Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Cavalier99



It is statements like the one from Loki100 that are worrying me. AGEOD have always been a fine game company but I am becoming increasingly uneasy that with the exception of PoN that all of their offerings have become a variation on a theme. After a while when you've played one you've played them all as it does become somewhat repetitive that each offering follows virtually the same format. And with the increased churnout of games .... 3 scheduled for 2014 there is a danger of over exposure at least for this player who is becoming somewhat bored with 'lets do the same again but for a different era'.

Paradox - does exactly the same thing. Exactly.

But - strangely - I find myself getting each new realease of their strategic level titles almost everytime. EU 1 thru 4. Victoria, Crusader Kings, HOI - different but not that much - and so on.

Didn't Pardox publish AGEOD stuff for a while?

Point is - building on past success is a time tested and proven business model.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: Cavalier99



It is statements like the one from Loki100 that are worrying me. AGEOD have always been a fine game company but I am becoming increasingly uneasy that with the exception of PoN that all of their offerings have become a variation on a theme. After a while when you've played one you've played them all as it does become somewhat repetitive that each offering follows virtually the same format. And with the increased churnout of games .... 3 scheduled for 2014 there is a danger of over exposure at least for this player who is becoming somewhat bored with 'lets do the same again but for a different era'.

Paradox - does exactly the same thing. Exactly.

But - strangely - I find myself getting each new realease of their strategic level titles almost everytime. EU 1 thru 4. Victoria, Crusader Kings, HOI - different but not that much - and so on.

Didn't Pardox publish AGEOD stuff for a while?

Point is - building on past success is a time tested and proven business model.

Yes, Ageod and Paradox had a partnership of some sorts, but it did not work out. Then I think they were back on their own for a little, then partnered up with Slitherine.

ORIGINAL: Tamas

Dhanger, I am sorry to read you are experiencing technical issues with the game. Please contact tech support on the address "support[at]slitherine.co.uk" and they will help you determine what is the problem and how to fix it.

Thank you!

So stuff posted in the tech forum here is "useless"? Guess I will mail the files I got from one of my gamecrashes to the address above and see what they say.


Terje

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I agree. If you try things in BoA that worked in ACW...good luck. Winter effects, terrain issues, leadership abilities all have different effects. Even in ROP, I could put a nice big army in winter quarters with plenty of supply. In BoA, winter is a bitch and you better not get caught out in it or your army is trashed. Requires a different use of light troops than, let's say...ACW2. That type of stuff. The mechanics are the same but the strategies vary. I like the commonality frankly because once you've learned the mechanics, you can pick up any of the other games and start playing

I'm not denying that strategies have to change depending upon which AGEOD game you play. For me its that too much is common. Leader abilities split down to strategic/attack/defence. Stacking of units. Power ratings. Battle reports. Need I go on are becoming so similar from game to game. I accept I'm probably in the minority but they are starting to have the feel of John Tiller games. Each one different but basically the same. So the maps are better. We have decision cards but even with these the programmers say that they are optional and not integral to gameplay.

Take for example CW2. Whilst I was not expecting a complete new game given the success of AACW1 I don't think it was too much to expect a manual that reflected the additions to gameplay yet much of the original manual has just been regurgitated when it is so obviously out of date. And even my old lady when I first loaded it up said something along the lines of 'are you still playing that old game' When I told her it was a new game her response was 'you could have fooled me the music is exactly the same' Do you know I hadn't realised it but with the exception of the startup she was right.

Can you place this, head to head?

Maybe there is similarity in the games because warfare through the ages has similar components. Leadership matters. Morale matters. Organization matters. Maneuver matters. Supply matters. Terrain matters. Weather matters. The elements of strategy matter. Today's Army officers still read Sun Tzu and study past campaigns.

Consider the US Army principles of war. Mass. Objective. Offensive. Surprise. Economy of force. Maneuver. Unity of Command. Security. Simplicity. Those would be true for Caesar and Grant and Lee. Maybe one game engine can do a good job of portraying the principles of war throughout the ages.

Grant's long campaign to capture Vicksburg reminds me of some of Julius Caesar's campaigns against the Gauls. There are the remains not that many miles from where I live of a canal Grant tried to dig during his Vicksburg campaign in an attempt to literally divert the Mississippi River from in front of Vicksburg. I can certainly imagine Julius Caesar attempting the same thing, and in fact he did dabble in river diversion a couple of times, as did other Roman generals.

http://www.nps.gov/vick/historyculture/grants-canal.htm

So I can see both sides here. I can understand those who don't care for the repetitive nature of a game system that uses the same base system to portray wars throughout history. But I can also understand those who see the beauty of such a system. I fall into the latter category. But I can understand those who are in the former category. I don't think there is a "right" side here. To each his own. And in this case the marketplace will decide.

ORIGINAL: JW


So I can see both sides here. I can understand those who don't care for the repetitive nature of a game system that uses the same base system to portray wars throughout history. But I can also understand those who see the beauty of such a system. I fall into the latter category. But I can understand those who are in the former category. I don't think there is a "right" side here. To each his own. And in this case the marketplace will decide.

And they are appropriate sentiments on which to end.