AGEOD, Matrix and Slitherine merged! - A message to the players

[Blind Sniper]

I'm not sure about monster games. Whether they are complicated enough that player have enough tools to influence battle tactically. Or is it complex because there are so many units to move around. HPS series have good OOB, map, better tactical approach and price.

If you are speaking about WitP I would say both, I can assure you that a skilled player will always win against a newbie.

You'll be able to order the construction of a few extra sections of rail-roads yes, but only through historical options.

Perfect!

For supply, we are thinking of proposing a new system where supply only really matters in tense situations, like travelling in poor areas, being under siege. Basically, you can forget about supply except in these situations. This is again to help new players climb the hill (or is it a mountain) of the playing curve.

If it is an option and not the only system I totally agree, but when I was a newbie of the game the supply system wasn't my main concern, again maybe it is just me.

As for battle, what can help new players, for you?

I think that manual is poor in this matter and how the battle works was my main concern, too many things not so clear or missing from manual, I would add a section that explain exactly how the system is handle (something close to Narwhal's AJE guides, very good job indeed).

[Baris]

Was talking about WIE. But playing WIP is a bit of skill more of a patience maybe. Still not touch it properly upon purchase. But good to see games not to think about only newbies.
With the scale Ageod games has to offer I think I prefer much complex&strict supply system to think about.

[Blind Sniper]

Was talking about WIE.

Eh eh, strange game...fantastic research about OOB but time scale wrong for my taste, in fact a lot of expedients have been created trying to mitigate gamey or unhistorical behaviours but one week/10 miles per turn is not correct (IMHO), carpet defence or chain HQ build up are quite common in the AAR but I hate read this kind of "tactics". Unfortunately all future games will have the same system (will be fun to play the Italian or Ardenne campaign with several divisions in 5-6 hexes :bonk .

Back to the topic, in a strategic game I want a in deep supply system because is very important.

Another point for a newbie not so easy to handle as CSA is react to USA amphibious operations, too easy keep the units supplied in enemy territory controlling a single port.

[soundoff]

For supply, we are thinking of proposing a new system where supply only really matters in tense situations, like travelling in poor areas, being under siege. Basically, you can forget about supply except in these situations. This is again to help new players climb the hill (or is it a mountain) of the playing curve.

As for battle, what can help new players, for you? Remember, this won't change your way of playing as a veteran, these will be done through options.

Well for me improvements to battles would be (in no particular order)

1. Real information as to who/what was actually involved in a battle. To often you have to second guess which forces were actually involved .....whether this or that Corp marched to the sound of the guns. It really should be obvious.

2. Allied to the above the removal of data related to the number of troops in the region in which the battle takes place. Players need to know what troops were involved....not simply how many were in the region.

3. More fog of war in respect of power ratings. They give too much away in many instances.

4. Removal of the HQ/Command corp cannot activate combat if other unactivated Corps are in the same region.

On the supply front I do so hope you do not dumb it down but for sales I suspect you will. IMHO AACW1 already dumbs down supply more than it ought to. For much of the war players already do not have to garrison supply depots yet logistics are/were probably the most important aspect of any conflict yet known to mankind.


Just my off the head thoughts


Oh I should also have added giving players the ability of choosing retreat paths for units if they so desire as the current computer generated methods are abysmal at best.

[Philo32b]

I also hope supply does not get dumbed down for the veterans. Perhaps game options as to the level of supply sophistication required in a game? Challenging supply, railroad mobility, and big corps/divisional structures are things I enjoy about ACW and RUS games.

A big help for new players would be many more tool tips telling you why specifically you cannot do what you want to do. For example, I now know that a subordinate general in a stack still needs to be activated in order to press the divisional command button, but as a new player it was entirely mysterious (and frustrating) to me why the button was grayed out. A tool tip would have helped.

Another big help for new players are many short, small campaigns to get their feet wet. RUS does this brilliantly with the Finnish Civil War. More like this would be better, as in WIA. Even better yet, a tutorial like Panzer Corps is best. It puts you into several short scenarios, each building on the last as they teach you a new concept and get more difficult.

[khbynum]

OK, nobody likes weekly turns. Here's another idea. How about a totally non-historical start, if only as an option? Currently, the game forces you to adopt the Virginia first strategy the Confederacy employed by dictating where early reinforcements appear and forcing you to move the Capital to Richmond. Let the player chose, from the start, where to build units and where to put (leave) the Capital. Maybe even start the game in February, 1861 and watch secession take its course.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

OK, nobody likes weekly turns. Here's another idea. How about a totally non-historical start, if only as an option? Currently, the game forces you to adopt the Virginia first strategy the Confederacy employed by dictating where early reinforcements appear and forcing you to move the Capital to Richmond. Let the player chose, from the start, where to build units and where to put (leave) the Capital. Maybe even start the game in February, 1861 and watch secession take it's course.

This. Though we'll probably need a good quickstart campaign later on in 1861 for PBEM purposes.

[Mac Linehan]

Gents -

Am very pleased with the AGEOD / Matrix / Slitherine merger, a considerable collection of game design talent. Matrix has had my respect and business since day one, as I feel that their products, integrity and support have measured up. There is no question that the folks at AGEOD share those same qualifications.

While I am blessed to posses a number of excellent games, WitP AE has consumed most of my time since it's release in 2009. AGEOD - specifically PON was brought to my attention by a gent who posts on both the Matrix and AGEOD forums. While I bought PON in 2011, it was not until recently that I made the decision to place AE on hold and do the homework to learn the PON AGE system. I have not been disappointed; it is very difficult to stop this Sunday evening (am up very early each work day) and wait until next Friday to fire up PON again.

This weekend I added AJE and BOA2 to my AGEOD collection - that includes WW1 Gold, the ACW and RUS, all (with the exception of RUS) unplayed. I am very accustomed to spending a considerable amount of time on an AE turn; it is a delight to play a game with 15 day turns and an elegant interface - still complex, but flows and moves along nicely. My complements to the AGEOD Team - for a job well done.

WitE is also sitting (patiently!) on the shelf - but will have to wait.

OK - just a newbie, but I look forward to visiting these forums often.

Blind Sniper - great to see an old friend from the AE forums.

Mac

[FENRIS]

OK, nobody likes weekly turns. Here's another idea. How about a totally non-historical start, if only as an option? Currently, the game forces you to adopt the Virginia first strategy the Confederacy employed by dictating where early reinforcements appear and forcing you to move the Capital to Richmond. Let the player chose, from the start, where to build units and where to put (leave) the Capital. Maybe even start the game in February, 1861 and watch secession take it's course.

I would like an alternative campaign in january/february 61, or start at the very beginning in late 1860, you can choose your strategy and the way you lead the Confederation or Union (total what-if campaign).

[Blind Sniper]

Blind Sniper - great to see an old friend from the AE forums.

One of the best community games that I have ever joined
Every so often we need a game not so much complicated but still funny to play

[czert2]

Who reminded steel panters ???? Curse on you. I love this game, it is great and i will love to see it reborn. It shame it have troubles runnig on latest os.

[Citizen X]

warning, nerdy explanations ahead!

For us V3 vs V2 is more about 'what is the graphical library we will use'. As such, we will use V2, as V3 (as in PON) has some problems that we don't believe are easily fixable. Hopefully, we will be able to update slightly the V2 graphic library though, for AACW2 (just slightly).

...

That's great news for Linux users. It is for DirectDraw issues that PON is not working in Linux. (crashes when loading certain dds files).

[FionaW]

Great ? I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your website. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related information ended up being truly easy to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it in the least. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Excellent task.