Ian Coote wrote:Didn't like FOF, but just love AGEOD'S game on the civil war.Bought Gary Grigsby's War Between The States last week,not as good as AGEODS,but its still a really good game.Would rate ACW 10,WBTS 9,FOF 6.
Grigsby's WBTS -- I thought that was not out until December? Is it better than World at War, which I heard was too simplified?
No,WBTS came out last week,didn't try world at war,I too thought it looked too simple.At first glance WBTS looks like its on the simple side, but its not,lots going on below the surface.Having an 184 page manual should also tell you its a pretty deep game.Only monthly turns,but you have to put a lot of thought into each one so it should take a while to play.Only thing I didn't like was the July 61 start,would sooner start April 61.Its a good game but ACW is still #1,can't wait for Wars in America.
CWNut77 wrote:GShock -- thanks, you have given me a nice summary of the game. At the moment I am tied up with AACW (I can rarely play multiple games at one time any more, let alone multiple WARGAMES at one time LOL), but maybe someday I will pick up FOF. Another interesting aspect I found was the leaders in FOF -- over 1000 of them???
over 1000 and all with BIOs built by community members. Another missing thing is river combat but that's gonna change too. It's a great game, nothing else to add.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!
We ain't going down!
CWNut77,
"underground"?
It's just a niche market. Typified by:
- Usually older gamers.
- Focus on strategy and longer gaming sessions (most often turn based).
- PBEM tends to be much more popular than direct TCP play.
- An interest in history, realism, and modeling/simulation accuracy.
Well, although we are not on the Panther Games forums ... I've been a key volunteer member of that team for over five years. In a nutshell what makes PG's products unique are:
- Hiearchical command structure (like real life). You delegate to subordinates and things get done by proxy.
- Realtime (no turns). Real life has no turns. Pure turn based play introduces artifacts that are arbitrary simply due to sequencing. The AGE Engine uses a hybrid system known as WEGO (popularized by Battlefront in the Combat Mission Series); technically defined as non-alternating turns with simultaneous execution/resolution.
- Order delays. In many wargames things happen instantly, but in real life it takes hours maybe even days for orders to get executed.
- An elegant interface that allows the player to focus playing a strategy game at the strategic level as opposed to having to micromanaged units to realize one's strategy.
- One of the best AI's in the business. You can trust the AI to get the job done in a reasonable fashion when you give it orders. The AI is so good that we have had a standing staff member of the Army's War College (USA that is) on the team monitoring our progress.
At the moment, the games are strictly WWII operational warfare. Despite all the strengths listed above, the customer base remains small. This is mainly due to the fact that although war gamers are constantly screaming for realism in their gaming. Many do not want to play without turns and hexes. Most war gamers come from a tradition of board gaming or maintain boardgaming's basic cultural features. They are not so much looking to experience what true military command (boxing with your eyes blind folded) is like, but rather prefer to have total control of every detail of battle and prefer a chess-like game.
However, if you are looking to know what real military operational command is like, then you cannot find anything better. You will learn to play games at the strategic level and give orders to get things done. You will learn that warfare is a continuous ebb and flow from which you must recognize the key junctures at which decisions are required. You will learn how to make plan and put it into motion while trying to assess how it is doing with imperfect knowledge. You will learn that unlike most PC wargames which portray warfare as three dimensional, there is actually a critical fourth dimension. TIME Battles are won and lost in this dimension. If you can get inside the opposing commanders decision loop, then you can stop reacting and instead be the one calling the shots. So, you will stop playing your battles in the present. Instead you will learn, how to anticipate where things will be in 12, 24, 48 hours. You will be giving your orders based on your belief of what will be and not what is or was.
If any of this sounds like fun to you, then you'll find all this at:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=84
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=123
While their you find about 300 pages of introductory and advanced material from yours truly; these are the Mini-Guides of which OldSpec4 speaks.
Take care.
"underground"?
It's just a niche market. Typified by:
- Usually older gamers.
- Focus on strategy and longer gaming sessions (most often turn based).
- PBEM tends to be much more popular than direct TCP play.
- An interest in history, realism, and modeling/simulation accuracy.
Well, although we are not on the Panther Games forums ... I've been a key volunteer member of that team for over five years. In a nutshell what makes PG's products unique are:
- Hiearchical command structure (like real life). You delegate to subordinates and things get done by proxy.
- Realtime (no turns). Real life has no turns. Pure turn based play introduces artifacts that are arbitrary simply due to sequencing. The AGE Engine uses a hybrid system known as WEGO (popularized by Battlefront in the Combat Mission Series); technically defined as non-alternating turns with simultaneous execution/resolution.
- Order delays. In many wargames things happen instantly, but in real life it takes hours maybe even days for orders to get executed.
- An elegant interface that allows the player to focus playing a strategy game at the strategic level as opposed to having to micromanaged units to realize one's strategy.
- One of the best AI's in the business. You can trust the AI to get the job done in a reasonable fashion when you give it orders. The AI is so good that we have had a standing staff member of the Army's War College (USA that is) on the team monitoring our progress.
At the moment, the games are strictly WWII operational warfare. Despite all the strengths listed above, the customer base remains small. This is mainly due to the fact that although war gamers are constantly screaming for realism in their gaming. Many do not want to play without turns and hexes. Most war gamers come from a tradition of board gaming or maintain boardgaming's basic cultural features. They are not so much looking to experience what true military command (boxing with your eyes blind folded) is like, but rather prefer to have total control of every detail of battle and prefer a chess-like game.
However, if you are looking to know what real military operational command is like, then you cannot find anything better. You will learn to play games at the strategic level and give orders to get things done. You will learn that warfare is a continuous ebb and flow from which you must recognize the key junctures at which decisions are required. You will learn how to make plan and put it into motion while trying to assess how it is doing with imperfect knowledge. You will learn that unlike most PC wargames which portray warfare as three dimensional, there is actually a critical fourth dimension. TIME Battles are won and lost in this dimension. If you can get inside the opposing commanders decision loop, then you can stop reacting and instead be the one calling the shots. So, you will stop playing your battles in the present. Instead you will learn, how to anticipate where things will be in 12, 24, 48 hours. You will be giving your orders based on your belief of what will be and not what is or was.
If any of this sounds like fun to you, then you'll find all this at:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=84
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=123
While their you find about 300 pages of introductory and advanced material from yours truly; these are the Mini-Guides of which OldSpec4 speaks.
Take care.
Despite having just explained why I absolutely love what Panther Game's had done, I still love no less our products here at AGE Studio.
Our engine offers a nice compromise between traditional wargaming/board gaming roots and Panther's extreme reality. AGE offers the option for a more methodical and analytical game that has become the standard for war games. The interface is quite intuitive and elegant. Forces are built and deconstructed by simple drag and dropping. So, is pathing and orders. Although not offering totally arbitrary command at any level, stacking concepts do help reduce the micromanagement work load.
The player can fight battles that span continents against worthy AI opponents. The war and combat aspects are handled in a believable and immersive manner. Another major company known for grand strategy games has addressed many time periods and struggles. Although they provide a rich feature set, their games rarely demonstrate AI combat such the player can feel he/she is fighting something other than a simple ameboa that functions using only the simplest methods of massing and thrusting. AGE at its roots is war game engine. Although the games offer various domestic and diplomatic options, the combat remains well executed and immersive. The player truly commands and fights historic battles as opposed to being relegated to role playing and "make believe" in a diverse panarama of games rich in features, but poor in execution.
Our engine offers a nice compromise between traditional wargaming/board gaming roots and Panther's extreme reality. AGE offers the option for a more methodical and analytical game that has become the standard for war games. The interface is quite intuitive and elegant. Forces are built and deconstructed by simple drag and dropping. So, is pathing and orders. Although not offering totally arbitrary command at any level, stacking concepts do help reduce the micromanagement work load.
