Aesthetically? I like it. The map is beautiful and the unit counters on the bottom are easy to read (I thought ROP & RUS were too small).
Turn processing. Very, very fast; at least in the first year of play. Anyone who complains about speed probably yells at the microwave when popping popcorn. No, that's not fair, popcorn takes longer.
Options. I really like where this has gone. In TEAW, I'm in April 1916 and have 67 EP points on-hand; my game just didn't really call for constant spending of EP's. Early on, all Ageod (I noticed that it went from all caps to just the A being capitalized?) games require cost-benefit analysis with scant EP's (which I enjoy immensely) but then my use of EP's have tapered off as the game progresses, but I think with the broader availability of options (military, diplomatic, etc.,) there will be a more judicious use of EP's, which is totally in-line with real life national decisions on how to use finite resources for infinite wishes.
Game play. The really important issue for me. So far, so good. I never played Espagna '36 (yet) and have only seen a bit of a Let's Play (it was in French and I have sadly fallen behind in my conversational French) so I don't have a good recollection of how it played, but it kind of plays more like AJE than CW2 or TEAW and that's not a bad thing at all. I like the frontal wars, but, just like in AJE, having a main force (to protect Wien; I'm playing the HRE) and splintering off side forces to protect other cities or to take other cities is very fun too. This type of game plays much faster for me than the frontal wars so I will be able to play more games, play both sides and try different strategies without having to play one game for 6-months (I do like the grand campaigns!). Also like AJE is the need to prevent binge buying and end up not having enough money and supplies to maintain your troops. I am glad that this is twice a year and not yearly, it makes it easier to figure out how much and when you can spend those precious thaylers and WS!
For the first year of the game - so far, so good.
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
-
Person of Interest
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:36 pm
- Location: Kentucky
-
goodpoints
- Conscript
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:22 am
- Location: Maryland, USA
seathom wrote:Aesthetically? I like it. The map is beautiful and the unit counters on the bottom are easy to read (I thought ROP & RUS were too small).
Turn processing. Very, very fast; at least in the first year of play. Anyone who complains about speed probably yells at the microwave when popping popcorn. No, that's not fair, popcorn takes longer.
Options. I really like where this has gone. In TEAW, I'm in April 1916 and have 67 EP points on-hand; my game just didn't really call for constant spending of EP's. Early on, all Ageod (I noticed that it went from all caps to just the A being capitalized?) games require cost-benefit analysis with scant EP's (which I enjoy immensely) but then my use of EP's have tapered off as the game progresses, but I think with the broader availability of options (military, diplomatic, etc.,) there will be a more judicious use of EP's, which is totally in-line with real life national decisions on how to use finite resources for infinite wishes.
Game play. The really important issue for me. So far, so good. I never played Espagna '36 (yet) and have only seen a bit of a Let's Play (it was in French and I have sadly fallen behind in my conversational French) so I don't have a good recollection of how it played, but it kind of plays more like AJE than CW2 or TEAW and that's not a bad thing at all. I like the frontal wars, but, just like in AJE, having a main force (to protect Wien; I'm playing the HRE) and splintering off side forces to protect other cities or to take other cities is very fun too. This type of game plays much faster for me than the frontal wars so I will be able to play more games, play both sides and try different strategies without having to play one game for 6-months (I do like the grand campaigns!). Also like AJE is the need to prevent binge buying and end up not having enough money and supplies to maintain your troops. I am glad that this is twice a year and not yearly, it makes it easier to figure out how much and when you can spend those precious thaylers and WS!
For the first year of the game - so far, so good.
What difficulty/AI settings are you using? (if you're playing vs. AI) In my grand campaign I'm using Veteran Activation, Long Delay, Normal Foreign Entry, Historical Attrition, Easy Supply off, Medium Traffic Penalty and have the AI on Sergeant with Normal Act., Medium Detect., Normal Aggr., All Behaviors/More Time
Currently I'm playing the Catholics, it's 1628 and I've built every possible unit and taken every city that is accessible by land and I have: 321EP, 126 Thalers, and 118WS. I just finished crushing the negligible Danish army and seem to just be waiting for Gustavus to enter...so there's been very little to do the past few years.
The whole thing has just felt dramatically imbalanced so far. The Bohemian Revolt/Protestant Union was easily overcome in about 3 years, I was able to use all of the Wallenstein recruitment regional decisions in one turn (instant 1000+ army), and after that you just pick off enemy's one by one as they enter the war. This feels very similar to playing the Republicans in España 1936: stacks are too cohesive and too easy to organize, region loyalty far too easy to maintain , abundance of resources, and what feels like poor AI compared to most Ageod games.
-
Offworlder
- General
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
- Location: Malta
There are two things that I find strange namely that the AI does not seem to produce any new units (apart from those produced by event or regional decisions), and that there is no promotion for one and two star generals.
I'm not worried much about Wallenstein since he really brought a huge army at the table historically and could and should be counterbalanced by the resources unleashed by the Danish intervention (the money more than the Danish army itself, which could fund the expansion of the other protestant army).
I've also noticed that the Catholics AI gets bogged down in Bohemia if their advances on Prague are thwarted leaving them helpless against the other Protestant armies.
Having said that, I'm still having a blast of a time with this game!
I'm not worried much about Wallenstein since he really brought a huge army at the table historically and could and should be counterbalanced by the resources unleashed by the Danish intervention (the money more than the Danish army itself, which could fund the expansion of the other protestant army).
I've also noticed that the Catholics AI gets bogged down in Bohemia if their advances on Prague are thwarted leaving them helpless against the other Protestant armies.
Having said that, I'm still having a blast of a time with this game!
Someone from the canard PC french forum bought the game and played a full campaign one evening. The reviewer is well aware of Ageod game and love especially civil war 2.
The review was not very positive. May i share with you a resume of the report it could be interesting :
The reviewer complained of the following things :
- Bad balance of ressources and production.
Money and ressources are very scarce in the game and even if we have some we can built only a very limited choice of troops. It is impossible for example to build garnison or to significaly change army composition. (He had to use cavalry to garnison cities, which is lol). On the others side, there is too much EP points. We can spam diplomatic options and strategic cards with no thinking. There is no choice to make for diplomacy for example, you can choose all options at the same time. Tons of ep allow you to choose everything. Si diplomacy is not very interesting.
It is quite tedious also to have to spam all strategic cards every turn.
- Battles have really few consequences. Due to bad generals, slow armies and bad weather half the year, it is quite difficult to move a lot and so the best way to do things is to move slowly toward objective.
Also when battle occured, casualties are really low, the ennemy army always escape without a lot of casualties and the battle is never decisive.
The reviewer also reports that the best way to win battle is numerical superiority and not a lot of others things. He regrets not having to perform tactical optimization.
Also the numbers of troops to manage are really low, which can be good or bad.
As a conclusion, the reviewer suggests to give a lot more money but fewer troops at start of the campaign to allow the player to built an army and to make more meaningfull choice.
And to rebalance diplomatic option EP cost.
On the positive side :
- Turn are very fast, which is good. (But probably due to low number of units).
- AI performance was honest. No complain about that.
The review was not very positive. May i share with you a resume of the report it could be interesting :
The reviewer complained of the following things :
- Bad balance of ressources and production.
Money and ressources are very scarce in the game and even if we have some we can built only a very limited choice of troops. It is impossible for example to build garnison or to significaly change army composition. (He had to use cavalry to garnison cities, which is lol). On the others side, there is too much EP points. We can spam diplomatic options and strategic cards with no thinking. There is no choice to make for diplomacy for example, you can choose all options at the same time. Tons of ep allow you to choose everything. Si diplomacy is not very interesting.
It is quite tedious also to have to spam all strategic cards every turn.
- Battles have really few consequences. Due to bad generals, slow armies and bad weather half the year, it is quite difficult to move a lot and so the best way to do things is to move slowly toward objective.
Also when battle occured, casualties are really low, the ennemy army always escape without a lot of casualties and the battle is never decisive.
The reviewer also reports that the best way to win battle is numerical superiority and not a lot of others things. He regrets not having to perform tactical optimization.
Also the numbers of troops to manage are really low, which can be good or bad.
As a conclusion, the reviewer suggests to give a lot more money but fewer troops at start of the campaign to allow the player to built an army and to make more meaningfull choice.
And to rebalance diplomatic option EP cost.
On the positive side :
- Turn are very fast, which is good. (But probably due to low number of units).
- AI performance was honest. No complain about that.
-
Wallensteinwojtek
- Private
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:18 am
- Location: Poland
Same observations from my side.
