User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:30 pm

Evren wrote:Back then it was Runyan99's suggestion (http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6823) that 4 batteries per division was close to an ideal battle formation, and i believe it is more or less true. That division is very cost-effective according to me, and it proved itself since then in many battles played by the ACW players :)

I'll happily meet your 4 artillery division with my 7-8 artillery division any time, any place and anywhere. Except Wilderness in winter when we both are un-supplied, then you actually would have a chance with your 4 artillery division :)

According to my testing and experience suggesting 4 artillery for a division is just *wrong*. As a matter of fact, I've been testing a division with zero artillery vs a dvision with four, and the outcomes are quite suprising because the no-artillery division seem to have quite a good chance (been doing 10 tests so far, good weather and both in offensive stance, and the no-artillery division won 4 of those 10 :blink :) .

Conclusion: Either bring enough artillery or do not bring artillery at all. Bringing four per division is a waste of resources and definitively is *not* cost-effective!
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Evren
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Jarkko wrote:I'll happily meet your 4 artillery division with my 7-8 artillery division any time, any place and anywhere. Except Wilderness in winter when we both are un-supplied, then you actually would have a chance with your 4 artillery division :)

According to my testing and experience suggesting 4 artillery for a division is just *wrong*. As a matter of fact, I've been testing a division with zero artillery vs a dvision with four, and the outcomes are quite suprising because the no-artillery division seem to have quite a good chance (been doing 10 tests so far, good weather and both in offensive stance, and the no-artillery division won 4 of those 10 :blink :) .

Conclusion: Either bring enough artillery or do not bring artillery at all. Bringing four per division is a waste of resources and definitively is *not* cost-effective!



I'm sorry but i don't understand the problem here. Are the battles always 1 division vs. 1 division in your games? Are you always fighting in clear terrain in good weather? Can you always find generals with an offensive rating of 3? What if you're facing 3 divisions with only one divisions with the same number of artillery on both sides? What about the entrenchments? What if your army commander has a strategic rating of 1 and you don't have anyone else to remove him? How can you define something as "definitely not cost-effective" when there are so many variables?

I haven't seen any "fair battles" in any of the Ageod games until now. I always found it rather easy to form divisions with 2 to 5 artillery batteries and a few more in the corps and put them into battle. And the battle results never solely depended on the number of artillery pieces.

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:26 pm

Min-maxing my divisions does not sound like fun to me. I have always had good results with the 4 arty division. I also really prefer to have two cavalry elements per division as well. It really just comes down to player preference.
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

User avatar
Banks6060
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:51 pm

Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Once again I will note my disdain for players' desire to create "specialized" divisions.

Great thread though...I've learned some really handy tips reading it.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Have you ever stopped to think and forgot to start??

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:08 am

Banks6060 wrote:Once again I will note my disdain for players' desire to create "specialized" divisions.

Great thread though...I've learned some really handy tips reading it.


It's funny you say that Banks... As I was reading through this, I remembered a post you put somewhere essentially saying "While you are trying to get your divisions 'just right', I'll be running over you with my quickly assembled ones." (Sorry if I murdered the particulars, but the idea is there :D )
My name is Aaron.



Knight of New Hampshire

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:31 am

soloswolf wrote:It's funny you say that Banks... As I was reading through this, I remembered a post you put somewhere essentially saying "While you are trying to get your divisions 'just right', I'll be running over you with my quickly assembled ones." (Sorry if I murdered the particulars, but the idea is there :D )


I remember seeing the same post from Banks and silently agreeing with it, while at the same time agreeing with the folks who want to know what the "ideal" division is. I do want to understand the game mechanics enough to know what kind of trade-off I'm making when I just throw a bunch of untis together on an ad hoc basis to make a division, which is exactly what I usually do.

I've seen some folks posting about how they will buy reinforcements in exactly the right quantities to have their perfect division come into play at the same time and in the same state, where they've pre-positioned a general to take command, and I wonder if we're playing the same game. Maybe as the USA, but as the CSA I don't see how you can do that. I just buy units as I can, send em to the front lines, and cobble together divisions on the fly. Once I have a few divisions together in a corps, I'll take them apart and share the units around for more efficient distribution.

I take a back seat to no one in my obsession with the minutiae of the game mechanics and min-maxing strategies. But when I'm actually playing the game, that stuff is not in the forefront of my mind. Having a fun, enjoyable, and historically immersive experience is, and whether or not you know what the "ideal" division consists of, this game provides that better than any computer wargame I've played (well....I still have a soft spot for Panzer General 2 and Talonsoft's Gettysburg).

As for the subect of this thread ... what's not in the manual .. how about clear and understandable treatment of key game concepts like supply, frontage, zone of control, and pretty much anything having to do with naval operations?
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:39 am

soloswolf wrote:It's funny you say that Banks... As I was reading through this, I remembered a post you put somewhere essentially saying "While you are trying to get your divisions 'just right', I'll be running over you with my quickly assembled ones." (Sorry if I murdered the particulars, but the idea is there :D )


I remember seeing the same post from Banks and silently agreeing with it, while at the same time agreeing with the folks who want to know what the "ideal" division is. I do want to understand the game mechanics enough to know what kind of trade-off I'm making when I just throw a bunch of untis together on an ad hoc basis to make a division, which is exactly what I usually do.

I've seen some folks posting about how they will buy reinforcements in exactly the right quantities to have their perfect division come into play at the same time and in the same state, where they've pre-positioned a general to take command, and I wonder if we're playing the same game. Maybe as the USA, but as the CSA I don't see how you can do that. I just buy units as I can, send em to the front lines, and cobble together divisions on the fly. Once I have a few divisions together in a corps, I'll take them apart and share the units around for more efficient distribution.

I take a back seat to no one in my obsession with the minutiae of the game mechanics and min-maxing strategies. But when I'm actually playing the game, that stuff is not in the forefront of my mind. Having a fun, enjoyable, and historically immersive experience is, and whether or not you know what the "ideal" division consists of, this game provides that better than any computer wargame I've played (well....I still have a soft spot for Panzer General 2 and Talonsoft's Gettysburg).

As for the subect of this thread ... what's not in the manual .. how about clear and understandable treatment of key game concepts like supply, frontage, zone of control, and pretty much anything having to do with naval operations?
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Redeemer
Major
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: Eastern US

Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:00 am

Major Tom wrote:(well....I still have a soft spot for Panzer General 2 and Talonsoft's Gettysburg).


They ruined the series with Panzer General 3 didn't they.

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:52 am

Redeemer wrote:They ruined the series with Panzer General 3 didn't they.


Yeah, they did. I loved the 3D maps and the whole headquarters screen area where you build and upgrade your units and pick and promote your leaders. But for the rest of it, the gameplay was terrible. The worst was the scenario time limits, where the only way to get a major victory was to play stupid -- that is, you had to throw caution to the wind and split your forces to hit every VP area at once, and leave nothing behind to protect your rear. If you were lucky you could get a major victory within the time limit. With the ridiculous time constraints, the game did not allow you to plan and execute a reasonable strategy for each scenario.

Haven't played the game in years and I still vividly remember the frustration.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

cmurphy625
Private
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:30 am

Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:41 pm

It is a bummer when they ruin good games.. they should remake Pz G with better gameplay.. there were some aspects of that game that bummed me out though...

I'd love for them to update the Steel Panthers series....

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:47 pm

Evren wrote:I'm sorry but i don't understand the problem here. Are the battles always 1 division vs. 1 division in your games? Are you always fighting in clear terrain in good weather? Can you always find generals with an offensive rating of 3? What if you're facing 3 divisions with only one divisions with the same number of artillery on both sides? What about the entrenchments? What if your army commander has a strategic rating of 1 and you don't have anyone else to remove him? How can you define something as "definitely not cost-effective" when there are so many variables?


First of all, it was you who said the 4 artillery divisions is cost-effective. I merely refuted that, because it is quite hard to say what is cost-effective. Now all of the sudden you want me to tell what your "cost-effective" means? :)

Secondly, I don't use a division to do the job of a corps. If the task needs a corps, then send in a corps and not a division. If the task needs an army, then you send in an army, right? :)

Thirdly, I always favour the operational defence in a strategic offense. Independent division are not, in my opinion, supposed to be used as the spearhead of an offensive, but to act as blockers and protecting the corps/armies in the area.

Fourth, to those of you who advice to similar generic divisions as independednt divisions and in divisions operating in corps/armies... I suppose nobody with some understanding in the game engine honestly thinks they should be similar? It really doesn't require too much of thinking or organisation to use two different types of divisions, depending wether the division in question is intended to be an indy-div or a corp-div? Suggesting a generic division that is supposed to be used in both roles just screams "wrong" to me, in a very loud and penetrating voice.



*Think* what role you want the division to fill. You don't have to think every time what you want to have in it. Come up with a set-up that is for an indy-division, and another for a corps division. When you decide you need an indy-divison, recruit the elements needed for it; when you need a corps, recruit the corps-divisions and assets you need for that.

There is no no-brainer set-up for divisons in this game; the game is slightly more complex for such. This is not after all a "RTS" game where you can just clickety-click without thinking a bit first :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Evren
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Jarkko wrote:First of all, it was you who said the 4 artillery divisions is cost-effective. I merely refuted that, because it is quite hard to say what is cost-effective. Now all of the sudden you want me to tell what your "cost-effective" means? :)


I guess it's just a misunderstanding. I always try to avoid the word "definitely", and for a reason. Actually i wasn't trying to contradict anyone's opinion, that's why i used "according to me" after the phrase "cost-effective". And i didn't make the definition of an ideal division, since i believe it's a relative thing. But it was you who defined it as "definitely not", without regarding what i might be thinking.

Maybe i wasn't very clear about this in my very first post. I noted that there was never a 4-battery rule, that it was rather a strategic decision. My "cost-effective" isn't only the operational level combat effectiveness of a battle formation, but also the strategic level, including the cost of the units, gathering them, putting them into battle, supplying them, frontage etc..

To give you an example of what i might be thinking: Suggest your division (the same number of infantry and artillery elements in it) is fighting in the enemy territory without access to a depot and it has to enter a series of big battles. According to the frontage rules, you have the chance of putting all of your elements in battle, so you have a high strike force. Since infantry is targeted before your artillery, your chances of losing them before anything else is higher. That can leave your artillery virtually defenseless in the next battle. Maybe a division with 4 artillery batteries might not be able to put all of its infantry into the battle in the same round, but the remaining infantry can commit into the battle to defend your artillery batteries, after the already-commited in infantry rout.


Jarkko wrote:*Think* what role you want the division to fill. You don't have to think every time what you want to have in it. Come up with a set-up that is for an indy-division, and another for a corps division. When you decide you need an indy-divison, recruit the elements needed for it; when you need a corps, recruit the corps-divisions and assets you need for that.

There is no no-brainer set-up for divisons in this game; the game is slightly more complex for such. This is not after all a "RTS" game where you can just clickety-click without thinking a bit first :)


First of all, when there was a lack of information on some important points of this game, while people were still asking about how to form corps and divisions and CPs etc.., Runyan99 suggested 4 artillery batteries was a good choice, thanks to a hint from Pocus. No one ever claimed that there was a generic division formation, or a 4-battery division was better than a 6-battery division. But the suggestion was good enough for a start for most people, and experience showed it was not a bad choice.

Second, not everyone may have a chance during the game to make different types of battle formations, and some simplification can help.

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

This thread is for beginners and newcomers!

Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:26 pm

Gentlemen, this thread is intended for questions and answers dealing with material that's not in the manual. In other words, basic and simple stuff!

I'm glad to see a lively discussion going on about artillery and so forth, but this is not a discussion thread!

If you have simple comments that you believe will be helpful to newcomers to AACW, post them here. Otherwise, continue your discussion in a thread dedicated to artillery.


Thanks.






Edit 31Mar09: This post sounds a bit harsh and strident, and I regret that. I'm not going to change the original wording, but such a tone is a poor example to set, for newcomers. I wrote what I did because I was, quite frankly, annoyed.

One of the things about this thread that I've liked very much is it's succinct nature. Question; Answer. Question; Answer. It seemed like a great format for helping newcomers quickly learn basic, fundamental stuff, without having to wade through paragraphs of text.

When I originally made this post, I felt that the thread was drifting away from that format in a way that alarmed me. I was alarmed because I felt that a large part of what makes this thread useful was being compromised.

In any event, I think that I made an unfortunate choice of words and tone. I consider each of the gentlemen involved to be a friend, and a polite and friendly request would have undoubtedly accomplished the same end.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]
Dixicrat

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:45 pm

Quite, right, Dixicrat. My apologies for participating in an egregious thread-jacking.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Evren
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:59 pm

I apologise Dixicrat. I did it unintentionally.

I'll beg to Rafiki to move those posts out of here.

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Request to Moderator

Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:52 pm

Rafiki
Would you please repair this thread by moving the discussion of artillery to either a separate thread, or appending it to an existing artillery thread?

Thanks.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Adlertag
Posts: 2423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: Lyon(France)

Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:51 pm

Off topic, sorry.
La mort est un mur, mourir est une brèche.

rick6840
Conscript
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:00 pm
Location: Fort Riley, KS

Does promotion matter

Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:58 am

When one of my Commanders becomes promotable I just go ahead and promote him, regardless of his senority. Does this have any long term affects or does it just temporarily anger those who are senior to him? I say if he earned it in battle, then he deserves the promotion.

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:45 am

rick6840 wrote:When one of my Commanders becomes promotable I just go ahead and promote him, regardless of his senority. Does this have any long term affects or does it just temporarily anger those who are senior to him? I say if he earned it in battle, then he deserves the promotion.


In some cases you can lose National Morale. In all cases, the general wh ois passed over will lose some seniority, making it harder to get him promoted in the future.

I agree, though. If there's no NM to lose, I'm usually willing to promote over another general's head, unless the one who is passed over is a much stronger general and I really want to get him promoted soon.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Posting Links

Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:29 am

The topic here is not technically something which I believe belongs in the game manual, but it is an important part of forum participation. I know that it certainly mystified me, when I was new to the AACW community.

How do I create a link to a thread? And how do I create a link to a particular post?

Creating a link to a thread is very easy! Just click on the link to the thread, and then copy and paste the URL into your post. A "URL" is the "Universal Resource Locator", and is the official name for what most people refer to as "a web address".

Image

Of course, URLs tend to be rather cryptic. You can help your readers understand the context of your link by "hiding" the URL beneath a description.

For example, you might call the link I've cited in the example "Intro to AGEOD's Civil War". Here's how it's done:

Image

You simply "nest" the URL with what I've put in bold. Here's what the result looks like: Intro to AGEOD's Civil War
Easy!

But what about linking to a particular post? Well, it's a bit more complex.
First, click on the post number, in the upper right hand corner of the post that you want to link to.

Image

You'll be taken to the "View Single Post" screen. Near the upper right corner, you'll see the title of the thread that you came from. Click this...

Image

And you'll return to where you came from. Now, all you have to do is copy the URL, and you have the address to the post! :)
Attachments
ReturnToThread.JPG
PostNumber.JPG
VerboseURL.JPG
Thread URL.JPG
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:34 pm

I have one thats not in yet. Became available In V1.10, I think

Fuction: Renaming Stacks or Units, Not army names.
Command Alt+mouse right click.

I find usfull to rename those locked City and Fort garrisons.
Injun aka Mud Marine
Aim low Boys and givem the baynet!
Steady Boys! Steady! Aim ,Fire! , Charge!

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 pm

Bravo Dixicrat.

This kind of step-by-step direction is extremely helpful. Thank you for revealing another mystery.

Now, if someone can explain exaclty how to put Aphrodite Mae's wonderful medals into a rack them into one's signature so that they aren't huge, that would be great. Someone said they used "paint" which I have, but another step by step would be appreciated, 'cause there isn't enough time in the day to recreate the wheel on this.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:53 pm

gchristie wrote:Bravo Dixicrat.

This kind of step-by-step direction is extremely helpful. Thank you for revealing another mystery.

Now, if someone can explain exaclty how to put Aphrodite Mae's wonderful medals into a rack them into one's signature so that they aren't huge, that would be great. Someone said they used "paint" which I have, but another step by step would be appreciated, 'cause there isn't enough time in the day to recreate the wheel on this.


You open the file in paint. Then you need to shrink the medal (to 50% or smaller). I use the SKEW/STRETCH command (under image). Then you need to save the medal to a location (this is all in paint). Then you need to upload your medal into your CP from the location. You will need to be in your user CP. Choose the edit signature option (on the left). Underneath the signature is a "signature picture". If you already have a medal there (that is too large), you need to remove it first. Use option 2 to upload you new medal. After upload, you insert you picture (button next to picture in signature). In the signature screen you will now see "[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]" or something to that effect. That is your picture. Save you signature. Then check it out. You may need to adjust the size multiple times. Go to a thread with a post of yours and update the website.

Hope this helps.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:55 pm

Pin a medal on this man!

Thank you.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:29 pm

gchristie wrote:Pin a medal on this man!

Thank you.


But I already have a medal!!! :D Otherwise how would I know how to do this. :mdr:
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Field Artillery vs. Naval units

Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:19 pm

None of my artillery emplacements are firing at passing ships. The emplacements are both in and out of structures AND are entrenchment level 5+. My older coastal forts with coastal artillery seem to occasionally fire. What am I doing wrong?

Gray_Lensman wrote:It depends on the individual regions where the artillery units are located. There has to be what is known as a "double adjacency" between the land region and the adjacent water region. A ship has to pass from one water region adjacent to the bombarding unit's land region to another water region also adjacent to the same land region otherwise no bombardment takes place.


SkyWestNM started a thread on the topic with the question that I've cited above. Here's a link to his thread, if you're interested in learning more.

Entrenched Artillery Ship Bombardment
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Arranging and Resizing your medals

Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:52 pm

gchristie wrote:[...]Now, if someone can explain exaclty how to put Aphrodite Mae's wonderful medals into a rack them into one's signature so that they aren't huge, that would be great. Someone said they used "paint" which I have, but another step by step would be appreciated, 'cause there isn't enough time in the day to recreate the wheel on this.


I've created a step-by-step method to help you out, which I've posted in the Medals thread. Here's a link to the post which has the tutorial.
Displaying your Medals
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:58 pm

Here is another one for the manual or at least the WIKI. A Section on Intelligence Assesment. That would be real helpful to a green player. And the proper role of Cavalry to gather that intelligence.
Injun aka Mud Marine

Aim low Boys and givem the baynet!

Steady Boys! Steady! Aim ,Fire! , Charge!

User avatar
Aphrodite Mae
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: With Dixicrat

Quick reference guide to Game Manual changes

Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:22 pm

Picaron, of the Spanish forum, has created a wonderful summary of changes in the game that affect how you play it. This inspired Dixicrat and myself to do the same thing, for the English-speaking forums.

This document summarizes most of the "big" changes in the game that have been made since the manual was last updated in late June, 2007. We hope it's useful for you!
Attachments

[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


Big Ideas
Captain
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:53 am
Location: in the ambrosia cellar

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:10 pm

Thank you for spending all that time to type up yet another informative post.

BI

Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests