Reviews at Amazon

[GlobalExplorer]

I just see the boxed version has appeared at amazon.co.uk: link

Now I am really annoyed by reading those stupid reviews. I don't know when I will have time to write a review myself, just thought it might be necessary some of us head over and help clarify why this is a great game. Lest sales are hurt by these idiotic reviews.

[soundoff]

I know it might be me GlobalExplorer but frankly I dont really see the reviews as being 'stupid'

I've always found that views on Strategy Wargames tend to be polarised between the two extremes....either you love them or you loathe them. Now I count myself an experienced wargamer of both, board, tabletop and computer but even I have torn my hair out more than once in trying to get to grips with AACW. As I ranted in my first post...and AGEOD cant ignore it or escape it.....the learning curve on AACW is extremely high and its not helped by an out of date manual and inadequate tutorials. Neither is it any good telling folks they can get the answer to any questions they have from the good people on this forum. Most folks would reckon that everything you need to know when you purchase a computer programme should be adequately covered in the instructions......not buried so deep that you need the dedicated experts to explain.

Me...... because I'm so long in the tooth and am prepared to persevere....I come to appreciate the game but I can understand how many would be extremely disappointed with the purchase.

Until AGEOD, and I dont know how, crack the issue of make the game as complex as it is...but easy to play....sales will always suffer. In much the same way as board or tabletop wargaming remain 'fringe' pastimes. Not enough out there who want to delve that deep. Now give them an AACW first person shooter and watch the copies fly off the shelves.

[Korrigan]

We don't plan to produce any FPS game.

Thanks,

Korrigan

[soundoff]

Did'nt think you would Korrigan just me making a daft example of what sells in quantity.

[arsan]

Well, some of them seems pretty stupid to me
Soundoff, they are not complaining and asking for a better or more detailed manual or tutorials... they complain because they have to "read" and that its "boring".. c'mon!!

I think the problem is that nearly all the reviews come from a new amazon program (Amazon Vine) which gives the game for free to long time reviewers to review it... but amazon does not check if the future reviewer has any kind on interest on this type of games.. its not fair at all, IMHO.
If amazon send me an excellent book about Trout Fishing i will think its boring because i don't like fishing...
But it will not be fair from me to make a review of the book giving it just one star and saying "fishing is boring and fish smell bad. Don't buy that book" ... as the book is intended for fishing lovers and my opinion does not mean a damn to them
Do you understand what i mean?

GlobalExplorer, thanks for the head up.
I will try to make an "informed" review (i mean, pne from a reviewer who has played past the first tutorial ) when i have a little time. But as i´m not a native English speaker, don't expect too much from it. It will be great if someone more fluent could give his opinion on Amazon...
Regards!

[soundoff]

But that is entirely it Arsan. Unfortunately there are more of 'them' than 'us' out there. Those who do find 'having to read boring' and quite frankly I think that you are 'spitting in the wind' so to speak if you reckon you can change opinion. As an example I dont know many folks who do not seem to think that you should be able to master a computer progamme at least at the basic level without ever opening the manual and you certainly cant do that with an AGEOD game. If you look at the reviews its had quite dispassionately its interesting that the decent reviews come from [color="red"]'wargamers'[/color] rather than computer gamers.

[Korrigan]

Soundoff,

I understand what you mean.

We have already talked together about the tutorials and the manual. So I will answer you about complexity and give you my personnal opinion:

Firstly,
Concerning the complexity, I personnaly consider the User interface (Drag and drop, tool tips, etc.) as very friendly. The ledger needs few refinements and I'm advocating a large map to have the big view on the strategic situation without trying to distinguish something on the mini-map or scrolling around America... But on the whole, IMHO, the UI is OK (and beautifull).

Secondly, the game mecanisms. A lot of things are going under the hood. I suspect this is one of the main concern for some people. They simply don't want to have things under the hood. They want to understand, they want to predict. So they don't understand why everything in battle mechanisms is not explained for example. No matter how effective the mechanisms are, they would prefer to have simpler and less effective mechanisms that they actually entirely (and non historically) master.

