Is this game easy to play?

[James Ward]

I like what I have seen with this game. I've looked over the rule book and it seems straight forward but sometimes it is decieving. Could a relatively experianced wargamer pick up the basics in a day or two?

[Javakamp]

I'd say that you probably will be able to pick it up quickly.

But don't take my word for it, download and play the demo. That's what I did.

There is a link here.

[James Ward]

I have the demo and I think I get the basics but demo scenarios are small. I'm more interested in the full campaign and was wondering how easy it is to play on the full map.
Is it easy to overlook things given only a small portion of the map is on screen at any one time?
Is there a lot of manual micromanagement or can things be automated? I'd hate to have to manually move each group of militia raised in Maine down to Virginia
Is it forgiving? I mean is it possible to make a simple mistake early that screws up the rest of the game but does not become apparent until a lot of hours are invested?

[simovitch]

On the demo you can play the first six months of the full campaign. That should give you a fair idea of what to expect. The quantity of units to keep track of does increase as the years progress though.

IMO:

Is it easy to overlook things given only a small portion of the map is on screen at any one time?

Once you have moved your more obvious Army/Corps, you can quickly cycle through any remaining units (naval and land) that are awaiting a command. The screen will jump and center on the unit. The cycle ignores units that cannot currently move.

Is there a lot of manual micromanagement or can things be automated? I'd hate to have to manually move each group of militia raised in Maine down to Virginia

Not much automated in this respect. The reinforcements tend to appear grouped only in the largest towns which helps a bit. I tend to buy in states that are close together on any given turn so that when they are ready I know where to look for them without panning around the countryside.

Is it forgiving? I mean is it possible to make a simple mistake early that screws up the rest of the game but does not become apparent until a lot of hours are invested?

I think it's very forgiving. At 2 weeks per turn there's not a lot that you can do on any one turn to screw your plans up over the long run. The worst mistake I make is to forget to 'call for volunteers' as soon as they become available, or issue bonds to finance the war. You don't lose the chance if you forget, you just dont get the benefit as soon as you could have.

[Sardonic]

depends on the type of player you are.

if you can settle for making 'less than optimal' decisions thru ignorance, and still forage ahead
it is easy to play.

If your a perfectionist however, it can be VERY time consuming.
Imagine WitP as the Japs on turn #1


However, its a fun game

[Icedawg]

In a single word - NO!

I am a rather experienced wargamer and have been trying to figure this thing out now for 3 weeks. I'm about to give up on the whole deal, but considering the price I paid and the time I've invested, I think I'll stick it out for another week or so.

When Uncommon Valor came out, I jumped right in and had a pretty good feel for the game in a couple of hours. I believe that game was considered to be "Complex" on the Matrix complexity scale. Later, I tried War in the Pacific with its "Grognard" rating. That took only a few more hours to get going in (undoubtedly due to my familiarity with UV).

This game, however, has been a complete pain in the hindquarters. I suspect the game itself isn't that unbearable. (If it is actually a complex game, why would Matrix only rank it as "Intermediate" in complexity? But why is it that I picked up a "Grognard" game very easily and am at wits end over a merely "Intermediate" game? [&:] )

I suspect that a large part of my difficulty lies with the fact that the stinking manual is so incomplete. Whole rules and term definitions are left out (see the thread about Kentucky neutrality, training officers and naval engineers) making the process of learning the game very tedious and frustrating. [:@] I am getting some pieces filled in as I go (partially through this forum but largely via trial and error), but still am puzzled by many issues - even after 4-5 hours per day for 3 weeks!

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

depends on the type of player you are.

if you can settle for making 'less than optimal' decisions thru ignorance, and still forage ahead
it is easy to play.

If your a perfectionist however, it can be VERY time consuming.
Imagine WitP as the Japs on turn #1


However, its a fun game

I don't mind making mistakes, heck it's part of the fun, but some games have real game killer ones that aren't obvious at the time. I'm big on fun.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

In a single word - NO!

I am a rather experienced wargamer and have been trying to figure this thing out now for 3 weeks. I'm about to give up on the whole deal, but considering the price I paid and the time I've invested, I think I'll stick it out for another week or so.

When Uncommon Valor came out, I jumped right in and had a pretty good feel for the game in a couple of hours. I believe that game was considered to be "Complex" on the Matrix complexity scale. Later, I tried War in the Pacific with its "Grognard" rating. That took only a few more hours to get going in (undoubtedly due to my familiarity with UV).

This game, however, has been a complete pain in the hindquarters. I suspect the game itself isn't that unbearable. (If it is actually a complex game, why would Matrix only rank it as "Intermediate" in complexity? But why is it that I picked up a "Grognard" game very easily and am at wits end over a merely "Complex" game? [&:] )

I suspect that a large part of my difficulty lies with the fact that the stinking manual is so incomplete. Whole rules and term definitions are left out (see the thread about Kentucky neutrality, training officers and naval engineers) making the process of learning the game very tedious and frustrating. [:@] I am getting some pieces filled in as I go (partially through this forum but largely via trial and error), but still am puzzled by many issues - even after 4-5 hours per day for 3 weeks!

Can you find answers to a lot of what is missing in the manuals here at the forums? I can deal with that to a degree though I don't want to be checking it every few minutes.

[Icedawg]

I agree, but at least with the Japanese first turn in WiTP, it's pretty easy to understand how you get the game to accomplish what you want it to do. There are just so many things to take care of on that first turn that it takes forever. (I can take a good 3 or 4 weeks at 8 hours per day just getting a first turn set up! After that, I can take care of subsequent turns at a rate of about 1 or 2 per day.)

As far as this game is concerned, I can't even figure out really basic things. For instance, what is the difference between a "conscript" and a "regular" soldier? I have a feeling it shows up as a change in the uniform worn in the little unit icon and the corresponding improved attributes, but what IS the cut off between "conscript" and "regular"? Since a leader attribute (training officer) is related to this distinction, shouldn't it be spelled out in the manual somewhere?

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts about the game. It seems like an AWESOME game, if you could just figure out the rules and terminology. There was once a time that I complained about the incomplete nature of the WiTP manual. Now, after three weeks of trying to learn to play AACW and being completely stymied, I look back and realize that the authors of the WiTP rules really knew what they were doing.

I must repent for all of the not-so-nice things I once said in the WiTP forum about that manual! [&o]

[Icedawg]

To some extent, yes. The forum has answered some of my questions. But there are some that I haven't gotten much help on - see the conscript/regular question I mention above.

Also, I answer many of my questions myself (or think I do). For example, I was about to ask the forum a question about something that came up last night. I was trying to form up a division commanded by General Winder. I clicked the appropriate box on Winder's window, then proceeded to buy a bunch of replacements and reinforcements. After the turn passed, I checked on Winder, but it didn't look as though a division had formed (the stack still looked the same and the number of command points hadn't changed like the manual says it should have). So, I reclicked the box and bought some more replacements on the next turn. Again, no division formed.

I was about to post a thread and bitch about this apparent bug, but driving in to work this morning, I realized that I may have spent all of my money on replacements and reinforcements each turn. Since divisions cost 10K dollars, the division may not have been formed due to a lack of funds.

I realize I may have made a mistake, but shouldn't the game have given me some kind of message indicating that I had outspent my resources and wouldn't be able to form a division?! This is the kind of thing that gets me a bit PO'ed. [:@] You invest 45 minutes to an hour getting a turn set up, and it gets all screwed up due to something like this (which is the type of thing that most games I've played prevent the player from doing - you get some sort of error message telling you that you're going to have a problem).

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

To some extent, yes. The forum has answered some of my questions. But there are some that I haven't gotten much help on - see the conscript/regular question I mention above.

Also, I answer many of my questions myself (or think I do). For example, I was about to ask the forum a question about something that came up last night. I was trying to form up a division commanded by General Winder. I clicked the appropriate box on Winder's window, then proceeded to buy a bunch of replacements and reinforcements. After the turn passed, I checked on Winder, but it didn't look as though a division had formed (the stack still looked the same and the number of command points hadn't changed like the manual says it should have). So, I reclicked the box and bought some more replacements on the next turn. Again, no division formed.

I was about to post a thread and bitch about this apparent bug, but driving in to work this morning, I realized that I may have spent all of my money on replacements and reinforcements each turn. Since divisions cost 10K dollars, the division may not have been formed due to a lack of funds.

I realize I may have made a mistake, but shouldn't the game have given me some kind of message indicating that I had outspent my resources and wouldn't be able to form a division?! This is the kind of thing that gets me a bit PO'ed. [:@] You invest 45 minutes to an hour getting a turn set up, and it gets all screwed up due to something like this (which is the type of thing that most games I've played prevent the player from doing - you get some sort of error message telling you that you're going to have a problem).

That tends to piss me off too. If you can make tooltips for everything why can you make one that tells you what you are doing wrong or why you can't do something. I'm no programer so maybe it's hard.

Is 45 min to an hour a turn the norm for the full campaign?

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

That tends to piss me off too. If you can make tooltips for everything why can you make one that tells you what you are doing wrong or why you can't do something. I'm no programer so maybe it's hard.

Is 45 min to an hour a turn the norm for the full campaign?

Well, considering that I haven't been able to get past 8 or 10 turns without discovering some new game play issue hanging me up, I can't really answer that. I've been stopping and restarting games now for 3 weeks and the first few turns only take 5-10 minutes or so (most units are locked and I've gone through the routine so many times I can do the first turn or two in my sleep). After that, with more units unlocking and the AI making moves I have to respond to, the time goes way up. I suspect that by early/mid 1862 a single turn is going to be taking upwards of 2 to 3 hours. (But remember what I said earlier about my 3-4 week WiTP first Japanese turn. I'm a bit of a perfectionist and micromanager. If you let some things slide, it obviously won't take that long.)

[James Ward]

I'm no perfectionist and I'm not a good micromanager so it will probably not take me as long.

Thanks for your input.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I'm no perfectionist and I'm not a good micromanager so it will probably not take me as long.

Thanks for your input.

No problem.

I wish I could say the same about the perfectionist/micromanager issue. It would probably make gaming more fun. I just can't leave things up to the computer and have to fuss over detail. Can you say OCD?! [:D]

[simovitch]

I have to admit the manual is lacking in some respects. It would be tough to master the game without the information I have gathered from the ageod forums. Icedawg - I'm not sure why you havn't got an activation on the forums yet[&:]

Maybe contact their webmaster: webmaster(at)ageod.com

[anarchyintheuk]

FWIW I picked up the basics the first time I played. Playing BoA made this somewhat easier. Repeatedly messed up the first few turns because I forgot to check this or that. Once I formed an orderly turn system I didn't miss much except when under the influence.

As far as the "failed to form division" issue. IIRC there's a tooltip or something that provides x number of reasons why your division doesn't form (one of them being not enough resources). It just doesn't point out which one it is. I think there's only three: the above, inactive leader and too many divs. For future reference if your division doesn't immediately compress into the leader sihoulette after you've hit the form button, you're missing something.

Hope you get the game. I've enjoyed it and BoA tremendously.

[typhoon]

I would say you can pick up the basics in a day or two. However the basics will only get you so far. Learning everything the game has to offer however will take far longer but for me that's a good if not great game. I'm not worried by being whipped so jump straight into PBEM and learn the game off those who play it better. Usually they are willing to teach most of the tricks of the trade and you learn a few just by seeing what gets done. Captures the feel of the Civil War better than any game done to date and the leaders really do seem to have personalities. I'm playing 5 PBEM at the moment loosing most but enjoying all there's alot you can get wrong that will mean a thrashing or two but once bitten this game will stay on your hard drive for years.

[Sardonic]

I average 45 min a turn after turn 5.
If that helps. Faster for the South because much fewer units.

[SpharV2]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

In a single word - NO!

I am a rather experienced wargamer and have been trying to figure this thing out now for 3 weeks. I'm about to give up on the whole deal, but considering the price I paid and the time I've invested, I think I'll stick it out for another week or so.

When Uncommon Valor came out, I jumped right in and had a pretty good feel for the game in a couple of hours. I believe that game was considered to be "Complex" on the Matrix complexity scale. Later, I tried War in the Pacific with its "Grognard" rating. That took only a few more hours to get going in (undoubtedly due to my familiarity with UV).

This game, however, has been a complete pain in the hindquarters. I suspect the game itself isn't that unbearable. (If it is actually a complex game, why would Matrix only rank it as "Intermediate" in complexity? But why is it that I picked up a "Grognard" game very easily and am at wits end over a merely "Complex" game? [&:] )

I suspect that a large part of my difficulty lies with the fact that the stinking manual is so incomplete. Whole rules and term definitions are left out (see the thread about Kentucky neutrality, training officers and naval engineers) making the process of learning the game very tedious and frustrating. [:@] I am getting some pieces filled in as I go (partially through this forum but largely via trial and error), but still am puzzled by many issues - even after 4-5 hours per day for 3 weeks!

Can you find answers to a lot of what is missing in the manuals here at the forums? I can deal with that to a degree though I don't want to be checking it every few minutes.

The manual is a bit lacking as far as game mechanics go, admittedly, but if you really want to get into all the details, the AGEOD forums (For those who can register there anyway [:)]) can provide a much more detailed view. The easiest place to find info though is the AACW Wiki. They've collected pretty much every snippet of info on the game that has gotten out on the forums there, and it's very well organized.

As for turn length, it depends what kind of player you are like everyone else has said. I tend to plan everything out well in advance, and so long as things go even somewhat according to plan, I can complete a turn in 5-7 minutes tops. It's only when I have some horrible setback that things can get a bit longer. The main thing that makes it easy to do quickly is that the message log is all linked to location. If you see in the log that a new unit is ready to move, you click on the message and it takes you right to it. You get an event message, click once it will center on it if it has a specific location, double click to get a more in depth look at it. And a lot of people don't realize that you can hover over events to get details on the impact of an event too. Just put the mouse over the event and it will give you the impact on your morale and such. Lots of little things like that can really make the difference between a good game and a bad one.

[von Beanie]

One reason the manual may lack sufficient explanation is that they completely changed the game after it was released. Forming new divisions is one of those changes, and once you learn how it now works, it is a simple task. Keep in mind that when you make major changes to a game system, not everything gets changed in the optimum way. AGEOD decided that creating a division should cost some resources, but it was not practical to add a set of new subroutines that would prevent a novice from making a mistake when first trying it. Frankly, I like the new division formation process compared to the old "purchase the container" system, and I (like everyone else) dealt with the initial frustration of creating them the new way. You will too if you don't give up on it too soon.

AACW is an outstanding game, and a great PBEM game. This is one you should not give up on too early. As I recall, UV and WITP also had some frustrating procedues (and still do), but they can be overcome with learning and practice to reveal some very good underlying games.