AGEOD

[Capitaine]

What I think is the problem with AGEOD games are the mechanics of the WEGO movement system and its resolution of combat. No matter how "realistic" the WEGO method is, it produces a less visceral experience than a nonWEGO method. Especially with AGEOD you don't really see your forces move on the map, and movement is a big part of playing a wargame. You plot, then you end your turn, and things happen that are difficult to follow as they happen. Many forces don't even appear on the map during turn resolution when it seems like they should.

When combat occurs, you can't follow that as it happens; you have to bring up a battle report at the start of the next turn and study its cryptic hieroglyphics to try to make sense of how a battle was resolved. All this may give the sense of a realistic system -- or maybe not -- but it is not very rewarding gameplay where, as in say WitE or WitW you move and fight as you go seeing the results immediately and having a rough knowledge of the factors going into a combat. As you go.

Perhaps a WEGO system *could* provide a better sense of movement and combat, but the AGEOD system is pretty low on feedback and pretty opaque. Intentional? Maybe, but not very rewarding to most players. Things are inexplicable sometimes and with a lot of AI issues you're never sure if what is happening is valid from either side's perspective and one loses confidence in the narrative of the game as it drags on. At least I do.

I LOVE the subject matter of the AGEOD games, and their scope and graphic presentation. The execution is very frustrating which limits my willingness to continue buying and playing them.

[Poopyhead]

I can only speak for CW2, but our forum has lots of experienced people that are willing to talk you through any problems with that game. Charlesonmission has created a series of video tutorials as well as actual pbem playthroughs that you can watch. We have many active gamers that will get you through a pbem of your own. I bought CW2 during the sesquicentennial and I've never regretted playing it.

P.S. Speaking just for CW2 about the battle report, the depth is there if you look for it. You can sit down with a beer and some pretzels and just bang out some battles and never worry about the stats. On the other end of the scale, you get a battle report of each round of each battle fought with combat losses, units routing or being annihilated, artillery barrages and cavalry charges. You can also access a log of the battle that is a text file with even more info than you could ever want. Ageod made the game so you don't need to understand the "heiroglyphics" to have fun. If you do want to know, we have plenty of players that enjoy explaining anything about this great game. I wrote a short description of the battle report with a screenshot that is available through the search engine at the CW2 Ageod forum. Plenty of gamers have figured things out so that no one needs to not understand something. Just ask.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What I think is the problem with AGEOD games are the mechanics of the WEGO movement system and its resolution of combat. No matter how "realistic" the WEGO method is, it produces a less visceral experience than a nonWEGO method. Especially with AGEOD you don't really see your forces move on the map, and movement is a big part of playing a wargame. You plot, then you end your turn, and things happen that are difficult to follow as they happen. Many forces don't even appear on the map during turn resolution when it seems like they should.

When combat occurs, you can't follow that as it happens; you have to bring up a battle report at the start of the next turn and study its cryptic hieroglyphics to try to make sense of how a battle was resolved. All this may give the sense of a realistic system -- or maybe not -- but it is not very rewarding gameplay where, as in say WitE or WitW you move and fight as you go seeing the results immediately and having a rough knowledge of the factors going into a combat. As you go.

Perhaps a WEGO system *could* provide a better sense of movement and combat, but the AGEOD system is pretty low on feedback and pretty opaque. Intentional? Maybe, but not very rewarding to most players. Things are inexplicable sometimes and with a lot of AI issues you're never sure if what is happening is valid from either side's perspective and one loses confidence in the narrative of the game as it drags on. At least I do.

I LOVE the subject matter of the AGEOD games, and their scope and graphic presentation. The execution is very frustrating which limits my willingness to continue buying and playing them.

I heartily agree with what you said!

[balto]

Captaine, I wish I could write as well as you do. What you typed, I wish I had typed that.

Poopyhead, you mention PBEM. That too really touched a nerve with me. Unless something has changed (doubt it did), the PBEM is not password protected. I do not want to make this thread go another 50 responses about how "I trust the other player" crap.., the issue is how in the heck can any studio create a game with PBEM that is not password protected. This is just senseless.

PS - if AGEOD changed this so that it is now password protected, please ignore the above post.

[balto]

Treale, you beat me by 50 seconds. I guess great minds think alike in that we both agree Captaine is great at writing.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What I think is the problem with AGEOD games are the mechanics of the WEGO movement system and its resolution of combat. No matter how "realistic" the WEGO method is, it produces a less visceral experience than a nonWEGO method. Especially with AGEOD you don't really see your forces move on the map, and movement is a big part of playing a wargame. You plot, then you end your turn, and things happen that are difficult to follow as they happen. Many forces don't even appear on the map during turn resolution when it seems like they should.

When combat occurs, you can't follow that as it happens; you have to bring up a battle report at the start of the next turn and study its cryptic hieroglyphics to try to make sense of how a battle was resolved. All this may give the sense of a realistic system -- or maybe not -- but it is not very rewarding gameplay where, as in say WitE or WitW you move and fight as you go seeing the results immediately and having a rough knowledge of the factors going into a combat. As you go.

Perhaps a WEGO system *could* provide a better sense of movement and combat, but the AGEOD system is pretty low on feedback and pretty opaque. Intentional? Maybe, but not very rewarding to most players. Things are inexplicable sometimes and with a lot of AI issues you're never sure if what is happening is valid from either side's perspective and one loses confidence in the narrative of the game as it drags on. At least I do.

I LOVE the subject matter of the AGEOD games, and their scope and graphic presentation. The execution is very frustrating which limits my willingness to continue buying and playing them.

I definitely think they could do with a revamp of how combat is presented. They do have a setting in the more recent games which is pause after combat, so you can take a look at it and see what happened immediately, before the turn plays out the rest of the way...

Having said that, if they could revamp the system and give a better representation of the fight and explain what is happening and why the losing side lost, that would go a long way in helping what you describe. I feel much the same way at times.

As it is, it seems to me, they built a good core program and since then have made updates and revisions. And I am no expert at computers, but with many programs I have used, once you start getting in to so many revisions and add-ons etc., it can become something not originally intended and give crazy results. I do believe that is why they have to continuously tweak the engine when they produce a new game, because earlier revisions make the results for the new game look way off.

The one thing I have absolutely loved about their games from day one is you can suffer several defeats and the game isn't completely over. I have Forge of Freedom and if you lose several big battles, in my games, it is usually over and the AI steamrolls you after that.

[Floyd]

There is an excellent tutorial/walk through:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... l_1sAdqKD8
60 episodes, each average 30min.

[Poopyhead]

You can pbem with a third party who alone sees both moves, but I guess you wouldn't trust that person either. That person is typically an experienced player who can offer a newbie advice.

You're conjecturing theoretically about a game that lots of players of different levels are actually able to play flawlessly because of an active, helpful, trustworthy community. If you don't want to try it, it's your loss.

Here's a repost of my P.S. from above about the battle report.
P.S. Speaking just for CW2 about the battle report, the depth is there if you look for it. You can sit down with a beer and some pretzels and just bang out some battles and never worry about the stats. On the other end of the scale, you get a battle report of each round of each battle fought with combat losses, units routing or being annihilated, artillery barrages and cavalry charges. You can also access a log of the battle that is a text file with even more info than you could ever want. Ageod made the game so you don't need to understand the "heiroglyphics" to have fun. If you do want to know, we have plenty of players that enjoy explaining anything about this great game. I wrote a short description of the battle report with a screenshot that is available through the search engine at the CW2 Ageod forum. Plenty of gamers have figured things out so that no one needs to not understand something. Just ask.

[altipueri]

I think the AGEOD games are great, I've got most of them, but I only have patience for shorter scenarios and I only play solo against the AI.

