Worth it?

[terje439]

I am on the fence here. I do enjoy good ACW games, but the graphics on this seems...cartoony, and it seems there is less control over your forces as compared to FoF. It seems this game is more abstract?
Also, there are no AARs (apart from a few very short ones), any chance anyone will create one, preferably with a lot of various screenshots and comments about what happens and why?
In one of the "AARs" Norfolk fell to the Union rather quickly, that makes me somewhat concerned that the Union superiority in numbers might be all that counts?
I have also seen that there are some bugs atm, how severe are they?

And if I say that of the matrixgames titles I have played, I enjoyed FoF, Witp/ae, WitE, PC, CoG/ee, Eagle Day to Bombing The Reich, Steel Panthers.
but did not like Commander - The Great War, GG World at War, ACW - The Blue and Grey.

Buy or Not??
Hmm, REALLY unsure here...

Any input would be appreciated.

Terje

[d0mbo]

Hi Terje,

Looking at the screenshots, I do not really agree with your cartoonish assessment. However, as you state you didnt like ACW - B&G i doubt you will like this game, as it s a development from the earlier game.

I like AGEOD style games, so ill certainly buy this game when the first few patches are out. Judging from the forums the game can use them

[elmo3]

Some bugs have been found since release and a patch to address them should be coming with a week or so (just my best guess, not a definite timeframe). Not sure why you didn't like ACW - B&G? Knowing why might help determine if the things you didn't like have been improved in CW2 or not.

[Gilmer]

What is ACW - The Blue and the Grey? If that is Ageod's first Civil War title, you won't like this at all.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

What is ACW - The Blue and the Grey? If that is Ageod's first Civil War title, you won't like this at all.

H Gilmer here is probably right. [:(]

ORIGINAL: terje439

...but did not like ... ACW - The Blue and Grey.

Buy or Not??
Hmm, REALLY unsure here...

Any input would be appreciated.

Terje

Can you describe us why you did not like it?

[RJinVA_slith]

Hi terje439,

I have Forge of Freedom too, and it is an excellent game. But it is a very different game from the AGEOD game, and the two games deliver very different gaming experiences.

Forge of Freedom is one of the few (only?) Civil War games that gives you a tactical, hex-based combat system coupled to a grand strategy game. It uses a two-layer mapping system (a strategic map and unique tactical combat maps), and the tactical combat experience is very enjoyable. The structure of the game is centered on this tactical combat, and you even select the rifles used, and other armaments, etc.

AGEOD's games don't employ tactical combat at this level - instead, it's all a form of 'instant' combat handled by the games combat resolution algorithms. This alone makes it very different experience from Forge of Freedom. AGEOD's game design uses an "all-in-one" map to give the player the sense of maneuvering they need (rather than the two level mapping system in Forge of Freedom). AGEOD's map also is the closest to a 'road map' in the period. (For example, forts are located where they are supposed to be geographically in the AGEOD maps, whereas forts are abstracted into strategic provinces by Forge of Freedom.)

I play them both with enjoyment. They both have a great deal of respect for history and historic details. They both are very serious games and they both show great ingenuity in design. I am constantly astonished at how different they are in game play! When I want tactical hex-based combat, Forge of Freedom delivers. When I want a broader, operational level experience, AGEOD is my choice.

If you disliked the first AGEOD Civil War game, you may not like CWII any better. On the other hand, if you can develop a taste for the AGEOD approach to wargaming, you are in for a real treat with CWII (not to mention the fun you then can have with several other AGEOD titles). So it's really up to you.

Hope this helps.

RJinVA

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Templer

Can you describe us why you did not like it?

I am not sure, I think it was the graphics that put me off. I really did not enjoy it, nor did I feel that I had the necessary control over everything that I wanted, but it might just be that I got it the same time I got FoF and never really gave it enough cred. I am not sure tbh... But if it is a remake of the Blue and Grey....ok, that is enough of an answer for me [:)]


Terje

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: RJinVA

Hi terje439,

I have Forge of Freedom too, and it is an excellent game. But it is a very different game from the AGEOD game, and the two games deliver very different gaming experiences.

Forge of Freedom is one of the few (only?) Civil War games that gives you a tactical, hex-based combat system coupled to a grand strategy game. It uses a two-layer mapping system (a strategic map and unique tactical combat maps), and the tactical combat experience is very enjoyable. The structure of the game is centered on this tactical combat, and you even select the rifles used, and other armaments, etc.

AGEOD's games don't employ tactical combat at this level - instead, it's all a form of 'instant' combat handled by the games combat resolution algorithms. This alone makes it very different experience from Forge of Freedom. AGEOD's game design uses an "all-in-one" map to give the player the sense of maneuvering they need (rather than the two level mapping system in Forge of Freedom). AGEOD's map also is the closest to a 'road map' in the period. (For example, forts are located where they are supposed to be geographically in the AGEOD maps, whereas forts are abstracted into strategic provinces by Forge of Freedom.)

I play them both with enjoyment. They both have a great deal of respect for history and historic details. They both are very serious games and they both show great ingenuity in design. I am constantly astonished at how different they are in game play! When I want tactical hex-based combat, Forge of Freedom delivers. When I want a broader, operational level experience, AGEOD is my choice.

If you disliked the first AGEOD Civil War game, you may not like CWII any better. On the other hand, if you can develop a taste for the AGEOD approach to wargaming, you are in for a real treat with CWII (not to mention the fun you then can have with several other AGEOD titles). So it's really up to you.

Hope this helps.

RJinVA

Helps a lot. Thanks [:)]
Not for me unfortunately.

Terje

[Rosseau]

You might want to check out Ageod's underrated Rev Under Siege. The Drang Nach Osten (sp?) scenario alone is worth the price. An incredible variety of WWI units, while playing several European countries vs. the Reds - or visa versa. Barbarossa, but on a larger, much more fluid scale. Artwork and UI are beautiful compared to the "minimized" new UI in CWII. And if you still have 1/2 the patience to play a game like Forge of Freedom, RUS will be a breeze.

I will get CWII once the bugs and confusion Mr. Burns has experienced gets straightened out. [:)]

[Blind Sniper]

but did not like Commander - The Great War, GG World at War, ACW - The Blue and Grey.

This game is like the old one with a better graphic (I prefer the old map but of course it's me) and some improvements on combat and few other things I guess.
In fact the game mechanics are the same.

[maxstrike]

This game is like the old one with a better graphic (I prefer the old map but of course it's me) and some improvements on combat and few other things I guess.
In fact the game mechanics are the same.

The old map was awesome.

[Stryder]

I am on the fence on this too... what does it mean on the game description when it say the Complexity: Intermediate, Advanced, Expert? Which is it? --how much micromanagement is there? How long does a typical turn last?

Thanks

[pkpowers]

no need to be on the fence ; it is worth the price. The map is very nice , much better than the first one. building units is easier, as is making decisions in different areas. The battle results are much better also

[Ace1_slith]

ORIGINAL: jfarber

I am on the fence on this too... what does it mean on the game description when it say the Complexity: Intermediate, Advanced, Expert? Which is it? --how much micromanagement is there? How long does a typical turn last?

Thanks

We all have different levels of desirable management. Someone will just want to move around armies on the map, and someone would want to specify what types of rifles will each regiment carry (nothing like that here), so I do not know what to answer. What is the ideal management setting to you?
Have you played any AGEOD titles before?

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

but did not like Commander - The Great War, GG World at War, ACW - The Blue and Grey.

This game is like the old one with a better graphic (I prefer the old map but of course it's me) and some improvements on combat and few other things I guess.
In fact the game mechanics are the same.

That's what has me on the fence. I have not seen a list of improvements over the first. Plus, I am waiting to see how they plan to handle expansions and such things.

[elmo3]

Well three improvements off the top of my head are: much larger map with Sibley's New Mexico campaign scenario, the Battle Planner for more tactical control, and Regional Decision Cards that let you trigger events. Others can add more that I'm not thinking of right now due to not having enough coffee yet this morning.

[Pocus]

I'm biased, being the developer so I'll try to stay with facts:

- all structures can be seen, including production structures (before they were abstracted), i.e click on Richmond and see the city icon, harbor, depot, Gorgas steel mill, etc. Beside the cosmetic aspect, this give you infos.

- you can drag&drop units on map when you recruit them. We also solved the 'captured equipment can't be repaired' problem

- more historical options and events, less hard-coded

- if France and Britain intervene they each have their own agenda and AI.

- game is faster overall because the interface is faster and eats less CPU cycles

- easy supply option, easy replacement option, expanded force pool option

that's a top of my head. I can't list you all the details (+tinclads and mortar boats, etc.)

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

I'm biased, being the developer so I'll try to stay with facts:

- all structures can be seen, including production structures (before they were abstracted), i.e click on Richmond and see the city icon, harbor, depot, Gorgas steel mill, etc. Beside the cosmetic aspect, this give you infos.

- you can drag&drop units on map when you recruit them. We also solved the 'captured equipment can't be repaired' problem

- more historical options and events, less hard-coded

- if France and Britain intervene they each have their own agenda and AI.

- game is faster overall because the interface is faster and eats less CPU cycles

- easy supply option, easy replacement option, expanded force pool option

that's a top of my head. I can't list you all the details (+tinclads and mortar boats, etc.)

Try to list the most details you can! (Maybe to top ten, top fifteen)
Due to the nature of the topic and due to similar questions - I highly recommend you will do so.
By the way, personally I am also very curious. [:)]

[Blind Sniper]

I am on the fence on this too... what does it mean on the game description when it say the Complexity: Intermediate, Advanced, Expert? Which is it? --how much micromanagement is there? How long does a typical turn last?

I would say Intermediate. Not so much. As always it depends, with the new game I don't know.

- easy supply option, easy replacement option, expanded force pool option

This is the feature that I really don't like at all because I want micromanagement in a strategy game, but again it's me.

[Stryder]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

ORIGINAL: jfarber

I am on the fence on this too... what does it mean on the game description when it say the Complexity: Intermediate, Advanced, Expert? Which is it? --how much micromanagement is there? How long does a typical turn last?

Thanks

We all have different levels of desirable management. Someone will just want to move around armies on the map, and someone would want to specify what types of rifles will each regiment carry (nothing like that here), so I do not know what to answer. What is the ideal management setting to you?
Have you played any AGEOD titles before?

provements off the top of my head are: much larger map with Sibley's New Mexico campaign scenario, the Battle Planner for more tactical control, and Regional Decision Cards that let you trigger events. Others can add more that I'm not thinking of right now due to not having enough coffee yet this morning.

My time is so limited now--work, family, etc. that I like the grand strategy aspect and combat...I just worry about lengthy turns of 30+ minutes if there is a ton of micromanagement...I want to be able to finish a game in a reasonable amount of time and in a relaxed manner...my day job is filled with incredible attention to detail and a million things to track.... I want a game that is a nice distraction and fun... I have not played AGEOD games before but I have played many war games over the last 25 years and am an avid war history buff, having been a history major before going into IT as a career