To Buy Or Not To Buy? That Is The Question...

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I've never played it..., but to judge from the "ghost town" lack of activity on this forum I'd have to guess it wasn't very good.

Widell is correct. At any given moment, there are typically 10 to 30 persons or more (as high as 40 yesterday) on-line at the AGEOD AACW Forum. And far from peaking, those forum numbers continue to grow.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Not to Buy that is the answer. Well, my answer anyways ...

Don't you mean "my answer always"?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Chris Trog

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Not to Buy that is the answer. Well, my answer anyways. I find the AGEOD engine boring and I don't like the text based combat window that just tells me what happened I wanna SEE it happen when I do it, not a month later.

Wish I had read this earlier. They got my money ...

So, hopefully I'll get to AACW after I retire. Hopefully by then they will have patched it enough to make it palatable ...

Do you have the latest AACW patch? There will be another out by year's end.

I now have both AACW and FoF, but I don't regret buying AACW; although I'm really enjoying FoF, AACW seemed to do a better job in recreating the behavior of certain CW generals. However, the AACW Battle Meter can't even compare w/Quick Combat.

I enjoy the short AACW scenarios more than its campaigns, but I still have to work on its method of supply; I promised the FoF people I'd do a comparison of both games after I have more experience w/them.

[geozero]

For me it would come down to cost.  When Fry's electronics has the game on their shelf for $29.99, I can't justify forking over twice that much.  Downloading it is a weak argument.  I could be at Fry's and back in under half hour.  It'll take longer to download. 

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: geozero
For me it would come down to cost. When Fry's electronics has the game on their shelf for $29.99, I can't justify forking over twice that much. Downloading it is a weak argument. I could be at Fry's and back in under half hour. It'll take longer to download.

Sounds like a good deal, although it seems a little distant to the original subject of "To Buy Or Not To Buy?". In your case it sounds like "To Buy!", then if it's download or not, is, just as you say, a cost and convenience issue.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: geozero

For me it would come down to cost.  When Fry's electronics has the game on their shelf for $29.99, I can't justify forking over twice that much ... 

If by "the game" you mean AACW, which I bought at a local Electronics Boutique for that price plus tax, I agree; I had FoF on order -- which still cost me around $60 plus S&H -- but I couldn't resist picking-up AACW while I waited.

Although AACW was the better bargain, I'd say FoF is still the better game, but w/AGEOD retro-engineering its "old" games, you never know what will happen to AACW w/the next patch.

[Dadaan]

I have both of them (ACW for a few weeks now) and would definatly say ACW over FOF anyday.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Dadaan

I have both of them (ACW for a few weeks now) and would definatly say ACW over FOF anyday.

Aren't you going to at least tell us "why" you prefer AACW?

[Arsan]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although AACW was the better bargain, I'd say FoF is still the better game, but w/AGEOD retro-engineering its "old" games, you never know what will happen to AACW w/the next patch.

Hey! you did not say why either! [;)][:'(]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Arsan

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although AACW was the better bargain, I'd say FoF is still the better game, but w/AGEOD retro-engineering its "old" games, you never know what will happen to AACW w/the next patch.

Hey! you did not say why either! [;)][:'(]

OK, I made a few critques in the earlier posts of this thread, but to sum up: it's easier to form armies and get new units in FoF, which also does a better job w/its (larger scale) map than AACW. FoF's sound effects and graphics are also better, and even Quick Battle beats AGEOD's Battle Meter.

But AACW does a better job w/its smaller scenarios and seems to model officer/unit behavior better; it's also much cheaper, which is a plus if your on a budget: FoF is tres cher.

I'm going to do a more exhaustive comparison when I get a better handle on both games. For the record, I've been an AGEOD fan since BoA, which is now at v. 1.13a.

[Arsan]

Fair reasons [:)]
But personally i can't agree at all on the graphics department [X(] and much less on the map.
IMHO the huge and detailed map of AACW with full array of terrains types and suply network is the main reason which allow you to make realistic campaigns and operations.
When i see teh FoF map with for example, just one or two areas between Richmond and Washington i can't help but wonder how one is supposed to simulate ALL THE THINGS that happened just on this area on the real war. [8|]

Regrads!

[decaro]

Re graphics: compare Quick Combat w/AACW's Battle Meter. Also, AACW's sound effects leave something to be desired, esp. the sound of cannon balls bouncing off ironclads; it sounds like rocks bouncing-off a tin shed!

There's more detail in AACW's map, but unless I can get a handle on making effective depot networks, aethetics aside, all those map details don't do me much good.

But I'm not finished learning AACW yet. Besides, AGEOD always has another patch in the works; perhaps the answer is as simple as more supply wagons, but I spend so much of my resources replacing troops in existing units (replacement pool) that there's little left for new ones.

[Gresbeck]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


it's easier to form armies and get new units in FoF, which also does a better job w/its (larger scale) map than AACW. FoF's sound effects and graphics are also better, and even Quick Battle beats AGEOD's Battle Meter.

Comparing FoF with AACW is a long debated question, and probably is like comparing apples and oranges. Just a few thoughts:

1. I find quite strange you say it's easier to form armies in FoF. I found the formation of armies in FoF sometimes painly and time consuming: you need jumping from conscription to ordering units, monitoring the production of horses, steel, manpower, you always need merging units. In AACW you have many predefined units composed of infantry, cavalry and artillery, and you don't really need balancing the production of different kinf of resources.

2. Arsan got the most important point IMHO. Provinces in FoF seem to me too big (btw, I find contradictory to move units in such large provinces and to fight tactical battles in tactical scale, but I suppose you could say I can always resolve battles automatically).

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck

Comparing FoF with AACW is a long debated question, and probably is like comparing apples and oranges. Just a few thoughts:

These games still have much in common: same war (obviously), same provinces, same 2-week turns, etc.

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck
1. I find quite strange you say it's easier to form armies in FoF. I found the formation of armies in FoF sometimes painly and time consuming: you need jumping from conscription to ordering units, monitoring the production of horses, steel, manpower, you always need merging units. In AACW you have many predefined units composed of infantry, cavalry and artillery, and you don't really need balancing the production of different kinf of resources.

Instead of "easier," perhaps "frustrating" would be more to the point. In one AACW game, after the 1864 elections, McClellan just "disappeared" from his command and I had no one to replace him, leaving me w/several Corps w/o an Army; a similar situation happens in BoA w/Bourgouyne.

In FoF you don't have to depend on whether or not a general is activated in order for him to get a command/promotion needed to form Armies/Corps. I imagine AACW would be easier w/the activation feature turned off, but that's how AACW models the beavior of its generals. As for the other FoF management features, you can adjust most of them by preference w/o adversely affecting the game.

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck
2. Arsan got the most important point IMHO. Provinces in FoF seem to me too big (btw, I find contradictory to move units in such large provinces and to fight tactical battles in tactical scale, but I suppose you could say I can always resolve battles automatically).

I do use Quick Combat, which is somehwhat comperable to AACW's Battle Meter. AACW models better on the smaller scale/scenario, but FoF is easier to use on the large scale, although you pay a price in realism for this convenience.

However, for me, it's not a case of one game vs. the other, but of their respective strengths and weaknesses.

AACW is certainly priced better than FoF, so just some minor changes in sound effects, and perhaps a better indication of a working supply network -- i.e., a supply filter that traces a green line showing the actual flow of supplies and exactly where you need to build a depot -- would make it even more competitive.

For the CW enthusiast, both games have their pros and cons, as can be seen from my posts on the FoF forum, where I take them to task too.

[Drambuie]

Hi - thought i'd add a few thoughts. I started playing AACW over the weekend having ummed and ahhed
between the two games for ages. I had BoA and didn't really like the engine/mechanics to be honest but tried
the AACW demo and as it's one of my favourite historical periods decided to buy it (and got a great price from
GAME in the Uk!)

Once you persevere the system works fine - I was not sure about the lack of tactical battles but decided
it was more the overall feel that I wanted rather than micro battle management. AACW reflects the Union command
stagnation well at the start (can be tweaked), and the two economic models seem ok - certainly the Rebs get a lot less of the important war supplies! The map can be a little muddled but not too bad really.

I must admit so far i'm addicted (ask my girlfriend!) - the engine works well as a simulation of the ACW I feel. As always there seem to be pros and cons to each game - the AI for example appears ok to me although some complain as always. Eg. the Reb ai has yet to attack me fully in the East but can always try tweaking aggression levels etc. Almost like my experience of say War in the Pacific its a game to enjoy playing even if I'm having problems/niggles with it and feel I can learn as I play without it really screwing up the campaign (esp as the Union).

Support is similar to Matrix's - fast responses, interested community. As in most games of this type continually finding new things I didn't know/realise that all help intensify the enjoyment.

The lad in the shop asked what the game was like as he likes strategy - I told him to try the demo first as it is not easy to access/pretty graphics/'empty' gameplay ala Total War or something. But it is good, pretty deep, enjoyable and so far challenging. (And like most here i'll probably end up getting FoF as well anyway!)

Cheers

[decaro]

As he Union, I've had serious supply chain problems whenever I advanced South; I imagine as the Confederacey, I would have even more suppply issues going in the opposite direction.

How did you solve this?

[Drambuie]

Hi - well like I say not too much experience so far but I have tried as the Union to create depots as
suggested - every 3 or so regions (maybe overkill but better than starving). Found that using transport ships has helped build depots - cheaper for one thing. Eg. I have done one amphib landing south of Richmond and immediately built a depot using ships that took me there.

Also I was trying to build them in cities but then realised they can be built anywhere you have enough
control - was having trouble getting Grant moving/keeping enough cohesion etc around Bowling Green so gave him a medical unit and built him a depot after dropping supply wagons off by boat.

As the South I suppose you have to be more careful over choosing your ground/when to advance etc given their much more limited resources - whereas the Union can basically build and do what they want and conduct multiple campaigns simultaneously. Not much experience as the Rebs though to be honest.

[geozero]

OKay, so I finally bought the game at Fry's for the $29.99 price (I just could not see any benefit of paying twice that).  I pretty much still hate the map graphics, but game play is fun.  Probably due to more provinces, zommable map, more units, etc.  It's fun, but plays out slowly, though not at a snail's pace like WitP.  I do like many aspects of this game over FoF, and I think that someday there may be a better CW game...

[GShock]

AACW is brilliant in planning and executing. The whole thing is historical but counterbalanced towards gameplay or CSA would have no chance.

If you take a look at AACW ageod's forums you'll see how lively the community is and how often the game is patched. This game is alive and has a brilliant present and an even more brilliant future thanks to the DEVS' policy with constant updates a total modding support and the retrofitting of the engine with new patches containing discoveries applied to other titles coming from AgeOD.

Be advised, it will take you 6 months just to learn how to do what you want to do which surely doesn't imply winning. Generals do not always carry out your orders and the strategic possibilities are infinite and entirely up to you. If you can win over this "frustration" (Hey, learning curves are also fun!) I am sure you won't regret buying it, but remember that the real deal comes with the PBEM .

The game is so complex i am already surprised the AI can make up for a challenge *without handicapping the player*.

I own FoF and i own AACW and i personally think AACW is the best ACW game around. Let's see if Gary Grisby's game is better, I am sure i'm not the only one waiting in anticipation.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

... But I'm not finished learning AACW yet.

I'm giving AACW another try as the Union; one of the problems in my last game was getting new generals in the East to all the commands on the map that need leadership, but I think I found the answer.

When a dozen or so of the 1 and 2 stars arrive in the same stack, click on it, and then use the mouse to move the map over the blue dots to see what troops need leadership; if so, select a general from the stack and do a click and drag, then just repeat the process until you have exhausted the stack of generals.

Of course, there's no guarantee the general will get there.