The player can fight battles that span continents against worthy AI opponents. The war and combat aspects are handled in a believable and immersive manner. Another major company known for grand strategy games has addressed many time periods and struggles. Although they provide a rich feature set, their games rarely demonstrate AI combat such the player can feel he/she is fighting something other than a simple ameboa that functions using only the simplest methods of massing and thrusting. AGE at its roots is war game engine. Although the games offer various domestic and diplomatic options, the combat remains well executed and immersive. The player truly commands and fights historic battles as opposed to being relegated to role playing and "make believe" in a diverse panarama of games rich in features, but poor in execution.
[quote="MarkShot"]CWNut77,
"underground"?
It's just a niche market. Typified by:
- Usually older gamers.
- Focus on strategy and longer gaming sessions (most often turn based).
- PBEM tends to be much more popular than direct TCP play.
- An interest in history, realism, and modeling/simulation accuracy.
Hey I resemble these remarks
except for the PBEM bullet. I never really had the time to invest in PBEM gaming which is probably why I got involved w/ games from Panther and AGEOD. I pretty much suck at most games and these two game developers (a few more are out there but not many) have provided an AI that gives me all the challenge I can handle. To complement the great gaming has been outstanding game support. A combination for my $ that is hard to beat. 
Mike
"underground"?
It's just a niche market. Typified by:
- Usually older gamers.
- Focus on strategy and longer gaming sessions (most often turn based).
- PBEM tends to be much more popular than direct TCP play.
- An interest in history, realism, and modeling/simulation accuracy.
Hey I resemble these remarks
except for the PBEM bullet. I never really had the time to invest in PBEM gaming which is probably why I got involved w/ games from Panther and AGEOD. I pretty much suck at most games and these two game developers (a few more are out there but not many) have provided an AI that gives me all the challenge I can handle. To complement the great gaming has been outstanding game support. A combination for my $ that is hard to beat.
Mike
This subject has been discussed in length on the AGEod forum and the Matrix forum.
The AGEod thread is here:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3608
Cheers
Korrigan
The AGEod thread is here:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3608
Cheers
Korrigan
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
command (note the "/") character) at the end of the quote to close it up and make it appear like a normal quote.Gray_Lensman wrote:oldspec4:
Helpful tip - When you are manually trying to quote someone maybe by cut and paste as it appears you have done just above. You can manually place a
Example:
MarkShot wrote:CWNut77,
"underground"?
It's just a niche market. Typified by:
Displays like this when done right:
Yep...think its also called submit reply w/o preview
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
MarkShot -- sorry my friend, bad choice of wording
And thanks for making me drool all over my keyboard at your awe-inspiring description of Panther Games.
But I digress -- you should be a orator my friend. Your descriptions are well written and persuasive. However, I will stick with my new friends at AGEod for the time being
And thanks for making me drool all over my keyboard at your awe-inspiring description of Panther Games.
But I digress -- you should be a orator my friend. Your descriptions are well written and persuasive. However, I will stick with my new friends at AGEod for the time being
OldSpec4,
I know what you mean about AI. I don't play games with others (long time ago I used to fly online competitively). So, for me, a game lives or dies based on its AI and replayability. I think you need both to make something an exceptional investment.
(below I am speaking about games generally as opposed to specific products)
The time investment one can put into learning a complex war or strategy game can often be quite daunting. Thus, I look for games that besides giving me a challenge can be played over an extended period. That usually comes down to four factors in the game's design/situation:
(1) Extremely well balanced such that the game remain challenging throughout the entire gaming session. I hate games where having completed 25% of a scenario, you know whether you win or lose, and now you must play and 10 hours to collect your reward.
(2) The game offers many paths to achieve one's objectives. This keeps things interesting, since you don't quickly find yourself in a well worn rut of one session seeming like the next.
(3) A dynamic game system. This allows the game to be played over and over without one campaign being the same as the next. Of course, there should be some options for configuring the campaign you get. A good dynamic system, allows the player to never run out of opportunities to enjoy the product. However, something being dynamic doesn't guarantee replayability. Dynamic campaigns can be of a nature that they all look pretty much the same or they can be such terrible match ups that they are a waste of time. There was one flight sim, I owned that would easily generate 20 dynamic missions in a row that were all "identical escort the bombers missions". There was another ground combat game that would often generate scenarios where the sides were unbalanced by orders of magnitude and that the player wouldn't know this until playing it out. Some good dynamic game systems are: Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Aces of the Deep, Tropico 1, ... (old but very nicely done)
(4) A dynamic game system can guarantee that a game lives forever. On the other hand, even without one a game can effectively live forever. This occurs when the game's community is so large and vibrant that user created scenarios effectively are so numerous that they are practically infinite. Some examples of games with effectively infinite collections of scenarios are: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Combat Mission (BO/BB/AK), Harpoon (both classic and 2/3 variants), ...
---
Now, we were talking about Panther Games and AGE Studios. I think in terms of AI both of these engines are not easily surpassed. However, the gaming systems in terms of replayability, I would rate more along the lines of being average to above average; but neither is setting new standards in this particular area. Neither have dynamic scenario generation or third party content available for download totaling in the hundreds or thousands of scenarios. However, both engines do offer the ability to play with certain difficulty factors to press the player greatly. Also, both have scenarios of very substantial length which due to the great number of turns or time and units that quite a bit of variability can be achieved. AGE does offer one interesting option that isn't too often found in games; the ability to switch sides mid-game. So, you fight half the battle as the USA and work the CSA into a corner. Then, rather than finishing the job, you pick up the CSA and see if you could defeat a crafty human opponent (yourself) and ressurect the CSA. I wonder if many have tried this mode of play?
I know what you mean about AI. I don't play games with others (long time ago I used to fly online competitively). So, for me, a game lives or dies based on its AI and replayability. I think you need both to make something an exceptional investment.
(below I am speaking about games generally as opposed to specific products)
The time investment one can put into learning a complex war or strategy game can often be quite daunting. Thus, I look for games that besides giving me a challenge can be played over an extended period. That usually comes down to four factors in the game's design/situation:
(1) Extremely well balanced such that the game remain challenging throughout the entire gaming session. I hate games where having completed 25% of a scenario, you know whether you win or lose, and now you must play and 10 hours to collect your reward.
(2) The game offers many paths to achieve one's objectives. This keeps things interesting, since you don't quickly find yourself in a well worn rut of one session seeming like the next.
(3) A dynamic game system. This allows the game to be played over and over without one campaign being the same as the next. Of course, there should be some options for configuring the campaign you get. A good dynamic system, allows the player to never run out of opportunities to enjoy the product. However, something being dynamic doesn't guarantee replayability. Dynamic campaigns can be of a nature that they all look pretty much the same or they can be such terrible match ups that they are a waste of time. There was one flight sim, I owned that would easily generate 20 dynamic missions in a row that were all "identical escort the bombers missions". There was another ground combat game that would often generate scenarios where the sides were unbalanced by orders of magnitude and that the player wouldn't know this until playing it out. Some good dynamic game systems are: Railroad Tycoon Deluxe, Aces of the Deep, Tropico 1, ... (old but very nicely done)
(4) A dynamic game system can guarantee that a game lives forever. On the other hand, even without one a game can effectively live forever. This occurs when the game's community is so large and vibrant that user created scenarios effectively are so numerous that they are practically infinite. Some examples of games with effectively infinite collections of scenarios are: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Combat Mission (BO/BB/AK), Harpoon (both classic and 2/3 variants), ...
---
Now, we were talking about Panther Games and AGE Studios. I think in terms of AI both of these engines are not easily surpassed. However, the gaming systems in terms of replayability, I would rate more along the lines of being average to above average; but neither is setting new standards in this particular area. Neither have dynamic scenario generation or third party content available for download totaling in the hundreds or thousands of scenarios. However, both engines do offer the ability to play with certain difficulty factors to press the player greatly. Also, both have scenarios of very substantial length which due to the great number of turns or time and units that quite a bit of variability can be achieved. AGE does offer one interesting option that isn't too often found in games; the ability to switch sides mid-game. So, you fight half the battle as the USA and work the CSA into a corner. Then, rather than finishing the job, you pick up the CSA and see if you could defeat a crafty human opponent (yourself) and ressurect the CSA. I wonder if many have tried this mode of play?
CWNut77 wrote:MarkShot -- sorry my friend, bad choice of wording
And thanks for making me drool all over my keyboard at your awe-inspiring description of Panther Games.
But I digress -- you should be a orator my friend. Your descriptions are well written and persuasive. However, I will stick with my new friends at AGEod for the time being
Understood. And know that your new friends are very happy to have you!
Actually, the overlap of PG and AGEOD customers is significant. I must say that many of those who I originally knew as PG customers are also here now as AGE Studio customers.
We draw a number of different demographics. In terms of hardcore linear warfare/napoleonics grognards, there is no common draw. But in terms of customers looking for good AI challenge, realtime/WEGO gaming, and real maps without hexes, there is quite a bit of commonality of customer motivational factors. In fact, it was long term PG customer who called my attention to BOA1 two years ago that started kicked off my association here.
arsan wrote:Talking about other ACW games, Take Command Second Manassas is also awesome
Regards
U mean u have this game and is worthy? Any SS or URL to show?
What about John Tiller's Battlegrounds civil war? Looks pretty heavy and old on graphics but the concepts seem good. Anyone tried JT?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!
We ain't going down!
GShock wrote:U mean u have this game and is worthy? Any SS or URL to show?
This is the developer web with plenty of info
http://www.madminutegames.com/
The game is tactic and on real time but as Panther games, this real time is far from being a typical RTS game.
You can play at several levels, commanding just a a brigade , a division, a corps... or the whole army
The smaller the more micromanagement you can do. At Corps level up, you can mostly give orders to brigades or even divisions and let your subordinates follow them by themselves according to his capabilities and personality.
The AI is pretty good and it could be very interesting to control only part of an army and having to follow orders form a senior AI general... or being senior and seeing your hot tempered AI subordinate not follow orders and charge on his own at the enemy screwing your plans
leure:
Pretty historic.
Graphically is very nice for a wargame and there are a lot of mods, maps and scenarios done for it. You can check them here
http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/wargame-mods/mad-minute-games-mods/
The only downside for you would be it has no multiplayer.
I'm too slow and old to manage scenarios at high level (too stressful for me :niark
but controlling just a part of the army and being immersed in the big picture of the battle is also very nice IMHO.
Regards
Carnium, I know that this is about ACW, but now that you talk about american conquest, there is a huge napoleonic mod for American conquest fight back, by gexozoid
http://www.mastersofthefield.com/ew_mod_menu.htm
Not tried it as I have not american conquest, but found it in my search for a napoleonic wargame that ended with NCP
http://www.mastersofthefield.com/ew_mod_menu.htm
Not tried it as I have not american conquest, but found it in my search for a napoleonic wargame that ended with NCP
arsan wrote:If CWG2 could be played at higher resolutions i would gladly give it a go.
Imagine AACW + CWG2 battles and different weapon choices = my dream game
Nikel wrote:Carnium, I know that this is about ACW, but now that you talk about american conquest, there is a huge napoleonic mod for American conquest fight back, by gexozoid
Thanks. I think I have found it too when I was looking for mods. I also bought Cossacks 2 - Battle for Europe (White Lebel). Now I need at least 48 hours per day to actually play some games
leure:
GShock wrote:And how about John Tiller's BG Civil War?
BTW i now remember playing Sid Meyer's Gettysburg. That was a looooong time ago.
Tiller's games are quite good. Very historically acurate and detailed. They take quite awhile to complete...but they are fun representations of all the "What ifs" of a certain Campaign.
What's great about them is the maps are so HUGE. it's really great for creating an immersive operational experience.
The one drawback I've noticed is a pretty poor AI.
-
W.Barksdale
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 916
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:17 pm
- Location: UK
arsan wrote:This is the developer web with plenty of info
http://www.madminutegames.com/
The game is tactic and on real time but as Panther games, this real time is far from being a typical RTS game.
You can play at several levels, commanding just a a brigade , a division, a corps... or the whole army
The smaller the more micromanagement you can do. At Corps level up, you can mostly give orders to brigades or even divisions and let your subordinates follow them by themselves according to his capabilities and personality.
The AI is pretty good ...
Regards
Arsan,
Since we've been keeping score of your favorite games and my involvement, besides Panther Games and AGEOD (AGE Studio), you'll be please to see me listed on the credits of TC2M. However, I'll tell you that the TC series has many deficiencies in the AI and what most take for very good AI turned out to be extremely talented scripting of scenarios. The AI is in fact disabled for the most part in the scenarios and units are moved, positioned, and activated solely by scripting commands.
However, Adam Bryant's concept for the TC series was truly a ground breaking vision. It's too bad that he ended with more scripting/scenario recreation then purposeful behavior by the AI in the game. Adam is a personal friend and as a game designer is someone who impresses me of having his own fresh vision rather than conforming to pre-existing constructs.
If we put AI aside for the minute, then some of the major differences between his vision he realized and that of Dave O'Connor from Panther Games are:
- TC is largely 3D with a minimal 2D representation. This far more immersive, but as many have noted has trouble scaling for large fights compared to 2D interfaces.
- TC also allows command at any level, but unlike PG's game, TC allows the player to be surbordinated to the AI. In PG's games, the player is always the senior commander on the field. In TC, the player can experience what is like to be a minor actor on the grand stage. (This approach fits in much better with the scripted scenario concept.)
- TC largely ignored order delays and propagation. With the exception of corriers sending stance orders, there are no delays.
Adam is a brilliant designer and his first time out from the gate was a very impressive piece of work. I am not sure whether it eclipsed the classic SMG, but it certainly was worth to be held up alongside and compared. SMG still compares well in the areas of:
- Generic AI (linear self organizing concepts work very well).
- An extremely clean interface which considers many factors but reduces things to a simple straight forward interface of stress levels and units breaking.
- Extremely well balanced game play where battles easilys swing back and forth many times.
- MP
- Superb use of sound. Every voice prompt conveys information about relative combat bonuses or maluses: "Their taking cover!", "Aim low!", "Here they come!", "Stand up and fight!"
---
Well, as you can tell, I love discussing game engine design. I am particularly impressed with how people such as Adam Bryant, Philippe Thibaut, Philippe Malacher, David O'Connor ... are able to produce superb visions of ground breaking concepts and clean interfaces without the luxury of big budgets and focus groups. To do this, these designers are able to see in their mind's eye what is new and novel and what the customer will want. Simply amazing talent.
-
Coregonas
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
- Location: Barcelona-Catalunya
GShock wrote:And how about John Tiller's BG Civil War?
BTW i now remember playing Sid Meyer's Gettysburg. That was a looooong time ago.
My friends got a copy of AH Gettysburg also loong ago. We get it as a exchange for another game of an italian company... but even dont remember its name.
But I remember playing an excelent game with 4 or 5 friends (in the old style... with maps and cokes) of Thunder at the Crossroads...
Return to “General discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests