Best of Ageod?

[Sranchammer]

I do see where you are coming from. The events is something he's been working on for the past few months. Right now, I believe he's in the middle of rewriting the Kentucky events. I'm looking forward to see what's been done next week when the next version hits.

Did you ever try FY for Rus? That's his work too so you can get a feel for what he's capable of.

Naval ops are the biggest hurdle yet the most recent AAR playtest I saw witnessed a Union landing force of 50k outside Savannah in July 1862. The problem with Union AI right now is in the West. The newest AGEOD patch according to him will help a lot in fixing up that mess

 

[Sranchammer]

^ Of course, 50k in '62 isn't quite realistic either. Needs some work

 

[Burning Bridges]

I have been playing some RuS since yesterday (Kolchak). Doing exceptionally well but the scripted events have more influence on the general picture than my decisions.

Of course I try to use the first turns to bring some order into the armies .. organize Corps etc, but after every turn new forces appear all over the place. Kosak and Komuch forces pop up every turn, even in as far away places as Moscow. And I know from past experience that the game doesn't have qualms either to also remove forces at other times - which can really suck if you have anything going on.

While this chaos may be intended to be absolutely realistic, it's very hard to come to terms with what I am actually doing as the player, if I have to play this blind. The player should at least be informed that something is brewing in Moscow or Turkestan, that some party may join his side in one of the next turns, so he can keep a fleet or relief force ready, and not just react to scripted events every turn.

I think all of this was handled much better in ACW than in RuS. It's something that never bothered me much in the former, but bothers me greatly in the latter. Which is to say it is not a weakness of the engine, but rather a question of how it is put to use.

 

[Burning Bridges]

To be fair I must say that it gets better after the first turns. In the first 4 turns the events change every turn, then around turn 8 the Czechoslovakians are removed (but you keep three of their generals and some regiments).

After that not so much happens in terms of events so you can actually start playing. I'm at turn 41 and having a blast with this campaign! The Reds seem to have an endless supply of troops, 350,000 killed to 90,000 of my own. At least 100,000 were destroyed when I trapped an army in Simbirsk. I'm using the recruit prisoners option practically every turn and ran out of ideas what to do with all the conscripts, right now I have an excess of 800 points.

This campaign is pretty long, even if one side keeps losing battle after battle, it takes a long time until moral gets down.

 

[Malakal]

The war was kind of long in real life, also those casualty reports arent very significant, dont think they show the scale of the conflict correctly.

 

[Burning Bridges]

They show the scale of the combat operations. I don't even think losses through attrition are included in the figure.

The "campaign is pretty long" part was meant in comparison to AACW, where the other side will collapse when morale drops belows ca 40.

 

[Sranchammer]

They show the scale of the combat operations. I don't even think losses through attrition are included in the figure.

The "campaign is pretty long" part was meant in comparison to AACW, where the other side will collapse when morale drops belows ca 40.

Are you playing with the Fatal Years Mod?

 

[ValeVelKal]

It looks like I'm the only one that finds RoP to be his favorite.Maybe because it was my first of the ageod games has something to with it and also,love the setting the most .AJE is shaping to be my new favorite with the PoN's decision cards and RoP recruitment system.

RoP has many drawback but one huge advantage over the others. After the first year or so (and you can bypass it all if you take the 2 or 3rd starting date), there is no "surprise" events like in other games ("oh... look, new reinforcements I was never warned of"). The two game-changers event after 1756 are the English reinforcements, which are announced in advance by the reports on the progress of the American front and are randomized (the date can change by a few turns), and the Russian-pulling-out-of-the-war, but announced by the Russian "Lizzie not feeling well" chain of events (also randomized, the date can change by a few turns, or even a few months). OK, and the end-war events are broken, but games rarely last until 1762 or so. So basically, it is just you and your opponent, with no Deus Ex Machina.

Edit : I forget Sweden pulls out of the war - which is not announced. But on the other hand, Sweden was not cooperating much with the others either.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I played RUS over the last weeks, and I can confirm what has been said before. The Red campaign is where the game absolutely shines!!

I played both White campaigns before and the game was always over in 1919, because the AI cannot handle a single thrust to Moscow. She would not defend the town with all she has available, leaving 100,000+ men in secondary objectives like Nishni-Novgorod. But playing as the Soviets you have much more enemies, there are more interesting events and all in all the game feels a lot more polished. In my current game I am doing quite well in 1919 but morale is just slightly above 100, and I still need to eliminate the enemy factions one by one. Unlike the Whites you cannot win the game with a single offensive, although it's looking likely Kolchaks faction will collapse if I take Omsk.

 

[ValeVelKal]

I played my first Grand Campaign of RUS (as Southern Whites) in PBEM against 2 human players, and it is a blast. There are so many decisions to take on the grand strategy (use the money to build-up in the NorthWest, where your troops are weak but Petrograd is within reach, or to build up in the South - build a navy to control the rivers, of focus on army ? Go for a cavalry force, or pure infantry ?), strategy (support your friends the Siberians, or push, or "securize" Ukraine ?) and tactical level. There are so many dirty tricks to play to other players ? So many recovery after dirty defeats, ... Outstanding, really.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Well, as long as you don't want to stare at ugly NATO counters it's the most advanced system / engine that I know. There are lots of little things that could be improved and I would like to see the engine ported to pure C++ for better performance, but there is no other game currently that can still glue me to a screen for a week.

 

[Malakal]

Really? It got boring fast for me. Mainly because opening moves and further actions are rather predictable and repetitive each game and campaigns heavy scripted.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think boring and advanced are not at odds. What I do agree about are the opening moves and scriptedness, for example once you know that the Czech Legion is removed from the game in 1918, you will of course play a different game.
But if the game wasn't that way, everything would plunge into the realms of pure fantasy. Ideally there would be an option that allows to enable just that, removing the locked and scripted movements, and allowing a sandbox type of game which may be entirely un-realistic

By the way, cool to see you pop up in AGE threads every time. I remember vividly your ... contributions ... to the discussion, so yeah, to each its own What are you playing by the way? I'm basically only interested in games that look good enough to create some real athmosphere. Thought about getting Case Blue but it's a far cry from the depth of an AGEOD title. It also bothers me that the engine is written in VB.NET. Unity of Command and Commander The Great War both look great but are a bit too shallow for my taste, I'm afraid. WitE would be my kind of game, but I am missing the graphics from AGEOD, and that engine is also running on some runtime environment like .NET. That's why it can't even scroll a simple map left / right without jerking like hell.

 

[Malakal]

I have been trying out AGE games lately, mainly Aleia Jacta Est. I even liked it for some time but unfortunately it doesn't have much scenarios that would interest me (that is with a relatively small scale and buildable units including new legions). Liked the Marius vs Sulla scenario just like I loved Polish-Soviet war in RUS. Thats just the kind of scale I like.

Anyway those games are quite complex but ultimately not much is up to the player since the actual combat is rather random in nature. So strategic describes it best I think. Move those troops to use them in best ways and pray for good results. Perhaps playing against other players is a different thing with more surprises.

Will see once the second punic war gets released, maybe I'll go back to AJE.

 

[Sranchammer]

Perhaps playing against other players is a different thing with more surprises.

Will see once the second punic war gets released, maybe I'll go back to AJE.

Playing against humans is far more entertaining IMO. I haven't played against Athena in months.

Definitely looking forward to the Punic Wars, it's why I haven't bought AJE yet

 

[Malakal]

Perhaps playing against other players is a different thing with more surprises.

Will see once the second punic war gets released, maybe I'll go back to AJE.

Playing against humans is far more entertaining IMO. I haven't played against Athena in months.

Definitely looking forward to the Punic Wars, it's why I haven't bought AJE yet

I know playing against humans is way more fun and challenging but its probably also less repetitive/predictable what is my main gripe with those games. That and most scenarios being too big, but thats my own preference for focused campaigns.

I mean I dont mind long campaigns or ones with big scale, but not ones that cover the whole Empire like most AJE civil wars. Italy, Greece, Africa and Spain is quite the perfect amount for me. Of course it doesnt help that in AGE games you have to check the whole map every turn to see what is going on.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Anyway those games are quite complex but ultimately not much is up to the player since the actual combat is rather random in nature. So strategic describes it best I think. Move those troops to use them in best ways and pray for good results.

I think "random" is the worst word to describe it, it's rather too deterministic. Once the stakes are set, like quality of the stack, terrain etc, there is nothing that swings the result in the opposite direction. I see how that can be a turn off for some players, but since you are actually roleplaying the highest level (government, army headquarter, etc), it's the most logical way to let players experience the game. It would of course be interesting if the battles could be simulated in a 2D or 3D environment like Scourge of War, but apart from the fact that AGEOD can not deliver such a product, the game would also be bogged down in infinite micro management and tedium.

My biggest gripe is that the games are ultimately not challenging enough, the AI can keep me on the toes for a while, but it lacks a grand strategic plan, and therefore I know that I will win in every campaign. It is however very interesting when you still learn the game, and I think some people actually lose or give up campaigns in their first playthrough. And I was very close to giving up in my 1863 AAR, when the numerical advantage of the Union was almost overwhelming but I stuck to it and ultimately won a morale victory, when the Union simply lost too many important battles. I think that the AI could be improved dramatically, for example with much better logic to build optimal stacks. It does not do this now, and it is certainly in the reach of current AI programming.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I know playing against humans is way more fun and challenging but its probably also less repetitive/predictable what is my main gripe with those games. That and most scenarios being too big, but thats my own preference for focused campaigns.

I mean I dont mind long campaigns or ones with big scale, but not ones that cover the whole Empire like most AJE civil wars. Italy, Greece, Africa and Spain is quite the perfect amount for me. Of course it doesnt help that in AGE games you have to check the whole map every turn to see what is going on.

I personally don't play PBEM because it doesn't suit me. I like to play when I want, not wait until another person is ready.

Re: checking the map, I don't think that is a problem for me. I usually spend several hours before I make the first turn, make a lot of notes and sketches, until I understand everything that's going on. Then I only check the scripted events every turn, and always have the full picture. Of course in the beginning the huge maps are totally frightening (that's why I started my RUS review with a funny comment of my mate: "This map is simply too big!!!"), but I noted that after one or two campaigns I know the geography by heart, and that helps a great deal in understanding the game. The games should be given to students of geography.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I just finished the Red campaign, what a monster game

My armies were growing larger and larger, at the end I must have had over 500,000 troops. I thought it would never end ... I won at turn 85, just 2 remaining.

The Siberians were finished quickly when I captured Omsk, Ekaterinburg and Perm, completely cutting off their supply, with all their armies trapped west of Perm. It was surprising how long they could fight on with their remaining supply wagons.

The southern whites held a bit longer, but were overrun once I could move large armies from the siberian theatre

The siberian factions still had a little bit of morale left (5), I don't fully understand what precisely triggered the end. Perhaps it was because I had conquered their capitol twice (first Omsk, then Irkutsk).

And by the way, who says the biggest stack always wins? ^^

 

[ValeVelKal]

Well, that's a pleasure I can understand.

I am myself in the last turns (hopefully) of a 3 players PBEM, as the Southern Whites.

Moscow ain't far :

Petrograd speaks Russian. Wait... you know what I mean...

If I could reach Moscow before my "ally" the Siberian, it would be even better :

He is facing Trotsky, I am not, so I have an edge.

I don't you prefer to play whenever you want, BB, but when you start PBEM at AGEOD, you don't look back and play SP ever again.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Also, how do you do to have larger images Mine are barely readable.

 

[ValeVelKal]

And by the way, who says the biggest stack always wins? ^^

36 000 of his 65 000 guys were members of the supply trains. You actually faced less than 29 000 soldiers with 38 000 soldiers on your own (including 6 000 KOM), but you were deeply entrenched, he was on the attack.
Not too surprising

 

[Sranchammer]

And by the way, who says the biggest stack always wins? ^^

Paging Emobunny

 

[Sranchammer]

I don't you prefer to play whenever you want, BB, but when you start PBEM at AGEOD, you don't look back and play SP ever again.

I feel like AACW and RUS PBEM would be great for AARs

 

[Burning Bridges]

36 000 of his 65 000 guys were members of the supply trains. You actually faced less than 29 000 soldiers with 38 000 soldiers on your own (including 6 000 KOM), but you were deeply entrenched, he was on the attack.
Not too surprising

Yes, how could I miss that. That also explains why siberian armies remained active for almost a year, without any towns to support them.