AACW, baby, AACW

[TheHellPatrol]

Dominions 3...now that is a perfect example of "easy to play, hard to master"...in fact it would possibly take a lifetime to play out every race/strategy. Another superb "indie" developer and game i have yet to "finish" LOL!
I have just started fiddling with the Campaigns of AACW, and i'm not taking it too seriously, but i average about 20 minutes a turn.
Aarghhh! I can't wait 'till Summer...buy the kids 10 new games each and a case of Red Bull and i'll be in gaming heaven LOL.[:'(]

[ravinhood]

Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game.

Albeit a little ahistorical, eh?[:'(][;)][:D]

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yes now I agree Dominions III is a great game.

Albeit a little ahistorical, eh?[:'(][;)][:D]

When you have a game with no history it makes it quite easy to accept all things ahistorical. It's a "fantasy" wargame afterall. Those have always been my favorites actually since there's no squabbling over this Dragon had blue flame not Red Flame as some historical grogs do when historical wargames come out. lol

But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.

I think the main reason I prefer tactical over strategic text based wargames is that back in the 80's when SSI was very popular most of what they put out was TACTICAL from Combat Leader (yes this was a commodore 64 game) to Battallion Commander (a modern day Combat Leader), then we had the FOUR Tactical Civil War games, Gettysburg, Antietam, Shilo and Chickamaugua (sp), an offbreed of these was Sons of Liberty, then we had Kampgruppe, Battlegroup, Typhoon of Steel, Panzer Strike, Carrier Force, Sword of Aragon, and one of the best of the best Battles of Napoleon. That's just the ones I can recall off the top of my head. So, when computer wargaming started out it was mostly TACTICAL. Now, they've gone off into these grand scale operation strategic games and I just don't care for them. If they have BOTH then that's ok also as long as the AI is at least half way decent.

I also know developers aren't going to make every game to cater to me, I'm just letting them know they should. lol

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.

I have to ask, have you actually played AACW? If you haven't can the comment that you "much prefer FoF" be considered remotely reasonable?

I don't really want to come across as an advocate for AACW ahead of FoF as I do enjoy both games, but IMHO AACW is the better grand operational game. Obviously if you insist on a tactical sub-game FoF is the better choice, but it's hardly a requirement for a strategic/operational level game. I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway. [;)]

You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.

[Terminus]

I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway. [;)]

Nice Strategy[;)].

You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.

I thinks he's afraid to try it because he might "fall in love" and then how would he "look to the boys"[:D].

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

Maybe even better might be, "Has he ever played anything but the mouth organ?"

[Reiryc]

I find aacw (of which I'm a tester) to be a bit more complicated than fof when it came to understanding the mechanics.  The forming of containers (corps/divisions especially) was all quite confusing at first.  Now it's become second hand, but it's definitely not something I could have figured out by just playing around with the game.  I needed the manual to figure those issues out.

When it came to FoF however, I didn't really need a manual to figure out how to do things.  Maybe this was due to my experience with CoG, I don't know.

Either way, all 4 games have been a pleasure to play and I look forward to more releases from both companies.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
But, at any rate of the two ahistorical Civil War games we have now I much prefer FoF simply because you get more for your money. You get a grand operational game AND a tactical game to boot. The outcomes of both will be the same...ahistorical in dates, ahistorical in most battle opportunities and even ahistorical on foreign intervention. I suppose both are great for "whatif" scenarios I just prefer having tactical as well as strategic for basically the same price.

I have to ask, have you actually played AACW? If you haven't can the comment that you "much prefer FoF" be considered remotely reasonable?



I don't really want to come across as an advocate for AACW ahead of FoF as I do enjoy both games, but IMHO AACW is the better grand operational game. Obviously if you insist on a tactical sub-game FoF is the better choice, but it's hardly a requirement for a strategic/operational level game. I'd also point out that AACW is actually significantly cheaper than FoF, which would bring your claim of "more for your money" into some question, anyway. [;)]

You might actually be surprised at quite how 'historical' AACW is, and seems to play out.

I don't need to play a game I already know I don't like Herston that was my point of why I PREFER FOF and Tactical games. Or did you not read my post and not comprehend? I DON'T LIKE most Operational Startegic games of any type (hell I don't even like RISK). I've tried them and I don't like them. I never liked Third Reich by Avalon Hill, I don't like Strategic Command from Battlefront. I don't care for HOI or HOI 2 either, but, I have them. I'm not going to BUY every game I don't like just to apease some people who can't comprehend that some people don't like specific type games. I already know I don't and won't like AACW because of the way it plays. Because of the screenshots and the AAR's and the comments I've already read about it. That's plenty enough for me to make the statement I much prefer FOF over AACW because it offers MORE for the $$ as well as having what I like in those types of games a Tactical game as well as a strategic game. I'm playing more than just flip thru some numbers and watching numbers tell me the outcome of a battle. I didn't like Hunters Civil War game either or No Greater Glory and I was a damn beta tester for that game. They are boring as hell with nothing more than text and numbers telling the player the outcome. Boring, Boring Boring.

