AACW, baby, AACW

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
It seems many are mesmerized by how it seems to be but so much is "under the hood" that it feels like I'm being fooled by smoke and mirrors, and a pretty game board face.

I have to say that AACW does have a LOT going on under the hood for their quick battles. It's probably the best quick battle resolution system I've seen for this period. While I agree that sometimes I want to fight it out with a more detailed battle, they really do have a good system under the hood, it's not just smoke and mirrors. From the time I've spent with AACW so far, the quick battle results seem very consistent. I did get an occasional odd result in BOA (still a fantastic game) but I haven't seen that yet in AACW. My only issue so far has been that I simply haven't had enough time to play much AACW other than testing the very small scenarios as it's definitely in the WITP scale of time commitment from what I've seen so far. I think in a few years once my son is in school, perhaps I can start a grand campaign. [;)]

Anyway, back to lurking...

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
I don't need a pure tactical game but battle results could be much more involved and with immersion. As is now it really just is like pushing pieces around a board for little satisfaction. It seems many are mesmerized by how it seems to be but so much is "under the hood" that it feels like I'm being fooled by smoke and mirrors, and a pretty game board face.

What's the difference between a PC resolving the dice rolls for a tactical combat or strategic combat?

BOA and "under the hood" is quite misleading, every modifier and it's effects and calculations were available in the battle report. It's also pretty easy to get a feel for when you accidently run your militia into Cornwallis

I expect something similar in the new game.

For period tactical games I like the Battleground series (and was looking forward to Battles Of Napoleon) as games such as that are 10 times the detail which you'll find in a hybrid game.

--------

ORIGINAL: Ravinhood Ahhh but we do not live in a world of clones of Dinsdales. We live in a world of uniqueness. Personally I would find myself boring both online and real life if I were your clone Dinny ole boy.

Of course you would. The truly obnoxious declare everything boring which doesn't propel them to centre of attention. Your posts have become more and more desperate in search of controversy, whether here or the game forums such as Close Combat where you do nothing more than troll.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
I expect something similar in the new game.

It's pretty much identical in that respect.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The issue with games like this and even FOF is that while historically set in the timeframe they never or rarely meet historical realism for the battles. There will rarely be a major battle at Gettysburg or a very slim chance of it. Or Vicksburg or Shilo or Antietam or any of the other "famous" battles, because these operational games just can't simulate them and be open operational strategic games.

This is a red herring. I could say the same of any tactical battle. What, you didn't launch Pickett's charge against Meade's center? You choose another assault on his flank? What, you crushed Lee at Chancellorville by holding off Jackson and strking at Lee? How unhistorical! You didn't repeat the same mistakes made by the original commanders? What kind of game allows you to change history?! Blasphemy, I say, blasphemy!

I think you get my point. The whole point of a game is to allow you to change history. If the CSA commander decides to adopt a more defensive strategy such that Gettysburg never happens, then more power to him. That's what it's all about.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Ravinhood Ahhh but we do not live in a world of clones of Dinsdales. We live in a world of uniqueness. Personally I would find myself boring both online and real life if I were your clone Dinny ole boy.

Of course you would. The truly obnoxious declare everything boring which doesn't propel them to centre of attention. Your posts have become more and more desperate in search of controversy, whether here or the game forums such as Close Combat where you do nothing more than troll.

Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha[:D] I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha[:D] I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol

I'm sorry, when you went on the COI forum advising people not to buy the game at it's price you weren't trolling? When you constantly repeat the same mantra in every post about games you claim to have played but not bought you're not trolling?

As for childish name calling, you patented that a long time ago with your shrill, repetative "kiddie clickfest" labelling.

Whether you're a "MAN" or not I can't say. No sign of it from your posting.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Bravo and look who acts like a child tossing out childish name calling. lol. Now, who's the better MAN here. hahaaha[:D] I thought you were more grownup than that Dinny ole boy. Guess not. lol

I'm sorry, when you went on the COI forum advising people not to buy the game at it's price you weren't trolling? When you constantly repeat the same mantra in every post about games you claim to have played but not bought you're not trolling?

As for childish name calling, you patented that a long time ago with your shrill, repetative "kiddie clickfest" labelling.

