I have read the rules, played the tutorials, started a campaign, and am experienced with BoA. Great job Pocus and crew!!!! Probably the best wargame out there.
It lacks one thing, IMHO.
The battles. It would be great to have the option of watching the battles unfold. What I am thinking is not along the lines of FoF/CoG. But more along the lines of Dominions 3. The FoF model would ruin the game for PBEM. But since AACW is simul-play, being able to watch the battles unfold would be great fun. Even if we didn't have much effect on the outcome. What I would really like to see is being able to set up battle lines and target types, like in Dominions 3, and let the battle unfold as it will. But even given having not THAT much control, it would still be great to be able to watch the battles. Different uniforms would represent different troop types. A variety of terrain maps, etc., etc. There wouldn't be nearly as many different troop types for AGEOD to design as in D3. And of course, we could have the option of NOT watching the battle, but just read the report.
DON'T SHOOT ME POCUS!!!!!!!!!
leure 
I can confirm that what you're suggesting would probably take literally thousands of hours of development time.-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
Well, Jim, I hate to be disagreeable, but I disagree.
There are a lot of problems with strategic games that attempt to depict tactical battles, and I have yet to see one that succeeds (my wargame club has copies of most of the big ones that have come out in recent times, like Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory, and we have knocked them about for some time, the general consensus among us being that they just aren't very good. Of course, we are pretty much all the old, crusty grognard type, so, you know...).
First, it interrupts the flow of the strategic game and forces you to re-focus on a level different from the one you took when you started playing the game. I find this more annoying than entertaining.
Second, the designers of the strategic simulation sweated bullets over getting the "historicity" right - numbers of casualties, possibilities for success by both sides, the general sweep and flow of the war. When you allow player manipulation of tactical battles, you have merely opened another can of worms, presented the possibility of any number of spanners being thrown into the works, and (insert another hopelessly trite metaphor of your choice here). For example, how have you skewed the game when you allow the human player to beat up on the poor old AI in the tactical battles? We all know how to figure out an AI's weaknesses in battle games and eventually become invincible.
Third, how do you depict these things without doing the generic "Imperialism" approach where there are just a few battlefields, and the program picks one that resembles the area in which the battle is taking place? I don't want to fight Gettysburg on a map that "kind of" looks like Gettysburg.
Fourth, what about how the battle fits together with the strategic game? In AACW, for example, you have the "march to the guns" intra-army corps mutual support feature (gee, I love that kind of talk, makes me sound like one of those insufferable "logistics" colonels I used to have to deal with). How do you handle that? How big is the tactical battlefield? How do you depict fortifications (which can change on the strategic level) and riverine combat?
How much design and development time do you want devoted to all this messing around, adding drastically to the amount of time needed to produce the strategic game and ending up with, the way I see it, a beast that is inferior to what you would have had without tactical battles.
Fifth, ... ummm ... I can't remember what was fifth ... maybe it's time to go open up a fifth...
Anyway, Jim, I'm just trying to present a friendly, contrasting viewpoint. I appreciate your taste in gaming, and I hope you're getting what you want from the hobby. I don't care for those odd "hybrid" games - they just don't work for me.
It's nice, by the way, to discuss things with the good, intelligent folk (I would add "reasonable and normal," but would have to eliminate myself by definitional exclusion) who populate these forums (as opposed to another place, which shall remain nameless, that seems, of late, to have been overrun by punks, pismires, and woodpeckerheads).
There are a lot of problems with strategic games that attempt to depict tactical battles, and I have yet to see one that succeeds (my wargame club has copies of most of the big ones that have come out in recent times, like Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory, and we have knocked them about for some time, the general consensus among us being that they just aren't very good. Of course, we are pretty much all the old, crusty grognard type, so, you know...).
First, it interrupts the flow of the strategic game and forces you to re-focus on a level different from the one you took when you started playing the game. I find this more annoying than entertaining.
Second, the designers of the strategic simulation sweated bullets over getting the "historicity" right - numbers of casualties, possibilities for success by both sides, the general sweep and flow of the war. When you allow player manipulation of tactical battles, you have merely opened another can of worms, presented the possibility of any number of spanners being thrown into the works, and (insert another hopelessly trite metaphor of your choice here). For example, how have you skewed the game when you allow the human player to beat up on the poor old AI in the tactical battles? We all know how to figure out an AI's weaknesses in battle games and eventually become invincible.
Third, how do you depict these things without doing the generic "Imperialism" approach where there are just a few battlefields, and the program picks one that resembles the area in which the battle is taking place? I don't want to fight Gettysburg on a map that "kind of" looks like Gettysburg.
Fourth, what about how the battle fits together with the strategic game? In AACW, for example, you have the "march to the guns" intra-army corps mutual support feature (gee, I love that kind of talk, makes me sound like one of those insufferable "logistics" colonels I used to have to deal with). How do you handle that? How big is the tactical battlefield? How do you depict fortifications (which can change on the strategic level) and riverine combat?
How much design and development time do you want devoted to all this messing around, adding drastically to the amount of time needed to produce the strategic game and ending up with, the way I see it, a beast that is inferior to what you would have had without tactical battles.
Fifth, ... ummm ... I can't remember what was fifth ... maybe it's time to go open up a fifth...
Anyway, Jim, I'm just trying to present a friendly, contrasting viewpoint. I appreciate your taste in gaming, and I hope you're getting what you want from the hobby. I don't care for those odd "hybrid" games - they just don't work for me.
It's nice, by the way, to discuss things with the good, intelligent folk (I would add "reasonable and normal," but would have to eliminate myself by definitional exclusion) who populate these forums (as opposed to another place, which shall remain nameless, that seems, of late, to have been overrun by punks, pismires, and woodpeckerheads).
pasternakski wrote:How much design and development time do you want devoted to all this messing around, adding drastically to the amount of time needed to produce the strategic game and ending up with, the way I see it, a beast that is inferior to what you would have had without tactical battles.
I fully agree. IMHO each well designed game must have a 'point of view' (head of state, general in chief, army general, ...).
If I need a regimental level grand tactical fix, I can fire up the HPS Civil War games. The newer ones have a campaign game level.
If I want even lower tactical level, MMG is a great fix.
I, for one, do not want ageod wasting time on a tactical battle engine - they need to keep this great campaign/strategy level system in development to improve what they have and add more wars and campaigns; we have BoA 2.0 and VoN to look forward too in the coming months...
If I want even lower tactical level, MMG is a great fix.
I, for one, do not want ageod wasting time on a tactical battle engine - they need to keep this great campaign/strategy level system in development to improve what they have and add more wars and campaigns; we have BoA 2.0 and VoN to look forward too in the coming months...
What I want to see is the battles as they are, but a little more spicey: given the complexity of the battle engine it should be possible (I dont kown what I'm talking about, but sounds reasonabe) to offer a more detailed report that described how the battle unfolded. I mean: wich regiment fired first agaist whom; who tried to retreat but failed and how many casualties did he take; wich cavalry units harrassed the routing enemy and that kind of thing.
As of now the moving dial, the icons and the total number of casualties remain a little aseptic, at least compared with the inmersion that the game brings as a whole.
Edit: Ah, yeah, and the strategy guide too if it is not much to ask
As of now the moving dial, the icons and the total number of casualties remain a little aseptic, at least compared with the inmersion that the game brings as a whole.
Edit: Ah, yeah, and the strategy guide too if it is not much to ask
Pasternakski and Wilhammer:
First: It's OK to disagree. That's what these forums are for. That is how we arrive at the game we have today. AND....we don't disagree so much. I purchased CoG from day one and FoF about the same time. You can find some of my posts early on in the FoF forum. The LAST thing I want is a convoluted tactical battle in the sense that FoF presents it. While fun...sorta... this is not the theme of a Strategic game. The game system will work great playing PBEM (I know it does cuz I played BoA by email...check out the AAR "Too Far for War" thread. I was the American). If one tried to follow the FoF model, it would royally screw up PBEM. Your post sounded like you assumed that's where I was heading. Not only no, but HELL NO.
Second: Have you played Dominions 3? In that game (It is a multi-player..I dunno...I've seen up to 21 players per game, maybe more...), all turns are resolved simultaneously. The player moves his forces on a Strategic map, buying forces, improving his infrastructure and economy (It is a Medieval-Fantasy game) and so forth. One of his options is to set up his battle lines in advance of the turn. By doing so, he can, for example, set his Cavalry on his flank, and order it to attack the rear of the enemy. Archers (artillery) can be ordered to fire at enemy targets. These targets may be pre-defined as enemy archers, cavalry, closest enemy, and so forth. When you are finished making your move orders, you upload the turn (or you can email it to a host.....kinda like BoA and AACW). The orders are resolved at one time for all players (kinda like BoA and AACW). When your new turn arrives, you have the OPTION to watch the battle, or just read the synopsis. Battles are carried out on random battle maps. They are great fun to watch develop. I think this idea could work with the AACW system as well. Dom3 is a strategic game that has a tactical replay. The tactical orders one gives during the Strategic portion of the game are vague at best. The commanders handle it from there. In BoA and AACW, the basis for the tactical is already programmed into the combat routines. We just don't get to see it happen. I think it would be a great option to be able to see it happen. For the players who don't want to watch the battles....well....they don't have to. For those of us who do.....it would complete an already great game.
I think the impetus of your disagreement comes, probably, from not having played Dom3. I think you were probably thinking more along the lines of FoF. I agree, that putting time and effort into a tactical battle system of this nature...a small part of a strategic game.....is definitely not where I want to see this system go. Not what I want to see. I would just like to see the battles. Even a Strategic game is about battles. And being able to watch them would be frosting on an already delicious cake. I have posted here enough times and PM'd Pocus enough that he should know I am a huge fan of BoA and even more of AACW. AACW gives us sooo much more. If it doesn't happen (and I am sure it won't), then we are still left with a great strategic game. Best I have seen of any era of military history. And I am more than happy with what we have. These guys are simply the best in the biz right now. Just my opinion.
First: It's OK to disagree. That's what these forums are for. That is how we arrive at the game we have today. AND....we don't disagree so much. I purchased CoG from day one and FoF about the same time. You can find some of my posts early on in the FoF forum. The LAST thing I want is a convoluted tactical battle in the sense that FoF presents it. While fun...sorta... this is not the theme of a Strategic game. The game system will work great playing PBEM (I know it does cuz I played BoA by email...check out the AAR "Too Far for War" thread. I was the American). If one tried to follow the FoF model, it would royally screw up PBEM. Your post sounded like you assumed that's where I was heading. Not only no, but HELL NO.
Second: Have you played Dominions 3? In that game (It is a multi-player..I dunno...I've seen up to 21 players per game, maybe more...), all turns are resolved simultaneously. The player moves his forces on a Strategic map, buying forces, improving his infrastructure and economy (It is a Medieval-Fantasy game) and so forth. One of his options is to set up his battle lines in advance of the turn. By doing so, he can, for example, set his Cavalry on his flank, and order it to attack the rear of the enemy. Archers (artillery) can be ordered to fire at enemy targets. These targets may be pre-defined as enemy archers, cavalry, closest enemy, and so forth. When you are finished making your move orders, you upload the turn (or you can email it to a host.....kinda like BoA and AACW). The orders are resolved at one time for all players (kinda like BoA and AACW). When your new turn arrives, you have the OPTION to watch the battle, or just read the synopsis. Battles are carried out on random battle maps. They are great fun to watch develop. I think this idea could work with the AACW system as well. Dom3 is a strategic game that has a tactical replay. The tactical orders one gives during the Strategic portion of the game are vague at best. The commanders handle it from there. In BoA and AACW, the basis for the tactical is already programmed into the combat routines. We just don't get to see it happen. I think it would be a great option to be able to see it happen. For the players who don't want to watch the battles....well....they don't have to. For those of us who do.....it would complete an already great game.
I think the impetus of your disagreement comes, probably, from not having played Dom3. I think you were probably thinking more along the lines of FoF. I agree, that putting time and effort into a tactical battle system of this nature...a small part of a strategic game.....is definitely not where I want to see this system go. Not what I want to see. I would just like to see the battles. Even a Strategic game is about battles. And being able to watch them would be frosting on an already delicious cake. I have posted here enough times and PM'd Pocus enough that he should know I am a huge fan of BoA and even more of AACW. AACW gives us sooo much more. If it doesn't happen (and I am sure it won't), then we are still left with a great strategic game. Best I have seen of any era of military history. And I am more than happy with what we have. These guys are simply the best in the biz right now. Just my opinion.
In a perfect world, the tactical system you describe sounds nice. But not at the expense of development of the strategic game. Better one feature well done than two poorly done. Perhaps in some future iteration.
Frankly, I wish the AGEOD guys would team up with the Mad Minute guys and figure out how to mesh their two already-perfected systems.
Frankly, I wish the AGEOD guys would team up with the Mad Minute guys and figure out how to mesh their two already-perfected systems.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
jimkehn wrote:Pasternakski and Wilhammer:
These guys are simply the best in the biz right now. Just my opinion.
Great post, Jim. I doubt that I will ever even consider buying D3, due to the subject. Who knows, though, maybe there'll be an uprising among the troops in my wargaming club, and we'll cough up a few 10-spots from our limited and always battered treasury, so, maybe someday I'll get a peek over somebody's shoulder.
As for any "disagreement" between us, I think maybe I should have said "alternate preferences," instead.
Meanwhile, back in Northern Virginia, I've got to figure out how to sideslip the Union army and create my own version of a Lee invasion of the north (which, considering what an inept idiot I am so far, will likely end as a colossal disaster - but a FUN colossal disaster ...).
The only real expansion to the battles that I want (And I think may be implemented at some point) is a better breakdown of how the battles played out. It doesn't even need to be in-game, though that would be nice. A log file saying that the initial forces were so and so. In the first hour, Gen. Smith was committed to battle, flanking Gen. Doe's force and causing it to rout. Something like that with the progress of the battles hour by hour. I'd also like to see the general's success or failure determined by more than simply casualty ratios. A force can be decimated, but if they accomplish a certain objective (rearguard, piercing a defensive position) then the general should get recognized.
While actually seeing the little guys running around would be kinda cool, it really wouldn't fit in a game of this scale...and it definitely isn't worth the coding time required to implement it.
While actually seeing the little guys running around would be kinda cool, it really wouldn't fit in a game of this scale...and it definitely isn't worth the coding time required to implement it.
I guess I am just expanding on what most of you are saying. Most of us want to see expanded battle results. That is what I want the most. Only I have taken it to the next level by wanting to see it happen. Not just read about it in the morning papers. Having played a game that does just that, I now know what a gratifying effect it is to watch the battles you plan take place. In this particular game, there are no battlefield command decisions you make, no moving units behind the hill. None of that. The strategic decision is made at the strategic level during the strategic game. You just get to watch the fruit of your labors rather than read a casualty list.
But.....in the end....I hafta agree with those of you who say it probably isn't worth the time it would take to write the code. In the end, I think I would rather see them get on with Vainglory of Nations. Just a nice thought.
Pasternakski....I know whatcha mean. I'm a few days behind. I was out of town and didn't want to download the game from the motel room so I waited til this past weekend to get started. Having played the tutorials and the Shiloh campaign, I am now starting the real one. While I beat the AI in VP and NM, "She" 8^) played me to a stalemate. I have an ominous feeling about the Grand Campaign.
But.....in the end....I hafta agree with those of you who say it probably isn't worth the time it would take to write the code. In the end, I think I would rather see them get on with Vainglory of Nations. Just a nice thought.
Pasternakski....I know whatcha mean. I'm a few days behind. I was out of town and didn't want to download the game from the motel room so I waited til this past weekend to get started. Having played the tutorials and the Shiloh campaign, I am now starting the real one. While I beat the AI in VP and NM, "She" 8^) played me to a stalemate. I have an ominous feeling about the Grand Campaign.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
Spharv2 wrote:A log file saying that the initial forces were so and so. In the first hour, Gen. Smith was committed to battle, flanking Gen. Doe's force and causing it to rout. Something like that with the progress of the battles hour by hour.
Hmmm... could it be done (and would anyone else want it to be done) as the commanding general's report on the battle? You know, you get the general's portrait and the report appears on some kind of period-flavor writing paper.
"From: Gen. Jubilation T. Cornpone
To: (insert battlefield commander's immediate superior)
I am pleased to report, Mr. President (or General So-and-So), that we met the enemy today at _____, and, by the Lord's blessing, we were victorious. The details follow ..."
i'd have to agree.
when i see those battle reports, i wish we could see which units did what to whom, and who led and who charged or sniped, which regiment captured the other etc...
i know it's probably a pipe dream, but with so much focus on indvidual
elemets, i'd at least like the ability to know which units/leaders are performing well. just that extra level of depth would make this excellent game that much better.
merely my opinion on a possible way to better an already excellent game (imagine that, a game that's functioning as designed at version 1.xx)
congrats Pocus et al. this one's a winner.
when i see those battle reports, i wish we could see which units did what to whom, and who led and who charged or sniped, which regiment captured the other etc...
i know it's probably a pipe dream, but with so much focus on indvidual
elemets, i'd at least like the ability to know which units/leaders are performing well. just that extra level of depth would make this excellent game that much better.
merely my opinion on a possible way to better an already excellent game (imagine that, a game that's functioning as designed at version 1.xx)
congrats Pocus et al. this one's a winner.
Hehe ... Not fundamentally against having a dominions like module, where you can issue beforehand only general orders, but this is a game in a game, really and it would comes at the expense of too much things, unless we hire a developer just for that. A good game must always has a clear focus, so for now with our limited resources, the focus is on strategy before being on tactics.
That said... we know that the battle report is a bit lacking. We also have many requests surfacing to flesh it out, so for our 3rd game, we will add more details into the battle report, with perhaps even some graphical feedback (portrait of generals, details on units, etc.) , and a detailed report (kind of an illustrated log) of what happened. Time will tell...
That said... we know that the battle report is a bit lacking. We also have many requests surfacing to flesh it out, so for our 3rd game, we will add more details into the battle report, with perhaps even some graphical feedback (portrait of generals, details on units, etc.) , and a detailed report (kind of an illustrated log) of what happened. Time will tell...
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests