AGEOD Forums

I have heard rumors, but wanted to confirm -- WILL there be a sequel to AACW at some point, in some form, in the future?

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Way, Way in the future. At least a year or more. Pure rumor though, totally unconfirmed.

It's all good -- hard to improve upon near-perfection anyway

Guess I'll have to grab WIA to tide me over...oh however shall I survive?

WIA is suppose to be pretty dang awesome. I just hope you'll have a chance to build your armies like you to in AACW.

Banks6060 wrote:WIA is suppose to be pretty dang awesome. I just hope you'll have a chance to build your armies like you to in AACW.

I take it you could not do this in BOA1?

CWNut77 wrote:I take it you could not do this in BOA1?

I'm actually not sure...but I know that the feature in AACW is one of the reasons I love the game so much. Making all of the financial and such decisions to guide you nation to victory instead of just having pre-formed armies to push around is very satisfying to me. It's why my interest in NCP faded rather quickly.

Hi
No, BoA 1 did not have units production and for what i know WIA will not have it either.
The WIA system will be similar to the one used on NCP: historical OOB at start, historical reinforcements by event (as on BoA) and also some pseudo unit production (not on BoA) by activating political options (like spending political points, VP and or NM to "Send reinforcements form England" or "Call more patriots to arms" and receive some on map units and/or replacements).

I'm not expert on the SXVIII wars but i'm not sure a "production" system would reflect how this era wars were fought.
American armies were mostly volunteer and militias armies whose men come and go more or less freely.
And French and England armies were sent and withdrawn to the americas depending of diplomatic and politic developments and on how the war was going.

Regards!

That would be nuts!! Just keep improving. T

Banks6060 wrote:I'm actually not sure...but I know that the feature in AACW is one of the reasons I love the game so much. Making all of the financial and such decisions to guide you nation to victory instead of just having pre-formed armies to push around is very satisfying to me. It's why my interest in NCP faded rather quickly.

Note to AGEod: Please keep making both types of games: high-level, strategic ones, with economics, army recruitment & reorganization, etc., like AACW and the forthcoming VGN; and lower-level, operational ones, where you just "push armies around," such as NCP & BOA(2). Some of us prefer the latter.

Isn't having choices great?

arsan wrote:Hi
No, BoA 1 did not have units production and for what i know WIA will not have it either.
The WIA system will be similar to the one used on NCP: historical OOB at start, historical reinforcements by event (as on BoA) and also some pseudo unit production (not on BoA) by activating political options (like spending political points, VP and or NM to "Send reinforcements form England" or "Call more patriots to arms" and receive some on map units and/or replacements).

I'm not expert on the SXVIII wars but i'm not sure a "production" system would reflect how this era wars were fought.
American armies were mostly volunteer and militias armies whose men come and go more or less freely.
And French and England armies were sent and withdrawn to the americas depending of diplomatic and politic developments and on how the war was going.

Regards!

Well put! A centralized recruiting scheme [as in AACW] would be ahistorical. Militia and Provincals were locally raised as needed, by Governors, etc. The Continental Congress started with no money, printed money, and adversely impacted troop morale with this approach [hmm, maybe there's an event or two here ]

Regulars were raised and funded in Europe, and shipped over.

WiA, like BoA and NCP, is of the 'Theater Command' model of AGE. Only very slight and relatively minor influence [by spending EP] on what you get to fight with.

I can't say there won't be an AACW 2 one day.

But it's not on schedule right now.

Currently the team is focused on the beta testing of BoA 2: WIA and the coding of VGN.

Cheers,

Korrigan

Oh please give me a AACW2 with 100% coverage of the US with parts of Canada, Mexico, and the Gulf.

berto wrote:Note to AGEod: Please keep making both types of games: high-level, strategic ones, with economics, army recruitment & reorganization, etc., like AACW and the forthcoming VGN; and lower-level, operational ones, where you just "push armies around," such as NCP & BOA(2). Some of us prefer the latter.

Isn't having choices great?

Indeed

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:There is so much that has to be done to the map in just the areas that the Civil War was actually fought in... I would rather they concentrate on some finer points to make the design even more closely resemble the conditions of the Civil War, maybe reduce the scale per region, go with 7-day turns, improve the naval/amphibious operational code, etc.

YES! I would rather see the map end at the Mississippi River - the whole "trans- Mississippi" theater could be handled as off-map boxes. Much of the north could be off-map boxes, say anything above a line drawn from middle New Jersey west to Pittsburgh, west to the Iowa/Missouri border.

Double or triple the regions where the real maneuvering occurred in the eastern and western (west of the Appalachian Mts.) theaters. I would like to see more room to maneuver between Washington and Richmond, VA. I'd like to see one turn = 1 week. I'd like to see recruits come to a central point like a training camps and let the AI handle marshaling the units.
.

chainsaw wrote:YES! I would rather see the map end at the Mississippi River - the whole "trans- Mississippi" theater could be handled as off-map boxes. Much of the north could be off-map boxes, say anything above a line drawn from middle New Jersey west to Pittsburgh, west to the Iowa/Missouri border.

Double or triple the regions where the real maneuvering occurred in the eastern and western (west of the Appalachian Mts.) theaters. I would like to see more room to maneuver between Washington and Richmond, VA. I'd like to see one turn = 1 week. I'd like to see recruits come to a central point like a training camps and let the AI handle marshaling the units.
.

All of this can be handled, for the most part, by choosing to play scenarios. The trans-Mississippi theater is very important actually. Arkansas is a pretty decent production center that is missed if it is cut off from the rest of the CSA...but more importantly the war in Missouri is a lot of fun for a lot of players (including yours truly), and control of the state (and in particular St. Louis) is huge if one can pull it off as the South. The more rugged terrain and sense of scale could not be accurately depicted unless the state and region are on the map in their entirety IMO.

CWNut77 wrote:The trans-Mississippi theater is very important actually.

I thoroughly agree.

If you were to abstract out the trans-Mississippi, you might just as well abstract out the deep-water naval game, too. I of course advocate neither.

chainsaw wrote:YES! I would rather see the map end at the Mississippi River - the whole "trans- Mississippi" theater could be handled as off-map boxes.
.

I disagree with this particular suggestion while agreeing in general that the number of areas should be increased. The Trans-Miss theater was very important and ought to be preserved. But you certainly don't need coverage for west Texas, New Mexico, to say nothing of Oregon or New York. If the war never got there then it never got there.

TheDoctorKing wrote:<snip>
.... But you certainly don't need coverage for west Texas, New Mexico, to say nothing of Oregon or New York. If the war never got there then it never got there.

..but would it have if the British or French intervened?

...or do we eliminate the Foreign Intervention module also...

Gray_Lensman wrote:What would be the point of that? That wouldn't be the American Civil War. There is so much that has to be done to the map in just the areas that the Civil War was actually fought in that adding all that would just double the workload. For your information, the current map isn't done yet. I would rather they concentrate on some finer points to make the design even more closely resemble the conditions of the Civil War, maybe reduce the scale per region, go with 7-day turns, improve the naval/amphibious operational code, etc.

This is part of what makes me want the entire US.



This would make the Union need to really think about the West.

As far as it not being part of the civil war. There where 2 states on the Pacific Ocean at this time. I myself love running up the Unions "West Coast" when I play AACW. I would like to see this represented as a fightable area, instead of millions of acres being crammed into several rectangles on the side.

Here is a link to Arizona during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_in_the_American_Civil_War I know it is a small role played in the CW. I just want better representation of it.

I personally love this game and play it more than I post on here. But if suggestions are being taken I want to put my 2 pennies in.

I will agree with you on the Eastern theater resizing, 7-day turns, and naval improvement also.

Lodilefty makes a very good point also.

What would be good,for AGEOD'S next game, how about a war against the plains indians from 1850-1890.It would be a good continuation of there wars in America theme,and as per the sample above,what a great map it would be.

deleted

deleted

one can dream can't they.

Not been a AACW player perhaps I should shut up.

But the plains indians wars, I think is a natural expansion. I do not know if this could be done, as part of AACW2, an expansion of AACW or AACW2 or as a different game.


Not sure though if this interesting for AACW players, but in the meantime you can entertain with this atlas of the sioux wars

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/sioux/atlas_part1.pdf
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/sioux/atlas_part2.pdf

Buy AACW or shut up Nikel!!
(just joking :niark

arsan, you do not like plains indian wars either?

I am infiltrating the AACWers lines to dismantle their union, this seems to be a weak point


Pour l'Empereur!


Joking too

Nikel wrote:arsan, you do not like plains indian wars either?

Don't know much about it, but probably its was a too uneven conflict.

arsan wrote:Don't know much about it, but probably its was a too uneven conflict.

Actually it wasn't as one sided a conflict as one would think.The US military prior to the civil war was only around 16,000.After the civil war it was cut back to around 54,000.In the Big budget cuts of 1873 it was cut back again to 25,000,and thats paper strength,in reality the figures were a lot lower.Thats an awful small amount of troops to cover so large an area.Its hard to estimate the population of the plains indians,but conservative estimates place it at least 500,000,which should give it a fighting force of at least 100,000.Granted they were spread out all over the place,but so was the US military,spread out in one or two company outposts from Kansas to the Pacific.I think the only time that all twelve companies of Custer's 7th cav.were united and operated together as a military unit was in the Sioux War of 1876.In game terms I wasn't thinking of this as an extension of AACW2 but as a stand alone game.Ithink AGEOD'S present game engine would work quite well with this.As for sales I dunno,but I'd buy one.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Basically, the current map does a pretty good job of encompassing the actual Civil War area, except for maybe an expansion along the Mexico-Texas border and the Canadian border to accomodate the foreign intervention occurances. Though I like the region type of map layout, I'd like to see the regions more standardized in size, to make the movement cost more meaningful. Currently, there are regions of the same terrain that can be 3 times larger than another region of the same exact terrain, with movement time being identical across either region.

I agree, I would like to see some more standardization in the regions and sizing. But, I would still like to see more of the US map, than what we have now. I tend to only play the 1861 scenarios anymore, and look at it as "Here is how things were set-up at that time". Now what happens from there on out should not be set in concrete, but variable. For instance if I get myself set with a good defence in the east, I am going for California.

I am not saying I want the play dumbed down or anything. But, I do want whatever possibilities I can exploit available to me. Such as a CSA force on the Pacific coast, which would in turn make the Union either send a counter force or just give California to the Confederates.