In one day I have played almost whole campaign (1643 currently) as Catholics.
After 5 years I have dealt with all south protestant forces, and then, before 1626 all north, without any problems.
No Swedish intervention and French either till this time.
To many EP, and not so many choices (help from Pope, Spain, a few units - 3 if I remember) to spend it.
From middle of game (around 1628) many diplomatic options appears in form of cards, but in my opinion there are useless mostly, event with 100% support for catholic from Mainz, Brandenburg and so on nothing new happened.
I have never used other cards than 2 helpful during sieges and convert to Catholics. Rest (around 8) are not usable...
On top of this some minor bugs reported in other threads.
Graphically OK, but some things could looked better (f.e mountains).
I'm wondering why we have roads drawn on the map if forces liked to move cross-country almost all the time...
For me this is greatest disappointment on this engine (I have AJE, TEAW, WIA2) so far.
I hope Napoleon campaigns will be better developed.
In one day I have played almost whole campaign (1643 currently) as Catholics.
After 5 years I have dealt with all south protestant forces, and then, before 1626 all north, without any problems.
No Swedish intervention and French either till this time.
To many EP, and not so many choices (help from Pope, Spain, a few units - 3 if I remember) to spend it.
From middle of game (around 1628) many diplomatic options appears in form of cards, but in my opinion there are useless mostly, event with 100% support for catholic from Mainz, Brandenburg and so on nothing new happened.
I have never used other cards than 2 helpful during sieges and convert to Catholics. Rest (around 8) are not usable...
On top of this some minor bugs reported in other threads.
Graphically OK, but some things could looked better (f.e mountains).
I'm wondering why we have roads drawn on the map if forces liked to move cross-country almost all the time...
For me this is greatest disappointment on this engine (I have AJE, TEAW, WIA2) so far.
I hope Napoleon campaigns will be better developed.
-
Leibst
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact: Website Facebook
I just can say that we will work hard in order to fix any issues and of course to change things to make the game better and challenging. We are open to listen interesting arguments. : 
Headquarter game designer of Battles For Spain, Ageod English Civil War, España:1936 and Thirty Years War
HQ website
I'm not as negative as some of the others. I've playing some of the shorter scenarios as the Emperor against the AI. (To assist the AI, I usually avoid playing "monster" scenarios. Ageod's AI usually struggles badly with scenarios that span hundreds of turns and offer too many strategic variables and options. It's much better in shorter scenarios with restricted maps and limited forces/options. Plus, I play at "Lieutenant" level to also give the AI a better chance.)
Overall, I'm very impressed with the appearance of the game. It looks very nice.
As for gameplay, I've noticed that things move much slower than in other Ageod games. Money and war supplies are hard to come by. I play the "Historical" attrition player-only option, and it has been tough affording replacements. Further, I've noticed that supplies are harder to come by as well. Battles haven't been all that decisive or even all that bloody.
Yet, one could argue that the slower pace, less decisive battles, and impoverished economic/supply environment is a fairly accurate depiction of the TYW. The war only ended when both sides had fought each other to sheer exhaustion. The few big battles of the war were not "decisive" at all- the war dragged on for 30 YEARS! A lot of times armies moved from region to region not for any strategic or operational purposes, but just to forage for food. Eventually, the war became about "feeding" the war- armies of unemployed, landless mercenaries and camp followers just looting and plundering to make a living while their contractor generalissimo commanders enriched themselves on the proceeds. The TYW is a tough proposition to accurately depict for a game because it is so non-linear. Players want to act like Caesar, Frederick II, Napoleon or Grant and just "go after them," but that's not how it was TYW was fought. There were long periods of just strategic "meandering."
Anyway, I am confident the game will see some significant improvements and balancing. What I don't want to see, though, is a Napoleonic or Civil War strategy/operational game dressed-up in 17th century clothing.
Overall, I'm very impressed with the appearance of the game. It looks very nice.
As for gameplay, I've noticed that things move much slower than in other Ageod games. Money and war supplies are hard to come by. I play the "Historical" attrition player-only option, and it has been tough affording replacements. Further, I've noticed that supplies are harder to come by as well. Battles haven't been all that decisive or even all that bloody.
Yet, one could argue that the slower pace, less decisive battles, and impoverished economic/supply environment is a fairly accurate depiction of the TYW. The war only ended when both sides had fought each other to sheer exhaustion. The few big battles of the war were not "decisive" at all- the war dragged on for 30 YEARS! A lot of times armies moved from region to region not for any strategic or operational purposes, but just to forage for food. Eventually, the war became about "feeding" the war- armies of unemployed, landless mercenaries and camp followers just looting and plundering to make a living while their contractor generalissimo commanders enriched themselves on the proceeds. The TYW is a tough proposition to accurately depict for a game because it is so non-linear. Players want to act like Caesar, Frederick II, Napoleon or Grant and just "go after them," but that's not how it was TYW was fought. There were long periods of just strategic "meandering."
Anyway, I am confident the game will see some significant improvements and balancing. What I don't want to see, though, is a Napoleonic or Civil War strategy/operational game dressed-up in 17th century clothing.
Stelteck wrote:- Bad balance of ressources and production.
Money and ressources are very scarce in the game and even if we have some we can built only a very limited choice of troops. It is impossible for example to build garnison or to significaly change army composition. (He had to use cavalry to garnison cities, which is lol). On the others side, there is too much EP points. We can spam diplomatic options and strategic cards with no thinking. There is no choice to make for diplomacy for example, you can choose all options at the same time. Tons of ep allow you to choose everything. Si diplomacy is not very interesting.
It is quite tedious also to have to spam all strategic cards every turn.
- Battles have really few consequences. Due to bad generals, slow armies and bad weather half the year, it is quite difficult to move a lot and so the best way to do things is to move slowly toward objective.
Also when battle occured, casualties are really low, the ennemy army always escape without a lot of casualties and the battle is never decisive.
The reviewer also reports that the best way to win battle is numerical superiority and not a lot of others things. He regrets not having to perform tactical optimization.
As a conclusion, the reviewer suggests to give a lot more money but fewer troops at start of the campaign to allow the player to built an army and to make more meaningfull choice.
And to rebalance diplomatic option EP cost.
OOB at the start should be historical, troop building after a certain date is much possible. For the battles entrenchments are less effective but leaders can have great impact. Winter movement and battle casualties can result scarce of replacements and good economy is harder to achieve. As far as I read and learn by playing armies were historically exhausted mostly. Retreating and recovering from a battle in winter is quite a challenge as in ROP that necessiate pbem play that they can be more glorious . Auto garrisons are faction specific for certain theaters with roll chance.
From Swedish scenario:
-
HeinzHarald
- Private
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:43 pm
-
the_dovlets
- Private
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:11 pm
Historically before Gustav Adolph the Protestants were mostly hunted down and Gustav opened the Swedish supremacy for some time.
Nevertheless i agree that there is not enough money and WSU, too much frustration here, the cost for the replacement is too much especially in WSU, i would think that helmets and cuirass could be taken from dead and prisonners. In the scenario 1618-1622 i didn't create much units. I had no Garrison after taking cities and in one case i had the impression that a small infantry unit was besieged by cavalry only... and the town was taken.
Nevertheless i agree that there is not enough money and WSU, too much frustration here, the cost for the replacement is too much especially in WSU, i would think that helmets and cuirass could be taken from dead and prisonners. In the scenario 1618-1622 i didn't create much units. I had no Garrison after taking cities and in one case i had the impression that a small infantry unit was besieged by cavalry only... and the town was taken.
-
Leibst
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact: Website Facebook
I agree that EP's have to be revised. And seems that a mid game Catholic Victory is not happening after Denmark Surrender, this leads to lot of months not happening nothing.
So, i'm working to fix this as other minor issues like the Jews event, the Artillery event,... And also will be studied the situation around the Danish entry into the war as it seems very easy that moment for veteran players against AI.
Working on first patch.
So, i'm working to fix this as other minor issues like the Jews event, the Artillery event,... And also will be studied the situation around the Danish entry into the war as it seems very easy that moment for veteran players against AI.
Working on first patch.
Headquarter game designer of Battles For Spain, Ageod English Civil War, España:1936 and Thirty Years War
HQ website
-
Offworlder
- General
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
- Location: Malta
-
Gullwing91
- Conscript
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:05 pm
Interesting and thoughtful comments from people who clearly have a lot more experience playing Ageod games than I have. My personal view about this is that balance is fine but there should always be an historically faithful core at the heart of any game that claims historical accuracy. Once you have that core, you can enhance by strengthening a side that in real life was very weak for example, both as an interesting "might have been" and to provide a balanced version for multiplayer use or to suit personal preference. However such remodelling of the past should be explicit IMHO. I confess to being very preoccupied (that's the kind way of putting it) with historical accuracy. For example I like EAW a lot but the treatment of naval forces is too inaccurate for my tastes. Fortunately I don't know enough about the 30 Years War yet to judge the accuracy of the game but from what I can remember there were periods when both sides walked all over the other one and it could be years before the balance of power changed. In the meantime the poor peasantry suffered horribly and there were all kinds of horrors like huge witch hunts. I'll be interested to see what turns up as I play.
-Nerf Ep and make more economy and diplomatic choice. Choices should be important, i dont want to be abble to choose Spain AND Pope for ex, i want to calculate wich side is the best.
-Make diplomacy something important, put some troops from some states like Mainz in catholic force (with a special flag), and if Mainz change side, then remove this troops. Actually , diplomacy is bugged and useless.
-More variety of units and maybe make a bigger stack of available pool of units .
-Nerf decisions (like the decision to convert province)to make them more strategic to play.
-Make diplomacy something important, put some troops from some states like Mainz in catholic force (with a special flag), and if Mainz change side, then remove this troops. Actually , diplomacy is bugged and useless.
-More variety of units and maybe make a bigger stack of available pool of units .
-Nerf decisions (like the decision to convert province)to make them more strategic to play.
I know that people have a tendency to only report what they dislike, and somehow this is 'normal', but do not hesitate to speak also about what you appreciate, as it can be also important for the designer!
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Offworlder
- General
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
- Location: Malta
Lysimaque wrote:-Nerf Ep and make more economy and diplomatic choice. Choices should be important, i dont want to be abble to choose Spain AND Pope for ex, i want to calculate wich side is the best.
-Make diplomacy something important, put some troops from some states like Mainz in catholic force (with a special flag), and if Mainz change side, then remove this troops. Actually , diplomacy is bugged and useless.
-More variety of units and maybe make a bigger stack of available pool of units .
-Nerf decisions (like the decision to convert province)to make them more strategic to play.
Interesting suggestions. However, Diplomacy at that time was more about creating goodwill and access through the states within the HRE rather than their activation in the war (even for Saxony and Brandenburg). One thing that is a bit confusing is the fact that Cologne, Mainz and Trier were original members of the Catholic League, though I guess they could be detached if the French made an effort (though only after 1635 when all leagues were banned under the Peace of Prague). So at most, they could be either open once the war expands, or at least are 100% Imperialist so that they contribute money and recruits from the beginning of the game. I'm not sure that they had their own armies.
I have done the Bohemian Revolt short scenario and now am in the middle of the long campaign, and I am enjoying it immensely. Like Espania 1936, the developer does a very good job of giving very little money combined with the need for a lot of replacements. You start becoming very careful about what replacement chits you buy, and you become cautious about the risks you are willing to take with your armies that you have just slowly nurtured back from tatters. Especially with winter, which killed far more of my men than my opponents until I got the hang of things. The winter has the feel of WIA, an aspect which I have always liked. In RUS or CW2 I march my men all over the place whatever the season, but in TYW I start getting nervous about locating where my winter retreats will be in August, and positively panicky in October. That makes sense, given the era.
I agree that some of the EP things are a bit spammy, especially the diplomacy, and I like Lysimaque's suggestions regarding those. I didn't find the EP endless, though, and I was using them pretty aggressively to convert cities that I wanted to collect from in the future. I also liked how I could have an officer (also in short supply) moving from city to city to collect for my cause. I had to weigh the value of the officer's incoming-producing activities with creating a battle group, and so increasing the (effective) size of army I could field somewhere.
Unlike others, I have seen very decisive battles, where entire armies have been shred to bits. Yes, the slower moving armies and the winter cuts down on how often decisive battles occur, but as someone pointed out that is probably keeping with the era this game is set in. (By the way, artillery really slows you down, and I found myself sometimes reluctantly leaving artillery behind in order to make a quick advance. I love these kind of hard decisions.)
I would very much recommend this game, for not only the very pleasing graphics and historical immersion, but also the fun gameplay. The developer has a good sense of putting players in a hard spot where they have few resources and many needs.
I agree that some of the EP things are a bit spammy, especially the diplomacy, and I like Lysimaque's suggestions regarding those. I didn't find the EP endless, though, and I was using them pretty aggressively to convert cities that I wanted to collect from in the future. I also liked how I could have an officer (also in short supply) moving from city to city to collect for my cause. I had to weigh the value of the officer's incoming-producing activities with creating a battle group, and so increasing the (effective) size of army I could field somewhere.
Unlike others, I have seen very decisive battles, where entire armies have been shred to bits. Yes, the slower moving armies and the winter cuts down on how often decisive battles occur, but as someone pointed out that is probably keeping with the era this game is set in. (By the way, artillery really slows you down, and I found myself sometimes reluctantly leaving artillery behind in order to make a quick advance. I love these kind of hard decisions.)
I would very much recommend this game, for not only the very pleasing graphics and historical immersion, but also the fun gameplay. The developer has a good sense of putting players in a hard spot where they have few resources and many needs.
I have to come down solidly on the side of liking TYW immensely. A couple of years into the Grand Campaign as the Protestants and my errors have been exploited quite nicely by the AI. The AGE 2 engine is perfect for this subject given the size of the theatre, low unit density and limited mobility while the ebb and flow of the action seems entirely reasonable. TYW looks magnificent, runs well and appears to have captured the flavour of the period; Kudos to the HQ team for a job well done.
-C
-C
I played one game so far, Bohemian Revolt HRE. I really think it captures the difficulty of managing armies. I spent most of my time not doing anything and trying to make sure I kept the Austrian army intact. I didn't recruit much, luckily as I just about managed to stay solvent later in the game. I spent most of my time sending Croatian cavalry to burn everything they could.
Later when I tried to concentrate I was hit by a road penalty and my plan was completely undone. I managed to get a marginal victory in the end, which is really a loss given the Catholic advantage by end game. Very pleased with how the game looks and feels.
Only slight concern is that there aren't many opportunities in this scenario to do things differently. Hopefully the others will offer more choices.
Great job! And a personal dream to finally play a TYW game!
Later when I tried to concentrate I was hit by a road penalty and my plan was completely undone. I managed to get a marginal victory in the end, which is really a loss given the Catholic advantage by end game. Very pleased with how the game looks and feels.
Only slight concern is that there aren't many opportunities in this scenario to do things differently. Hopefully the others will offer more choices.
Great job! And a personal dream to finally play a TYW game!
-
H Gilmer3
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
- Location: United States of America
I cannot tell you how much the graphics are excellent in this game. No offense to Pocus and the artists that worked on other titles, but the graphics in Thirty Years War are top notch and very colorful.
To End All Wars AAR in the War Room. Join us as we laugh, we cry, we drink beer, and we joke on how badly I play......
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36936-To-End-All-Wars-AAR-Western-Entente-against-the-AI-of-Central-Powers!
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36936-To-End-All-Wars-AAR-Western-Entente-against-the-AI-of-Central-Powers!
-
loki100
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
- Location: Caithness
- Contact: Website Twitter
I'm having great fun with it, its like Wars In America, very elegant, very much feint and thrust and you really need to watch supply and the seasons.
The graphics are just gorgeous, having been playing a lot of Pike and Shot its nice to explore the wider context to the set piece battles in that game.
The graphics are just gorgeous, having been playing a lot of Pike and Shot its nice to explore the wider context to the set piece battles in that game.
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
Leibstandarte wrote:I agree that EP's have to be revised. And seems that a mid game Catholic Victory is not happening after Denmark Surrender, this leads to lot of months not happening nothing.
So, i'm working to fix this as other minor issues like the Jews event, the Artillery event,... And also will be studied the situation around the Danish entry into the war as it seems very easy that moment for veteran players against AI.
Working on first patch.
Will this patch be save game compatible?
-
Leibst
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact: Website Facebook
Probably yes.
Headquarter game designer of Battles For Spain, Ageod English Civil War, España:1936 and Thirty Years War
HQ website
-
Leibst
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact: Website Facebook
Good to see people from Bulgary, 
and good you like the game, with the time i hope to make it better.
and good you like the game, with the time i hope to make it better.Headquarter game designer of Battles For Spain, Ageod English Civil War, España:1936 and Thirty Years War
HQ website
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests