Less is more?

[Megalomatrix]

I've been dabbling with AGEOD titles for awhile now and own most that are out there, but still only have significant experience on a couple titles. I'm thinking of picking this one up, but wanted to ask one thing:

I learned on Russian Civil War Gold and also have a decent amount of time in English Civil War. Both in terms of turn processing time and scale/AI optimization, it seems that AGEOD plays best on smaller, more focused maps. I'm a bit hesitant here as the focus seems to be on larger campaigns. But again, I lack the experience - for people who know AGEOD (and preferably this title), is this thesis valid?

I look forward to hearing from you: Please excuse any lack of searches on my part here.

[Philthib]

Yes, our feedback is similar. If there is to be a new title on the old engine, the focus will be on a smaller conflict and map [:)]

[Megalomatrix]

Thanks very much for the transparency! Very impressive, and a good argument for supporting this engine further.

[Phoenix100]

Some people swear by CW2 though, where the conflicts are large - larger than in this title, I think. Then again, some people criticise the AI in CW2 too, but usually those are the folks that criticise the AI in all titles....In terms of these criticisms, I think you have to distinguish between titles with ONLY 2 sides in action, essentially, whether large, long-time-line or small and short, and those with many sides. So the most criticism I've seen has been levelled at Wars of Napoleon, where the AI has to handle many smaller factions/countries, and there seems to be a consensus that that doesn't work so well. But in CW2, though large, it's just 2 sides, and it works better. That's how I've read the posts, anyhow... This game has only 2 sides, happily.