Birth of America 2: Wars in America is the much expanded reprise of veteran developer AGEOD’s acclaimed first release, which allows players to command either side of the conflicts before, during and after the American War for Independence between 1636 and 1815. Apart from the engaging turn-based strategy play that has been expanded and vastly improved over the original, Birth of America 2: Wars in America includes major new features like an improved and expanded map including the Mississippi River, new European off-map boxes (France, Great Britain, Spain, Holland) and more.
In my opinion, B0A2 is in no way a 'big beast'. It's a big improvement on BoA (which I enjoyed immensely). It's not really any more complex in terms of management. you have a few more options regarding replacements/diplomacy and you have to decide how to prioritise these but it's no chore and adds depth at the expense of very little time). There's more sophistication in attrition/supply but this doesn't actually affect playability at all. Just means a little bit more thinking (as opposed to managing) is required.
If you liked BoA, you'll love BoA2 I think. It's the same but better. More challenging but no more difficult to play in a 'management' sense.
Since you have mastered SpWaW, this should be a walk in the park for you. Good luck! Enjoy.[:)]
No, my friend, it ISN'T a walk in the park. I've spent so much time playing in a narrow tactical realm that now this continental theater is a bit overwhelming. Going from a Lt Colonel to de facto President of a not-yet-formed US, in war time, is quite a leap.
Perhaps you should just get the easy version Civilization IV:Colonization [:D]
It's a big improvement on BoA (which I enjoyed immensely).
It is an improvement but, as it first appeared, in no way does it justify a 'new game' tag and price; it's an expansion pack at best. As I waited until I could get it at 'expansion pack' price with the UK box release, no real cause for complaint, I suppose. I was surprised they didn't do extra tutorials, which are clearly needed. Both ACW and Nappy are much better in that regard.
I honestly can't see a need for tutorials. I picked up the essentials after a couple of trial goes at a few turns of the French and Indian campaign and the experience of BoA.
And as for price I thought it was fair enough. After all the map is much bigger (in terms of numbers of regions) and everything is improved over the old BoA. Twenty quid well spent.
I honestly can't see a need for tutorials. I picked up the essentials after a couple of trial goes at a few turns of the French and Indian campaign and the experience of BoA.
My point was that as BoA 2 is "new game", and not expansion pack, presumably a great many purchasers will not have "experience of BoA"!
Hi
Its true the WIA tutorial is the same than the BoA one. And a little too short.
But most of the new additions of WIA are not really the kind of thing you explain on a tutorial (basic interface, movement and game concepts). They are more under the hood or not so basic parts of the game (cohesion, attrition, EP, intervention, naval boxes, buying options...)
AACW and NCP had more tutorials and more complex as they had the added complexity of the chain of command system (something you really need to learn how to do interface wise).
WIA works 90% the same that BoA interface wise. Its pretty straightforward iMHO
Most of rest can be learned with the very informative tooltips and some checking of the manual.
About the new game/expansion thing... well i think WIA adds probably as much as Hoi 2 added to Hoi1 or EU2 to EU 1 on gameplay changes.
And on top of it it has a bigger new map (about 2x size of the original) and quite a lot of new scenarios and campaigns.
Graphics wise it can look like an expansion. In content and gameplay improvements i would say its a worthy BoA 2 full game.
And IMHO, BoA/WIA graphic style is still better looking than 99% of the war games around. No need to change what is already outstanding. [&o]
Regards
And yes, it provides just as much 'extra' as Arsan said in his above examples. And to be honest at £20 or so it's not actually that much pricier than many expansion packs...
No, WITP deserves something like a "motherf*****g-insane" difficulty level.
This game should be described as hard. It's a fantastic game--but to describe it's difficulty level and/or learning curve as "moderate" borders on the deceptive.
This series of games isn't really that hard and I think why some see it as complex is because it's just not what most of us are used to. A simple interface with point-click-attack and move onto the next unit. These series of games are very much like the old board wargames of the 60's and 70's to me. I'm so into playing the newer style of wargaming that these types don't give me the fun value as say a Combat Mission or Steel Panthers and now Kharkov OWS and the last one. I really like the man vs man or squad vs squad type wargames today vs old school.
[&:]
I think i don't get most of what you mean... but we agree on that WIA is not a very difficult to play game [:)]
But, you are saying that tactical games are "new style" and strategic/operational ones are "old style"??
You mean that Steel Panthers, a game +15 years old is new style just because its tactical. [&:]
I loved and played SP for years starting in the nineties but i can't hardly agree is a "new style" game. I find it quite traditional.
I would say that in a sense, AGEOD games play like an operational version of Combat Mission because of the simultaneous turn resolution.
If you what to try real "new style" wargames check Conquest of the Aegean [:)]
Awesome and really innovative. [&o]
To this gamer, it is exceedingly complex what with all the micromanagement involved in a long campaign. As I have never previously played an AGEOD game, perhaps my unfamiliarity with their concepts seems a bit intimidating. I jumped right into the full War of Independence, and perhaps I bit off more than I can chew. The tutorial just scratches the surface.
Am I alone here? Maybe not, as I have yet to see any strategic guides. All I have to go on is the actual history, which I'm working on absorbing.
Great Game and go Dodgers in 09
everyday congress meets we lose a little more of our liberty. and a republic is not the majority gets to bash the resistance. thank God for the electoral collage.
I'd say that this isn't a complicated game. There's lots and lots of units to move about, but when you look at it properly, there's not really a whole lot to do with them.
Mechanically speaking the BoA/WiA series is NOT hard to learn or play. The tool-tip interface provides a great deal of information during gameplay. I learned very quicky, while never bothering to consult the manual, since it was already out of date.
BoA/WiA allows you simplicity and lets you focus on force composition and strategic movement during gameplay. The more time you dedicate to this, the more fun you have. But for many people, this is just not enough depth to make the game interesting.
The artwrok for BoA/WiA is unequalled in the current strategy gaming world.
Initially BoA2, was to be an expansion of BoA, but as time wen't on, someone decided, it should be another title (with all the additional scope creep that you would expect). The bigger map, was not necessary, since it only allowed the addition of a few extra scenarios, which most poeple could do without. And, you might have noticed, when playing BoA, you hardly use the western areas of the map anyway. A lot of the addition unit art came from ACW and NCP and looks somewhat out of place. And because the map was new, all BoA scenarios had to be re-developed, which was a total time bender. So if the project did not make money, it was just a big waste of time and resources.
I throughtly enjoyed BoA2.
I think where the OP made his mistake was in jumping into the most demanding scenario first.
Play the Tutorials through, and then play the Fallen Timbers scenario first. That scenario is light on a lot of the "chrome" that makes the game fairily complex in the big scenarios. And How many wargames give you a chance to fight in Ohio and Indiana?[:D]
There are a lot of things to work on, but this kind of games needs lot of time (hence funds) to be fully developed and team skills and coordination AgeOD has yet to achieve.
I only wish AgeOD had supported this game more before committing their resources to other projects because it represents a distinct improvement over AACW, to my eyes a real masterpiece...but well everything is perfectible but nothing is ever perfect.
The apalling thing for a newcomer is a manual that while being fairly detailed can never really teach a player how to play. It will teach you how to perform operations but how to achieve victory is a learning process entirely up to the player...and that's a very complex one. FoF and WBTS have a very detailed manual and even COTA has a nice manual (the most humongous i ever saw in a pc wargame, fully equipped with thorough game guides) but truth is every player needs TIME to really learn.
Choice is between playing an easy game or a complex game...you can't complain about the learning curve if you pick the latter because it was entirely your choice. [:)]
How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org
Agreed on all points. Most people gravitate to ACW by default. If Ageod new ahead of time that ACW period is just more interesting for Americans at least, by about a factor of 50 to 1.
But in my mind, the games to get from Ageod will be the 18th century genre. BoA, WiA, and RoP (Rise of Prussia) when it comes out. I only need RoP to complete my set.
[:)]
