AGEOD Forums

The game from Gary Grisby's team is at the end of alpha tests, there's now an ARR on Matrix forums.
It looks interesting - I like the WaW concepts. - A rather "macro" approach compared to AACW, bland graphics.

And they are also seeking beta testers, we should join !

Got a link to the AAR?

Rafiki wrote:Got a link to the AAR?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1583553

I'm not exactly overwhelmed with awe, but it's still to early to start the grumbling...


Regards, Henry

Thanks Henry!

The game looks interesting, though I have no plans of picking it up anytime soon (even if it were released in the immediate future), but I do have to say that AARs are an exemplary way of showcasing a game to potential buyers

(Nudge, nudge, wink, wink to all those working on NCP out there )

Look at those nice "logs" screened to show where were all replacements-reinforcements done....and those others about forces comparisons and other infos...Damn it...we need it so bad.

On the other hand i don't like the map too much, aacw's is better imo and the unit portraits, aacw owns these.

Here in my opinion is a fatal weakness of Grigsby's game:

From the Forum Moderator Joel Billings:

Each Militia unit represents 2000 generic men with a state ID based on where they were raised............. Each Artillery unit represents 20 guns.

I know that it is "in developement" and all, but that seems to me to be rather (how can I put this) .....a "blurring of things" in regards to units. If an Artillery unit is under 20 guns, you won't see it. It doesn't exist?

Some may like that kind of game, but isn't my cup of tea.

I like exact numbers and OOBs that are historical.

Even AACW's map is better, IMHO.

AGEod, you still da man. No doubt about that.

I don't mind very detailed/precise OOBs, but I don't bother about a couple guns when I have 500 to manage...
The GG games play faster and are easier than AGE games, so everyone will be happy eventually .

Hmm, when you have AACW I don't see the need for this.

Ashbery76 wrote:Hmm, when you have AACW I don't see the need for this.

Agreed. I think I already have the strategic Civil War game I want.

Much as I also love AACW, I'm very glad to have it as well as FOF and the upcoming Gary Grigsby's War Between the States on my hard drive. Each is a very different gaming experience and all have excellent gameplay. I'm disappointed to see wargamers writing off a Grigsby design so quickly, before even giving it a chance.

I hesitated and then aborted an attempt to write at Matrix, in the WBS forum that I would welcome the game, because I feared people would think I was ironic (for whatever reasons). But as I'm on my turf, I can speak more freely: I will be very glad to play it too! I always liked Gary Grigsby excellent design in WAW (I'm doing a 4 players PBEM with it by the way, the game really shines) and as I know AACW by heart (if I play a turn, I find myself 8 hours latter still tweaking the AI!), I welcome a simple yet addictive ACW game that can be played in 2-3 evenings.

I have tried a couple of GG's games. I get tangled up in the minutia and end up getting "fried." Pacific carrier games: seems like thel enemy knows what I am doing!! T

I think the game looks very good.
Of course I also understand that the real ACW buffs want to have the game as detailed as possible. But as I am always eager to explore games with a clever design (it was not my interest for the French and Indian War which drove me to Ageod) I will try it for sure.

Cheers
Norbert

Samething here, sometimes I just feel for a beer and bretzel game, and if this game is from Gary Grisby then I know it's gonna to be excellent!

In fact, a B&B game does not accurately describe WAW or this game. We can't call them "small games" either.

And " very well designed games that can be played in few days, give loads of fun and a real feel of the conflict" would be way too long...

Pocus wrote:I hesitated and then aborted an attempt to write at Matrix, in the WBS forum that I would welcome the game, because I feared people would think I was ironic (for whatever reasons).

A smart move not to write them, Pocus, however here on our turf we all know you wouldn't have been ironic. On their turf it would have been easy to misjudge your comments.

The game does look good and i think it's gonna be a good competitor to AACW from what i see.

However, i stick to runyan's statement

...If i was Matrix i would have bought AACW to study it while devving.
I think the vice-versa policy would also fairly bring new goodies to us.