For readers of this thread who don't know what the arguments are about I suggest spending a little money on a couple of the early games such as Birth of America (BOA) AGEOD's American Civil War (AACW) or the Roman era game Alea Jacta Est (AJE); or even their first Napoleon game - Napoleon's Campaigns (NCP).

You can get these for almost nothing these days and you will quickly either be enchanted by the maps and portraits or appalled because you just "don't get it". All for less than the price of a pizza.

[Freyr Oakenshield]

I like AGEOD's maps, and unit's and leaders' icons--some are really beautiful. I'd buy these games just for the graphics [:D]

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
When combat occurs, you can't follow that as it happens; you have to bring up a battle report at the start of the next turn and study its cryptic hieroglyphics to try to make sense of how a battle was resolved. All this may give the sense of a realistic system -- or maybe not -- but it is not very rewarding gameplay where, as in say WitE or WitW you move and fight as you go seeing the results immediately and having a rough knowledge of the factors going into a combat. As you go.

Good analysis about rewarding gameplay & WEGO info lack.

In the WitE/WiTW forums you'll find quite some complaints about unrealistic beaming units out of pockets just because of the IGO-YOUGO approach...

One WEGO monster game comes to mind, WitP (/ Adm ed.): Is it better in presenting the action info than the Ageod games?

More candidates for Ageod games may feel "strange":

-areas & uniqe counters & counter containers instead of the usual hexes and stacks of Nato counters,
-the rather non-mainstream choices of conflicts for making Agoeod games?! They are just not about "first I'll take out Poland and then...",
-most Ageod games are not about clear frontlines but maneuver warfare about supply centres and LOCs.

OTH, if you play one Ageod core game (besides of Great Invasions and WW1 Gold) you get used to their engine and could handle the other games as well. Which in itself has pros and cons.

Plus, apparently (some of the) next Ageod games will use a new engine developed by Slitherixeod Canada. We'll see if those will be more accessible.

[Freyr Oakenshield]

BTW, do AGEOD games use that Slitherine match-making system that is implemented in Slitherine recent games?

[Capitaine]

I am very interested in the AGEOD "Wars of Napoleon" and the forthcoming "Wars of Succession", but I've read a host of complaints over on AGEOD's forum regarding the former; particularly regarding the AI. When the games are as opaque as the AGEOD titles are, you've got to be able to trust the validity of the AI. You've got to believe that the AI is getting it right and that its behavior is reasonably historical. I'm not seeing that myself so that's why I feel that as the game progresses the whole situation seems to spiral into something improbable to me.

I recall playing a demo of "Napoleon's Campaigns" where as France I fought a battle with the Prussians in 1806, was victorious, and the defeated Prussians did not retreat back on their open Line Of Supply, but further from it, moving behind my forces into a region controlled by the French. Since this was an early demo, I reported the seemingly unhistorical behavior and the response was that when a force retreats it can go to any adjacent region, anywhere. That made no sense, as you'd think the first place the force would first retreat to was the region it entered from, especially if that was also its supply line.

That's an example of me having a lack of confidence in the historicity of the AI programming, where forces seem not to follow a sound historical practice. (It could be argued that erratic behavior is "realistic", but wargames have always had distinct rules for retreat priority based on logical military principles. If multiple paths are all equally valid then randomness among them would be acceptable.)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

...

I recall playing a demo of "Napoleon's Campaigns" where as France I fought a battle with the Prussians in 1806, was victorious, and the defeated Prussians did not retreat back on their open Line Of Supply, but further from it, moving behind my forces into a region controlled by the French. Since this was an early demo, I reported the seemingly unhistorical behavior and the response was that when a force retreats it can go to any adjacent region, anywhere. That made no sense, as you'd think the first place the force would first retreat to was the region it entered from, especially if that was also its supply line.

That's an example of me having a lack of confidence in the historicity of the AI programming, where forces seem not to follow a sound historical practice. (It could be argued that erratic behavior is "realistic", but wargames have always had distinct rules for retreat priority based on logical military principles. If multiple paths are all equally valid then randomness among them would be acceptable.)

I think this particular rule is a typical example of why people either accept the logic of AGEOD's games or don't. First there are rules (and they are easy to mod), equally over time the retreat rule has been told to put more emphasis on either retreating back the way you came (if you were the attacker) or towards a supply base. Most times you will see something that makes sense in those terms (other attractive routes are towards a friendly fortress, down the quickest road or towards where you already hold military control).

But there is a random element and sometimes something very annoying will happen. But this was what did happen in the pre-modern age. A simple eg is in the Franco-Prussian war the French armies beaten around Metz retreated back to Sedan (ie away from both Paris and their supply lines) when they could have fallen back to the west (towards supply and been a threat to any Prussian move on Paris). The result is when the battle of Sedan occured all the Prussians had to do was not lose - which they didn't and Nap III et al surrendered.

With the exception of EAW, few AGEOD games have a 'front line' that is the norm in most other games. You have regions where you sort of dominate instead. That means that a whole set of key mechanics are subject to unexpected outcomes - and most can be modded if you don't like this.

Someone earlier complained about March to the Sound of the Guns. Well if you don't like it being random you can easily mod the game files so it always happens. If you don't like the concept (and some players of Rise Of Prussia argue it is ahistoric for that war), then mod it out.

[76mm]

Someone earlier complained about March to the Sound of the Guns. Well if you don't like it being random you can easily mod the game files so it always happens. If you don't like the concept (and some players of Rise Of Prussia argue it is ahistoric for that war), then mod it out.

OK, fair enough, but honestly I'm not likely to get to the point of figuring out how to mod a game's files, and which mods I want to make, unless I like the game in the first place, and so far I haven't gotten there with AGEOD's games. I'd like to like their games but after buying two or three and not playing them, don't expect to buy any more.

[richfed]

I support Ageod with purchases even though I don't play most of the games - time constraints, really. However, I HAVE played extensively Wars in America and Civil War & Civil War II. Excellent games that have a realistic flavor and a depth of strategic opportunities. Love them. There is no game I have played for more hours than Ageod's Civil War II.

[Lecivius]

CWII I love, but I feel badly burned by WON. It was obviously released long before it was ever close to completion. I shall be much more circumspect with any AGEOD game going forward.

[Max 86]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

CWII I love, but I feel badly burned by WON. It was obviously released long before it was ever close to completion. I shall be much more circumspect with any AGEOD game going forward.

+1

[aaatoysandmore]

One thing I never liked about Ageod games is the combat system and that next turn results screen. I don't feel like a part of the combat I just feel I'm moving units around piecemeal and not getting any satisfaction out of the combat results.

I like games like "Forge of Freedom" over Civil War I or II by Ageod. I get to see the results and get to play out the combat in tactical battles. I also like command and control games like Panzer Command and Norbsoft's Civil War series where I get to be part of the battles not just "read" about them. That is so 60's stuff.

Basically their games are so boring and put the player outside of the game I just don't care for them. Even Hoplite is more fun to play than an Ageod game.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

One thing I never liked about Ageod games is the combat system and that next turn results screen. I don't feel like a part of the combat I just feel I'm moving units around piecemeal and not getting any satisfaction out of the combat results.

I like games like "Forge of Freedom" over Civil War I or II by Ageod. I get to see the results and get to play out the combat in tactical battles. I also like command and control games like Panzer Command and Norbsoft's Civil War series where I get to be part of the battles not just "read" about them. That is so 60's stuff.

Basically their games are so boring and put the player outside of the game I just don't care for them. Even Hoplite is more fun to play than an Ageod game.

I've never played the tactical part of Forge of Freedom. I'd rather be the higher up general moving my troops around and expecting the generals to carry out my orders and win the war.

It really is personal feelings on what people like. There are games here that people drool over and I'm just ambivalent to, like the SPWAW or whatever it is. I had that game a long time ago in its first incarnation and it was OK, but it wasn't anything I felt like returning to.