Whether you're a "MAN" or not I can't say. No sign of it from your posting.

Nope sure wasn't. I was stating MY god given OPINION to the price and what the game entails as far as being a kiddie clickfest. It's become a very popular form of describing an rts game (hey maybe thanks to me) and that's the way I see it and that's the way I calls it. But, it's not titling anyone specifically as you do by calling my actions "trolling". Very different and apples to oranges in usage of terms where one is an opinion and statement and the other is a direct attack.

It also reads lately from your posts like you might have a tumor have you had that checked lately? You appear highly agitated and irriateable lately, common signs of a tumor in the brain.

[pasternakski]

You know, I'm having a lot of fun playing AACW. It gets better and better the more you understand about it - and there's a lot to learn.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You know, I'm having a lot of fun playing AACW. It gets better and better the more you understand about it - and there's a lot to learn.

Same here, almost as much fun as the Matrix Forums tonight...reading everyone insulting each other. It's like Fight Night at the Olympic Auditorium...is it a full moon?
Seriously, AACW is a gem and should get Wargame Of The Year if not Decade. After a couple days of play i am starting to miss the tactical combat of FOF...funny how these things tie together...they both offer something unique.
I have to disagree with Erik though, i think FOF is a longer game in general, especially if you fight the battles yourself which IMO is the most enjoyable/rewarding way.
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.

[Erik Rutins]

Ravinhood, Dinsdale,

Knock it off. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[DuckofTindalos]

Wonder if there's a research module in this game... Can't find mention of it on its site...

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wonder if there's a research module in this game... Can't find mention of it on its site...

Nope. There are a few political options and such to play with (calling for volunteers, moving the capital etc) but AACW is a wargame, not a strategy/wargame hybrid as is FoF.

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.

Agreed. That's a very good way of putting it, actually. After a couple of days play it's certainly my favourite of the two.

[DuckofTindalos]

Thanks, Hertston... Doesn't sound like it's for me, then...

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Which one is better? That's a matter of preference, i'd have to say that AACW's approachability and historical flavor combined with gorgeous artwork and effortless gameplay give it an advantage.

Agreed. That's a very good way of putting it, actually. After a couple of days play it's certainly my favourite of the two.

Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.

Regards,

- Erik

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.

Regards,

- Erik

Although there is much under the hood EVERYTHING you need is on the playing field via screens or tooltips. The tutorial goes into enough detail to begin playing, the manipulation of units<containers> is straightforward and the added economic/diplomatic elements are not too overwhelming but again, the tooltips help.
In fact, it is one of those "easy to play, hard to master" games because after learning the basics you get the fun part...Strategy. I think you'd agree that FOF is a little more complicated, further bogging the player down is/was the WAD dilemma which is understandable with a game of this scope.
In summary: AACW has more Fun Factor where FOF demands "work" (if you want to live).
On the other hand, i'm one of those people who could play HW all day long...different strokes

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Although there is much under the hood EVERYTHING you need is on the playing field via screens or tooltips. The tutorial goes into enough detail to begin playing, the manipulation of units<containers> is straightforward and the added economic/diplomatic elements are not too overwhelming but again, the tooltips help.

Thanks for the response. I mean this as an honest query (not a dig at AACW, which we hope to distribute as well and which I am enjoying quite a bit) as I found the games of similar complexity and in some ways thought FOF was easier. I love both games, but as a designer/producer am interested in learning how they come across and what makes it so for gamers. In AACW, I have to go into the ledger just as one has to go into three or four list type screens in FOF each turn to manage various off map functions. FOF has plenty of tooltips and a Flash tutorial that goes through basic interface and container management. I actually find the interfaces quite similar complexity-wise and design-wise.

I guess the in-game tutorial AACW has is a superior way to learn, but I'm trying to figure out if that's really all there is to it as far as the impression of greater approachability. If I were dumped in either game without a tutorial, I think I'd probably find FOF easier, so I'm guessing the AACW tutorial scenarios are what make the difference. One thing I've found a bit cumbersome in terms of managing containers in AACW is the need to split/disassemble them fairly often when I want to reorganize. It's easy to add units in, but I haven't figured out how to get units out without disassembling the whole container. I haven't read the entire manual yet though, so this may just be my inexperience.

In fact, it is one of those "easy to play, hard to master" games because after learning the basics you get the fun part...Strategy. I think you'd agree that FOF is a little more complicated, further bogging the player down is/was the WAD dilemma which is understandable with a game of this scope.

I found AACW to be beautifully elegant and fun in the smaller scenarios like Shiloh and Bull Run, but so far I haven't gotten far into the main campaign because of the amount of management it requires each turn to check all my units, reinforcements, new militias, etc. It's taking me a lot more work thus far to get through a turn than BOA or FOF does and I'm wondering if I'm the only one seeing that. FOF feels to me a bit more like playing Third Reich while AACW is feeling a bit more like World At War (the board game) so far. Perhaps a better comparison is to say that AACW is making me feel a bit like I'm playing WITP as far as detail, which is a good thing but not what I would ever have called "approachable".

In summary: AACW has more Fun Factor where FOF demands "work" (if you want to live). On the other hand, i'm one of those people who could play HW all day long...different strokes

Well, detailed battle certainly takes time but FOF does have both quick and instant battle options, so the addition of detailed battle _as an option_ doesn't strike me as a possible negative against FOF, but rather a positive for those who do have the time to fight things out. I think AACW's instant battle resolution is much better than FOF's but FOF's quick battle seems to take similar things into account as the battle resolution in AACW, so those seem about on par.

FOF also has its Basic and Intermediate games as options, which IMHO are much simpler games than the Advanced version and Basic doesn't even allow Detailed Battles as an option.

Anyway, I'll play around with AACW some more as time allows. I'm also working on Panzer Command Kharkov and the next FOF update, both of which take up a fair amount of my time.

In any case, I'm very glad to see such a great ACW game from AGEOD and I think ACW fans are frankly blessed to have both this and FOF and the upcoming ACW game from 2by3. Enjoy it while it lasts, folks as I can't remember the last time there was this much ACW goodness all within a year's time. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just curious - I agree that AACW is a great game and has more resolution and depth of historical detail (as far as the OOBs and map in any case), but what makes it seem more approachable to you than FOF? I see AACW as sort of a grand-operational game focused on the military side of things from what I've seen so far and it's darned good at that.

Regarding 'approachability', AACW is a lot easier to learn and get playing (once the tutorial bug was fixed, anyway!). Having played BoA helped a lot of course, but then I'd also played CoG prior to FoF as well. The only real hiccup at all is the army organisations, once you get that sussed the whole thing is very intuitive. (EDIT: point noted on this; I haven't found any easy way to disentangle a commander from his division, either. I just haven't found myself actually needing to do it that often so far.)

"Grand-operational game focused on the military side of things" describes AACW well, and that helps approachability too. There's depth without the 'width' of FoF, which gives you the 'strategic' stuff (developing cities, researching weapons, etc) as well. It's a matter of preference which style of game you prefer. I certainly prefer the AACW approach partly because it's the military aspect that interests me but mostly because such strategic layers are always (and have to be, practically) so abstract and 'gamey' they lose the historical feel.

Overall, though, I don't think any gamer with an interest in the Civil War can do without either title. They are sufficiently different to co-exist on a hard-drive, and both will be played.

FOF also has its Basic and Intermediate games as options, which IMHO are much simpler games than the Advanced version and Basic doesn't even allow Detailed Battles as an option.

Tsk, tsk Erik.. you know that the folks around here don't do "basic"! [:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Regarding 'approachability', AACW is a lot easier to learn and get playing (once the tutorial bug was fixed, anyway!). Having played BoA helped a lot of course, but then I'd also played CoG prior to FoF as well. The only real hiccup at all is the army organisations, once you get that sussed the whole thing is very intuitive. (EDIT: point noted on this; I haven't found any easy way to disentangle a commander from his division, either. I just haven't found myself actually needing to do it that often.)

Thanks, it helps to understand that - for me the jump from COG to FOF seemed pretty easy but I understand that it might not be the case for everyone. I actually found COG to be significantly less initially intuitive as far as how some of it was laid out than FOF, though I've heard from some folks that they thought the reverse.

"Grand-operational game focused on the military side of things" describes AACW well, and that helps approachability too. There's depth without the 'width' of FoF, which gives you the 'strategic' stuff (developing cities, researching weapons, etc) as well. It's a matter of preference which style of game you prefer. I certainly prefer the AACW approach partly because it's the military aspect that interests me but mostly because such strategic layers are always (and have to be, practically) so abstract and 'gamey' they lose the historical feel.

Ok - just curious, how long does it take you to do a full campaign turn in AACW vs. FOF? Currently for me, though it may be a learning curve issue still, it took me over an hour to do my first AACW turn and about 30 minutes per after that, whereas FOF turns take me about 10-15 minutes. Granted, if I choose to do a detailed battle, it will take much longer but that's apples and oranges.

I agree that to some extent strategic layers are always going to be a bit gamey. BRPs anyone? However for me at least they do add a lot and that may be where our tastes differ a bit. I enjoy being Lincoln a bit more than being Grant and I think you may be the opposite.

With that said, I find the AACW level of detail on the military side fascinating. That's where it reminds me of WITP in that I look at the resolution of the map and the detailed OOB and go "Ooh!". [8D] However, it's also still daunting for me in that same respect. I'll keep at it, though - there is definitely a wealth of info there for any wargamer.

Overall, though, I don't think any gamer with an interest in the Civil War can do without either title. They are sufficiently different to co-exist on a hard-drive, and both will be played.

I agree with that 100%, which is why I'm hoping we'll also have AACW available here in the future to make sure everyone in the community sees it and gets a chance to add it to their collections. This really is the best time for ACW gaming since the heyday of TalonSoft as far as I'm concerned.

Tsk, tsk Erik.. you know that the folks around here don't do "basic"! [:D]

Bah. [;)]

Regards,

- Erik

[TheHellPatrol]

Surely it's an individual thing as WITP was a snap for me to pick-up...although i was younger(and the kids were too[8|]). COG/FOF "appear" overcomplicated to me because i "perceive" it to be because of all the options and hidden/subtle machinations. AACW "appears" simple so i "perceive" it as such and i don't notice how much is under the hood until the "Wow Factor" hits.
This is my "psychological" evaluation of "my" thinking just to make myself clear...and a sudden excuse to use knowledge i gained in College that hasn't been lost in a group of dead brain cells<hic>[;)]. If i wasn't so "obsessive" i would have just played FOF but in reality i was always searching to find out why/how things worked...it became a fixation...that and "life" kept getting in the way[;)].
I agree Erik, the one thing that i find cumbersome with AACW is the management of the larger campaigns[X(]...sure you have "E" and "R" ( T & Y ) to cycle thru units but on a large scale it can be daunting. Let's put it this way...i will have a renewed reminder of US Geography[:D].

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok - just curious, how long does it take you to do a full campaign turn in AACW vs. FOF? Currently for me, though it may be a learning curve issue still, it took me over an hour to do my first AACW turn and about 30 minutes per after that, whereas FOF turns take me about 10-15 minutes. Granted, if I choose to do a detailed battle, it will take much longer but that's apples and oranges.

The timings are about right, I think, although on average I'd probably take longer over both, particularly FoF. I'm one of those who spends an awful lot of time mulling over possibilities before doing anything, and in FoF there are probably more possibilities to mull over due to game aspects that aren't in AACW. That's not directly a factor regarding 'approachability', I think. For example, Dominions 3 is a very 'approachable' game in that it is ridiculously easy to learn and play in terms of game mechanics, but turn lengths are just as long as FoF, and usually rather longer.

I agree that to some extent strategic layers are always going to be a bit gamey. BRPs anyone? However for me at least they do add a lot and that may be where our tastes differ a bit. I enjoy being Lincoln a bit more than being Grant and I think you may be the opposite.

Probably true, but I think a lot depends on the actual game design. Features only "add a lot" if they suit the overall game design. AACW doesn't need that strategic layer any more than it needs a tactical system. FoF needs the former if not necessarily the latter but in both cases the games deliver what they were designed to deliver, and it is that on which they should be judged. Which is 'best' is all down to personal preference, as you say.