a side comment, you may like Carriers at War which is maybe a 2 or 3.

Good luck but AACW is about a good as game as they get and you just have to decide your complexity threshold... BoA is about a 3 I'd say so another option using the same engine.

Nicely said, sir. I only post to say that WitP, in my estimation, is not all that complicated, it's just a stupid, slow, cumbersome design that I came to dislike intensely after a year or so of trying to enjoy it. I see its frustrating points as severe design defects, not matters of complexity.

[Charleson]

Take a long hard look at the command structure of AACW, if you like it or even love its rather novel approach then it's worth swimming up the learning curve of everything else. If you have a neutral reaction or actively dislike the unit shuffling it entails then perhaps it's best to steer clear of the game.

I knew there was something special in AACW when I found myself yelling at the icon of Little Mac when he refused to get off his butt and head south.

[PJL]

If you're worried about new / unlocked units, then the message log at the bottom is your friend, they always tell you when they are available / unlocked. That plus the fact they always tell when a unit has gone to it's destination means I always go through the log after I've gone through the main theatres, and naval scene. Although the E, R, T & Y keys may be useful for some, I always tend to find I skip units or forgotten where I'm at, and inevitably I miss some units on the way.

[Wilhammer]

Yes, I first click on everything in that message log to find reinforcements and out of supply situations before I do just about anything else.

-------------

Let me know if I missed it, but I would like a hotkey to press that let my cycle through regions whether they have units or not.

I'd also like a hotkey button to cycle through reinforcements that are still in training.


-------------

"Nicely said, sir. I only post to say that WitP, in my estimation, is not all that complicated, it's just a stupid, slow, cumbersome design that I came to dislike intensely after a year or so of trying to enjoy it. I see its frustrating points as severe design defects, not matters of complexity."

That is an excellent one para review of WitP.

As a testament to its bad design, the ground war part is no better done than Risk.

I think I'll just switch to Fire in the East and Vassal it.

[jimkehn]

Fire in the East!

WOO HOO!!!

Still have my unpunched copy!!!!

[bloodybucket]

Yes, I first click on everything in that message log to find reinforcements and out of supply situations before I do just about anything else.

-------------

Let me know if I missed it, but I would like a hotkey to press that let my cycle through regions whether they have units or not.

I'd also like a hotkey button to cycle through reinforcements that are still in training.


------------- (Snip!)

Those hotkeys would be useful.

I played around with the new 1.5 demo, and the command rules are much more transparent. The turn calculations are slightly improved, and the naval detail options are a nice feature.

Oddly, the tutorial on the new command rules in the 1.5 demo referenced an independent force that I couldn't find...Perhaps this is a game that is destined for greatness while doomed to have puzzling tutorials.

I'm going to have blow the moths out of the wallet.

[Primasprit]

Hi bloodybucket!

[...]Oddly, the tutorial on the new command rules in the 1.5 demo referenced an independent force that I couldn't find...[...].

I checked (but not yet with the demo, only with the full version) and couldn't find an error in the tutorial. Which one you mean? 'Basic Rules' or 'Command Chain'?

Cheers
Norbert

[bloodybucket]

Command Chain. What happens is that the unattached force doesn't show on the map, even if you click on the region. The "E and R" keys wouldn't find it. I finally found it via the roster by clicking on the rank icon of the listed leader, but it would disappear again after I unselected it.

It also acted like a force embarked on transports (fleet may not bombard message, appropriate naval sounds when dragging to a new area along a river) but I could find no transports listed via the roster, or along with the unattached force on the map.

Of course, it could just be me.

[Primasprit]

No, it is not just you. I installed the demo and reproduced the problem. Strangely the same scenario works fine with the full version, so this problem may be caused by some restrictions of the demo. I am afraid we have to wait for Pocus to fix that.

[Pocus]

Problem identified, I will post the updated demo today. Sorry for the mess.

[joram]

No offense Childress, but I think it's not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. I think a 4 is about right. I think this game has as good a balance of management and abstraction as you'll find in any ACW game. If you think this one is complex don't even go anywhere near FoF, the other currently big ACW game, as it's a lot more complex than this game. Maybe you're judging complexity based on number of units which can start to be quite large but with the hotkeys, it's quite easy to scroll through them and be sure you got everyone if you choose not to look around the map for them.

As far as the computer time for the turns, on my 3.2Ghz, 2 Gig Ram machine, it takes around a minute per turn for the AI to think. It's a little annoying sometimes when it stretches to the high end of the scale but all in all that's a minor complaint given all the good things the game has.

I also will applaud Ageod for even making a demo so people can try it out. It shows great confidence in their own product and I wish more companies would be that way.

[Childress]

No offense Childress, but I think it's not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. I think a 4 is about right. I think this game has as good a balance of management and abstraction as you'll find in any ACW game. If you think this one is complex don't even go anywhere near FoF, the other currently big ACW game, as it's a lot more complex than this game. Maybe you're judging complexity based on number of units which can start to be quite large but with the hotkeys, it's quite easy to scroll through them and be sure you got everyone if you choose not to look around the map for them.

Agreed, Joram. I gave it a high complexity rating due to the sheer size of the beast. The interface, shortcuts and general design are exceedingly well thought out. No issues there. At the same time, I find the scenarios sterile and uninvolving because, imho, the the game's soul resides in the total package deal.

I still see the fun potential as very high- with 4+ partcipants in mp. But not single player- for me. Maybe Ageod, when they get around to adding more scenarios, can incorporate the production, political and financial aspects but in a single theater.

[General Quarters]

If you think this one is complex don't even go anywhere near FoF, the other currently big ACW game, as it's a lot more complex than this game.

I wouldn't say anything here, since this is a site devoted to one of these two great games, but this comment seems quite inaccurate -- or at least incomplete -- and might keep some players from enjoying a very different kind of gaming experience.

FOF allows you to play with different degrees of complexity. You play at the Basic level to learn the game. And, then, depending on what decisions you want to make for yourself and which ones you are happy to leave to the AI, you play at the Intermediate or the Advanced levels. Even at these levels, you can fine-tune your choices by letting the AI handle specific functions. I guarantee that every player can easily adjust the game to his preferred level of complexity.

Now back to AACW. If you haven't bought it, you should. I have called it elsewhere, perhaps even on the FOF forum, a "tour de force" -- and I'm an English speaker!

[joram]

Agreed, Joram. I gave it a high complexity rating due to the sheer size of the beast. The interface, shortcuts and general design are exceedingly well thought out. No issues there. At the same time, I find the scenarios sterile and uninvolving because, imho, the the game's soul resides in the total package deal.

I still see the fun potential as very high- with 4+ partcipants in mp. But not single player- for me. Maybe Ageod, when they get around to adding more scenarios, can incorporate the production, political and financial aspects but in a single theater.

Fair enough! We have slightly different definitions of complexity. In any case, I think that's why it's a good idea for a demo to give the individual a chance to judge that for himself.

[Quote=General Quarters]
I wouldn't say anything here, since this is a site devoted to one of these two great games, but this comment seems quite inaccurate -- or at least incomplete -- and might keep some players from enjoying a very different kind of gaming experience.

FOF allows you to play with different degrees of complexity. You play at the Basic level to learn the game. And, then, depending on what decisions you want to make for yourself and which ones you are happy to leave to the AI, you play at the Intermediate or the Advanced levels. Even at these levels, you can fine-tune your choices by letting the AI handle specific functions. I guarantee that every player can easily adjust the game to his preferred level of complexity. [/quote]

Also a fair comment. I only play at advanced and there's quite a bit of micro-management at that level. But you're absolutely right it can be adjusted.