Thirdly, AACW do it all. If you begin by the 1861 campaign, you will be at lost. There are several distinct mechanisms (battle, supply, leadership, army building, economy, etc.) and you'll need to understand each of them before to be successfull with the full war campaign. That's where we should have prepared more tutorials scenario to help with the lurning curve.


So yes, AACW is a excellent wargame (wargame of the year 2007 actually) but a complex game. I was myself more than worried when I witness several respected members of the WITP community singing the praise of AACW .

On the other hand, look at Napoleon's Campaigns. Much simpler, no economy, no army building... we got a lot of mails from members of the AACW community complaining about the lack of complexity of the game. and asking for new campaigns where you could recruit and build yoour corps. Don't be mistaken: there is a public for this kind of games. AACW has had a very nice carreer, better then NCP, and it's still selling very well.

Our next game, "BoA 2, Wars in America" will feature the now classic sheer simplicity of "Birth of America" but will display new features: recruitment, politics, etc. I'm curious to read reactions of the community. However, don't get me wrong: We are not trying to find the best blend. BOA/NCP, AACW and VGN are using three distinct versions of our engine, that match the period and the conflict simulated. IMHO, the engine to simulate the American Civil War will necessarly be more complex than the one used for the French and Indian War.

Last point, the AGEod business plan is specific. Most companies are aiming to the "casual gaming", the "big market". We don't. We just want to be the first quality games providers for Wargamers and strategy game lovers. But you're right, we still have work to do!

Cheers,
Korrigan

[soundoff]

Korrigan,

I think AGEOD is/was 'spot on' with ACW for all its flaws many of which I am sure will get ironed out in coming months in further patches. Personally though I think that NCP was a backward step merely because the company overlooked the 'strategic computer player' element of its player base .... a
s normally....but not always.....the strategic computer player likes the idea of campaigning.

Its because of the lack of a true campaign that I will not invest in NCP although I am getting to love the engine...but if the new games in development contain true campaign modules...I'll be one of the first to invest. And I'm glad the company is not in it for the 'casual gamer'

[W.Barksdale]

But on the whole, IMHO, the UI is OK (and beautifull).

Agreed and some. I find the interface very simple. The tool-tips are a wealth of information!

Secondly, the game mecanisms. A lot of things are going under the hood.

AACW models most aspects wonderfully such that gameplay is extremely intuitive.
Why was my division, attacking that entrenched enemy division, bloodily repulsed? Since the defense is very strong!
Why did my stack moving deep in enemy territory deteriorate so? Since they lack the supplies!
Why is my huge stack of brigades fighting at only 65% efficiency? Since lack of organisation makes it extremely difficult to command large numbers of soldiers.
There are countless examples. Again, very much what would happen in real terms. Very intuitive.

Thirdly, AACW do it all. If you begin by the 1861 campaign, you will be at lost. There are several distinct mechanisms (battle, supply, leadership, army building, economy, etc.) and you'll need to understand each of them before to be successfull with the full war campaign. That's where we should have prepared more tutorials scenario to help with the lurning curve.

The best tutorial is playing through a game yourself. And while doing it, however, keeping in mind the thing that the game is meant to model. This would mean understaning the conflict a wee bit. I am very well read on the subject and found the game extremely easy to learn.

For those who may not be so familiar with the war, may I very humbly suggest including, with the box game, a short history of the conflict covering most or all of the concepts modelled in game.

Bruce Catton's "The Civil War" immediately comes to mind. At 278 pages, some of its' chapters include: The Armies, The Navies, A Search for Allies, Two Economies at War; taken all together give a wonderful overview of the period. It even comes complete with detailed maps and pictures.

[arsan]

But that is entirely it Arsan. Unfortunately there are more of 'them' than 'us' out there. Those who do find 'having to read boring' and quite frankly I think that you are 'spitting in the wind' so to speak if you reckon you can change opinion. As an example I dont know many folks who do not seem to think that you should be able to master a computer progame at least at the basic level without ever opening the manual and you certainly cant do that with an AGEOD game. If you look at the reviews its had quite dispassionately its interesting that the decent reviews come from [color="red"]'wargamers'[/color] rather than computer gamers.

I don't think war gamers and computer gamers are opposite terms.
I´m a computer war gamer... or computer deep strategy player.

Anyway, I think everybody on AGEod knows that simple, fast play games with spectacular 3D engines full of explosions and special effects can sell better that deep strategy games like the ones they make.

But the later kind also have followers, like us, and our money is as good as the one from the guy who can't read a tooltip without feeling dizzy.

My point is that this game is not for people who only likes FPS, or RTS with plenty of flash, and should not be.
This kind of people won't be interested on AACW no matter how you make the tutorials. But is you try to simplify and throw out of the window the details and deep strategic choices of AGEod games because of them, you will lose the "wargamers" and gain nothing...

I´m not saying the game is perfect but, for a game that deep and complex it has greta graphics, an excellent interface, decent tutorials (hell, half the wargames published nowadays don't even have tutorials nor tooltips and use interfaces that fight against you! I could give names :innocent .
The manual could use some improvements and a campaign tips or a "first turns" guide would be very good for new players. Thats for sure

Still, the problem with this amazon thing is that, if you look at other wargames/deep strategy games reviews on Amazon you will see "real reviews" of people who have bought the game because it's the kind of games they like. Their opinion can be good or bad, but they know what they are talking about.

AACW has had the bad luck of getting half a dozen reviews made by people who have received the game for free, like on a lottery, and who had not ever bought a game of this kind, because they don't like reading, history, turn bases games...
You can not think that his opinions are the regular opinions of potential AGEod costumers... because they ARE NOT costumers... as i´m not a fisherman...
Regards!

[soundoff]

Arsan, Its like the old song...you say neither and I say niether....etc. So this is my final post on the issue. I agree with most of what you say strategy games have there followers and we are obviously two of them and it looks like AGEOD is a fine company to follow....there ain't enough of them out there. My only real uneasiness with your posts on this subject is your absolute certainty that the poor reviews come from people who have no real interest in strategy games rather than conceding that they might....just might...be in that majority who want 'easy play' strategy games. I'm thankful for small mercies that AGEOD have not 'dumbed down' to them but there are plenty in the past that have.

[W.Barksdale]

Arsan, Its like the old song...you say neither and I say niether....etc. So this is my final post on the issue. I agree with most of what you say strategy games have there followers and we are obviously two of them and it looks like AGEOD is a fine company to follow....there ain't enough of them out there. My only real uneasiness with your posts on this subject is your absolute certainty that the poor reviews come from people who have no real interest in strategy games rather than conceding that they might....just might...be in that majority who want 'easy play' strategy games. I'm thankful for small mercies that AGEOD have not 'dumbed down' to them but there are plenty in the past that have.

You must understand that the target market for a game like this, in my opinion of course, is ACW buffs and fans of strategy games in general.

You can't expect everyone who reviews the game to fall into one of the above categories. AGEOD is still in business so they must be selling their games to somebody. If 'easy strategy games' is what you seek you must look elsewhere.

[arsan]

My only real uneasiness with your posts on this subject is your absolute certainty that the poor reviews come from people who have no real interest in strategy games rather than conceding that they might....just might...be in that majority who want 'easy play' strategy games. I'm thankful for small mercies that AGEOD have not 'dumbed down' to them but there are plenty in the past that have.

Hi
I must have explained myself badly: i agree with you on this.
They probably like strategy games, but not the kind on this games. There are a lot of different kinds of "strategy games", from typical rts to War in the Pacific And probably AACW is nearer the latter than the former.

Regards!

[GlobalExplorer]

soundoff, I did not mean one wouldn't understand the bad reviews from the perspective of casual gamers. They have had their say and that is fine with me.

What irritates me is that not a single reviewer has gotten any deeper than playing around an hours or so. Their rants give away how quickly they became infuriated with the complexity and scope - surely relying on pure rts instincts doesnt help here - the result is a 2 1/2 star rating and the impression of a very bad game.

I agree it is a fiendishly complex and time-consuming game and I was close to thrashing the demo because at first I didn't understand it. If it hadn't come with the great graphics and sense of quality and depth - I might not have taken the time to learn it. And that is very important information for other potential players.

You see premature thrashing with the most fantastic games. As a recent example, Galactic Civilizations 2 comes to mind, which also got very bad reviews at Amazon.

Now what's needed are some reviews by people who are actually playing the game regularly and take the time to point out why it is very good at what it is. I wonder how many seasoned, hardcore gamers are frustrated with the lack of any real strategy games - and how they dream secretely of a Grand Campaign game that allows you to live through a major conflict in it's entirety. And now if there is such a game they could miss it because of opinions.

I mean sure, is not the right game if you intend to lead a very active lifestyle - and wifes will hate it - but it is almost perfect in what it strives to do and I would say it even shows the direction for other developers in the niche markets. Meaning that if they can follow Ageod and Stardock and offer deep, complex gameplay with great visuals, their target audience will become fully aware and learn to avoid the mass market completely. I mean if there were twenty companies like Ageod I could buy a dozen games a year like in the old days and not have to wait a year or more for something new.

Now the intention of this thread was to appeal: head over to Amazon and write how much you get with this game. I hope i will find the time to write a short informative one myself, but as I am not a native english speaker this means work.

Also, go to other (appropriate) forums where you might hang out. There is often discussion about which "other" games people recommended - and a short review often instantly leads to responses like "I went out and bought this game, thank you so much". For example I have done so at subsim.com in a thread about napoleonic wargames. Don't forget to post a screenshot, as it saves a lot of talking.

EDIT: Done my duty. My review should be up soon ..

[GlobalExplorer]

One week later, I see that a spaniard and some bloody german have added their (mostly) positive reviews .. which levels out the score somewhat and upped the overall score to three stars. But that is still much too low and the product page is still dominated by rookie reviews/rants.

So I hope that's not all that is going to come from this site

[arsan]

A german and a spaniard reviewers?? ummh... who could they be???
Certainly, some more happy AGEod customers will be welcomed to express thier opinions...

Now we even have a one star review which states that the game can't even be installed on Vista.
I play on XP but i think AACW is Vista compatible... i´m i wrong??
Regards!

[tagwyn]

FPS games!!! No thanks. apy:

[GlobalExplorer]

16 reviews already .. even if the reviews are controverse at least there is interest in the game.

And on second thought the controverse opinions show a tendency that an interested reader should be able to discern: ACW = next level of hardcore strategy game but also lots of work, something that gamers are not expecting in the first place.

[GlobalExplorer]

It's getting ridiculous:

Some quotes from the last week:

"Simply Dreadful - 0 stars"

"This so-called game doesn't have bugs in it - it IS a bug. I have 3 gaming rigs to test lower, mid & high end specs of games and this piece of junk wouldn't even install on the 1st to machines even though they were completely compatible with the game's listed specs."

"Demanding and complicated"

"Doesn't work with Vista"

Needless to stress all 0-star hate reviews are from the amazon vine program. Please go over and write a review! Not to manipulate the score, just to even it out ..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/ASCARON-Entertainment-UK-Ltd-American/dp/B000U55UGO/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=300703&s=videogames&qid=1204059794&sr=1-2

[Cat Lord]

Just write down the stupid reviews as being useless, compare to the useful ones.

Cat

[GlobalExplorer]

Sure I do but I can do it only once! Never trust a vote that you didn't manipulate yourself

[GlobalExplorer]

Reviews are getting more and more retarded:

get it if you like reading!!! 1 Star

If you like a computer game that you want to play, generally, you really want to hand- on and start the game right? but this one isnt the type I been looking for. you have to go through a lot of reading and instructions. downloading takes time and make sure that your computer has a big memory and a better graphic card. Im not a against the american but this is not my game.

Yeah, we do indeed like reading, silly!!

And what's that about downloading taking time?