Combat System?

[Skeleton]

I enjoy the scope and art of AGEOD's games, but, the combat system leaves little to be desired. Is this built on that system? Will AGEOD ever revamp that in any way?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Marcus the leper

I enjoy the scope and art of AGEOD's games, but, the combat system leaves little to be desired. Is this built on that system? Will AGEOD ever revamp that in any way?

Yes, same combat system.

I think it's a good system in how it handles battles and outcomes. In most of their titles the outcomes of battles seems reasonable when all the factors are considered which can be considerable.

I don't know if it will be revamped with the current engine but I'd say it's unlikely.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Marcus,

What aspect of the combat system concerns you? As Reiryc said, it's quite complex and especially after the many improvements over various AGEOD releases I think it handles battles and reports the reasons for its results remarkably well. If you have a concern based on a previous game, perhaps we can address it if we know what it is specifically?

Regards,

- Erik

[Skeleton]

Specifically, the manner is which battles are resolved. I have no issue with the data that drives the resolution, just the delivery of it. I would suggest, using the same model, the Grigsby Civil War game is more to my liking. I don't know if the implementation of round by round messages might make it more satisfying but, that might be one improvement I could suggest. I just don't enjoy the instant resolution, it does little for tension and adding an element of surprise. Just my two cents and having said all of that, I own many AGEOD games and plan on getting this one.

[ganderson1]

My 2 cents: I agree with Marcus. The instantaneous combat resolution really lets the air out of the balloon. Doesn't affect the game in any way, granted. But a display that was a little more stately, a little more epic, would be welcome.

[Tophat1815]

After you receive the battle results you can click and find out a detailed report on how the units performed and detailed losses they took. Plenty of time in this "turnbased game" to linger and report monger over information. I must be an anomaly then as i like the combat system.

[Skeleton]

Understood, but for me, I just enjoy a bit more immersion. With the instant results, I am often left feeling as if I have little control. I would like to see round to round resolution, with options to change the course of a battle after or before those rounds. I don't know if that would be something like option cards or in this case, posture changes or formation changes, but something that involved my input beyond the make up of a particular army and the logistics of that army at the time of battle.

[mbar]

ORIGINAL: ganderson1

My 2 cents: I agree with Marcus. The instantaneous combat resolution really lets the air out of the balloon. Doesn't affect the game in any way, granted. But a display that was a little more stately, a little more epic, would be welcome.

I saw a tutorial video and I believe that is adjustable in options. You can watch more detail in battle. Battle Animation is the option.

Youtube video

[Jafele]

Agree with Marcus. For the future AGEODE´S games should have active battles using simultaneous turns. Just like Roman Civil Wars: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/A ... CW/RCW.asp

Depending the geography of the battle, the terrain could be random, so every battle is unique. Of course the current conditions of the troops involved and others details affects to every unit during the battle. On the other hand I really love AGEODE´s game system.

[SteveD64]

I will buy this game, no doubt, but I do agree with the original post. AGEOD combat resolution doesn't have enough tension, drama or decision making for me. I do like the operational aspects of their system and it goes a long way to make up for the tactical shortcomings.

A nice quick and fun combat resolution system that I do enjoy is in the Matrix Hannibal game.

[Skeleton]

Cleveland, that is exactly what I am talking about! Superb comparison! I don't know if it is just the ability to chose what unit will engage in the next round, or the die roll, but to have something like Hannibal's battle resolution, with all of AGEOD's otherwise fantastic depth, would be the ultimate war/strategy game. Excellent idea!

[Missouri_Rebel]

I'll be buying, quite possibly tonight, but I too would prefer a more interactive combat round. I think WWI Gold does it pretty good and adds just the right amount of tactical decisions to the combat.

mo reb

[Skeleton]

Another really good example Missouri. I think the common thread between both and what AGEOD games typically lack is something very simple; a bit of interaction and control, or perceived control in determining the outcome. I too am taking the plunge, this looks too good on too many levels to let the combat resolution sway me to not buy!

[budd]

I agree with OP also, i bought BOA2 and thought great map, units, good style but the combat just didnt do it for me. I'm sure it's changed some, but in BOA2 if i remember right you didn't even know why you lost a fight. i tried to get into it, but it just didn't click for me. I want to like their games, they do interesting time periods. I've almost bought RUS many times but never could pull the trigger. What we need is a detailed AAR showing off all the gameplay stuff[:)]

[BohémondAJE]

You will find a list of AJE AAR's in AJE Subforum from AGEOD forum.

Regards

Bohémond from AJE Team.

[Anendrue]

thanks