Give me tactical anyday everyday, it's the only kind of wargame that really makes sense to play.

As for the rest of you with your snide comments I think you might want to read what Erik said. Paternaski if anyone has a mouth organ it's YOU! lol Not only your own but the one in it. hahahaah

[General Quarters]

I find the AACC command structure much harder to learn than FOF. I have read the manual twice and done the tutorials twice (and parts of them more than twice) and it is still a challenge. I also found FOF easier with regard to the urgent question, what steps do I need to take in order to win? But, mainly, they just seem like two very different games and I am pleased to own both. I agree with others that this is a terrific time for a civil wargamer.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
But, mainly, they just seem like two very different games and I am pleased to own both. I agree with others that this is a terrific time for a civil wargamer.

Agreed, a combination of both would be a real killer. I'm definitely going to give the Beta Patch a run thru soon to see if/what makes the learning curve so different in my case. The tactical battles in COG or FOF were very easy to learn and i got very good at them. I need to take a fresh look at the economy/development model in FOF now that my mind is in the Civil War framework.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Give me tactical anyday everyday, it's the only kind of wargame that really makes sense to play.

So, umm, excuse me for asking, why are you posting on this thread?

[JudgeDredd]

So, umm, excuse me for asking, why are you posting on this thread?

Because he can....oh...and it's his god given right, or something.

Upshot is this...he won't buy a game unless it's in the bargain bin...so he will allow all us gamers to keep him in the life he's become accustomed by allowing US the priviledge of keeping developers in business while he picks up the tail end.

He doesn't need to own a game to qualify any of his arguments. Hell, he doesn't even need to play the demo. "Why not?" I hear you all scream....well...hold on and I'll tell you why...because it's his god given.

But, what he does have down to an absolute art, is this...completely and utterly "getting it wrong" when it comes to describing a game and, by doing so, completely misrepresents the game by using two simple words close to his heart...real time and clickfest. And although RTS seems to be the bane of his life, he likes RTS (TW series (albeit just Medieval) and 2nd Manassas)...go figure.

Another thing he's great at is getting peoples backs up...and to that, I give him credit [&o] because he is truly a master at it. Like now.....I so depserately tried to fight the urge to post to point out his complete and utter lack of direction of his posts and the falsehoods therein...but I simply couldn't. Oh yes...he's very good at one thing!

Anyway, unlike him, I am off to see what this AACW game is all about and, more than likely, again unlike him, I will most likely purchase it. After doing so, it will allow me to come back here and give some positive feedback...something ravinhood is never likely to accomplish for two reasons...one, he will never buy it because it's a clickfest or rts (even though it's not - simply pointing out the fact the guy has absolutely no idea what those two terms mean...and I can prove that by pointing out he thinks HTTR and COTA are clickfests...which proves either he has no idea what the hell that means, or he has never played the damn games or more than likely he cannot play it right) and two, because he is completely and utterly incapable of giving positive feedback.

In fact, I challenge anyone (yes, ravinhood, you can take part) to find me a dozen links to different threads where he is positive about anything...out of 2187 posts, I think I may have set the barrier too high there!!

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think the better question might be, "has he played FoF"?

Maybe even better might be, "Has he ever played anything but the mouth organ?"

Maybe the flute?

[JudgeDredd]

True to my word, I've just purchased the game based on what I've read and liking their previous game (Birth of America)...we will see.

[Gil R.]

You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.

One word...Horseradish.

[Gil R.]

Denis the Menace's solution to everything is ketchup. But we digress...

[Gibbon]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You know, I'm sort of sympathetic to Ravinhood -- I've never eaten either goulash or gefilte fish, but I know I hate the beastly stuff.

I'm sure AGEOD guys will love to see their game compared to Goulash... [:@]
Gil R. Never bitch me again about me being direspectful to your game, it looks like you can't even respect the work of your Matrix fellows.

Really guys, you s..ck. We have the chance to have 2 great ACW games in a row (soon 3 with Gary Grisby's one) and the only thing you do is to flame?!! [&:]

I think this is great, AACW and FOF offer two different game experience. Some like us will prefer something more strategy oriented and will buy AACW. Some like Ravinhood will prefer a good mix between Strategy and tactical battles and will buy FoF. Some, like me again, are true ACW fans and will buy both (and later Gary's one). [&o]

So please stop being kiddish, AACW is a great game, post about your strategies, post about your AAR, post about its drawbacks, but post about AACW!

This was Gibbon's Morale Minute [:)]
[8|]