AGEOD's American Civil War Reviewed

[Jason]

<strong>[ Review ]</strong>

Our old pal Trash took <a href="http://shopus.ageod.com/game-description-American_Civil_War-659234.html" target="_blank">AGEOD's American Civil War</a> for a spin and provided this here review.<br/><br/><strong>Read: </strong><a href="http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=52">AGEOD's American Civil War Reviewed</a>

 

[Pliskin]

I followed this game during it's development, and bought it on Day One of it's release. As far as ACW games go, it's certainly one of the easier to get into --- and better looking --- games out there.

On the bad side, the AI isn't the smartest --- as the CSA, I've beaten it into submission by 1863 on numerous occassions. Definitely a game you want to play head-to-head with another human in order to measure it's full potential.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I followed this game during it's development, and bought it on Day One of it's release. As far as ACW games go, it's certainly one of the easier to get into --- and better looking --- games out there.

On the bad side, the AI isn't the smartest

No, the AI is quite good. Of course a competent player will always win, but none the less the AI is very able to handle the huge battlefield and creating constant threads. Besides the fun of this game is as much struggling with your own side, there is so incredibly much you have to do in order to get armies to the front, the actual offensives are only one part the game.

If always win you by 1863 it would be a good idea to start a bit later, lets say in '62 or '63. That way most fronts and armies will be already gridlocked and you will not be able to blitz the AI in the first six months.

However this game would benefit from a mode that gives the AI additional resources (think of STW before the addon), but it's yet to be seen. The SVF mod could make the game much more challenging, but I havent tried it yet.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I came across this AAR, which contains all you need to know about AACW, and the some.

http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?p=148187

Lots of meaningful screenshots.

 

[Mefi]

I agree with Global Explorer about the AI. 'Athena' is actually surprisingly capable and very well scripted in places.

AGEOD's commitment to support and patching is something which really shines through - and the community over there is very friendly and willing to assist the devs in testing potential release candidates. Got to say that Pocus (the game's programmer) really impresses me with his interaction with the community, his willingness to listen to feedback and his desire to help out (just as an example, I got a corrupt download when I first got the game and Pocus sorted out an alternative download link within the hour for me).

Don't be put off by the apparant simplicity of the gameplay (especially combat) - it's actually very detailed and well thought out.

Would really recommend the game if you're searching for a new Civil War challenge. That the development team are so committed to patching and supporting their games is another huge bonus.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think Ageod attracts such people. Especially pocus and gpepper have an enthusiasm and untiring friendlieness that borders on naivety. Unbelieveable chaps.

Ageod is a very unusual company. Hence the name: Adaptive Game Engine Online Development. They don't have an office, and people get payed with shares instead of cash. No one is working there because he has to.

They and the BDG (Battle of Britain 2 developer group) are by far the friendiest communities I know. This kind of thing happens only if a game is in the hand of gamers, who do it for idealism, and who constantly get positive feedback for their work.

Btw, just today the final patch for AACW was released: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14820

Hopefully I will have time to get back into it soon.

This is going to be the last patch for a long time since they got petitions by their modders to freeze patching. All in all Ageod made 14 major patches for AACW, which also include most from three years worth of community work (e.g. jabberwocks general portraits).

Don't be put off by the apparant simplicity of the gameplay (especially combat) - it's actually very detailed and well thought out.

I don't know where that simpicity thing came from. AACW is absolutely massive. I would never start a campaign if I haven't at least a couple of days spare time.

Every turn takes between 5 minutes and several hours, on average I would say at least 15 minutes. The campaign got 100+ turns. That makes 25 hours play time, but in reality it can take several weeks.

 

[Mefi]

I don't know where that simpicity thing came from. AACW is absolutely massive. I would never start a campaign if I haven't at least a couple of days spare time.

Every turn takes between 5 minutes and several hours, on average I would say at least 15 minutes. The campaign got 100+ turns. That makes 25 hours play time, but in reality it can take several weeks.

I've had several friends take one look at the graphics and the movement system and dismiss it as being as deep as North and South or a Paradox-lite type game. It's the style of the graphics and the actual scale of the map I guess - it's true operational and strategic level rather than the operational/tactical scale of most ACW games. The abstraction of the economy and the lack of ability to micro-manage and optimise was also something one friend commented upon - that this is the very start of wars based around economic power and such optimisation wasn't conceived and so would be ahistorical isn't something which washes with every micro-management happy gamer.

To be honest, the gameplay is very simple to get into - other than how to form divisions, the actual mechanics are pretty easy to understand. Applying the knowledge is another thing altogether though.

Big doesn't necessarily mean deep though. HoI2 is big. It's not particularly deep though and basically devolves into a tank rush by mid-war. You won't have much success with such a way of playing in AACW though.

 

[Burning Bridges]

From my WiA review:

it takes some time to get into this, or any other AGE game. It's different to most other strategy games in that it does not give causal results, and rather simulates the options of a general commander, the problems that come with a chain of command. The system is based entirely on stats and formulas, but these are so complex that the outcome of many actions feels random and unpredictable, which can be a bit strange if you're expecting 100% causal mechanics. But in my opinion this is by design: you can give orders, but it will be your officers who carry them out, and there will be many times they simply screw up. A good way to play this system is to ignore the numbers and only use your intuition. If you do something stupid, you will probably know why it did not work, but something similar to real history will have developed before your eyes: a war with ups and downs. I don't want to delve deeper into this, but would it be possible to make a similar strategy game that hides unit stats altogether, and instead lets you concentrate on roleplaying a general commander only?

When I play now, I don't look at the combat stats any more. I just divide units into categories, acording to unit type (Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery) or quality (Militia, Regular, Elite).