AGEOD 30 Years War Announced

[mikeck]

I think the AGEOD engine has trouble with any way requiring traditional "front lines". An army from the confederacy appearing in Indiana is odd...a Dacian army appearing in cisalpine gaul...not so odd

[dinsdale]

Finally!!

I have been waiting for a 30 Years War game for what seems an eternity. After Birth of America it was clear this engine would be perfect for it in terms of combat and movement. I don't know how it can handle the the political events, combined with the destruction of wealth and millions of civilian which dictated a great deal of the wars flow. Regions which saw campaigning could not be used for years afterwards by armies, I don't know how they are going to sim this, or the greatest challenge; how to simulate the actions of Wallenstein.

[panzerde]

I think the AGEOD engine has trouble with any way requiring traditional "front lines". An army from the confederacy appearing in Indiana is odd...a Dacian army appearing in cisalpine gaul...not so odd

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think this is exactly the problem. Really good observation.

[jomni]

True. It's about assembling armies into a few stacks, move around the map, then meet in one decisive battle. It is more about eliminating the opponents armies than capturing territory and holding ground.

[Sir Slash]

The demo of Revolution Under Siege was pretty good with the more open and fluid nature of the campaign. But I still struggled to keep up with who and what was where every turn. It was work but it was fun work.

[Gusington]

If Pike and Shot is somehow linked to this new title, it will be epic beyond belief.

[MengJiao]

Thirty years? That should be a LONG game. :P Saw that this am. Might be a better fit for the engine than WWI.

Agreed with this and Meng Jiao. I think the engine works pretty well in the Roman era games, Rise of Prussia, the Napoleon game with some reservations, and I hear that Revolution Under Siege is good, though I haven't yet played it. I don't think the engine works at all well for the WWI game or Civil War II. Assuming they stick with a campaign/phase of the war focus rather than trying to game the entire war, I think this could be good.

I suppose I need to give To End All Wars another shake, but it mangles the East Front campaigns so badly at the start of the war that I just give pissed and quit.

  Same here for To End All Wars.  Revolution Under Seige did somehow seem to work, but Civil War II -- Nope!  Espana 1937 -- Nope!
Birth of American apparently does work and Rise of Prussia and the Roman stuff and the Napoleonic (about as well as RUS?)...So the 17th Century should work okay in the system.  The 30yw does break down fairly well into separate periods plus you could branch out into such things as the various French civil wars and the 80-years war (Spain vs the rebellious low Countries and France and England) and maybe the various wars of Louis XIV.  By the time you reach the Nine-year's war its not even all that far to the seven-years war.

[magnus]

Marlbrough s'en va-t-en guerre

[JasonPratt]

The demo of Revolution Under Siege was pretty good with the more open and fluid nature of the campaign. But I still struggled to keep up with who and what was where every turn.

Thus being truly accurate to the Russian Civil War.  >:D

[Slick Wilhelm]

The demo of Revolution Under Siege was pretty good with the more open and fluid nature of the campaign. But I still struggled to keep up with who and what was where every turn.

Thus being truly accurate to the Russian Civil War.  >:D

Yep! Personally, I think Revolution Under Siege was the most successful title using the AGE engine. Or maybe Rise of Prussia.

[southern_cross_116]

This might be interesting ... I haven't really had too much time to mess around with my few AGEOD titles, but what ones I did -I think that it has a lot of potential.

Fwiw, though I think you might be better insight into something this scale from Wedgwood or Wilson as opposed to Guthrie (my comment is about scale mostly).

Guthrie's good -it is just that, his books are more like articles from S&T as opposed to something like a narrative of the war ( for example - he sort of touches on Pappenheim's campaign after he talks about Lutzen (and of course Pappenheim died at Lutzen) ... so it is more about a topical approach than a contextual one.

Looking forward to this one.

[besilarius]

Southern Cross, I agree that Guthrie is very tactical in his approach.  He was a miniature gamer and found the pike and shot warfare very interesting.
The scale of the AGEOD games does fit better to the level of the treatment of Wedgwood and most others.  But being interested in the sweep of the period means so many details are left out.
For example, why salvo firing as developed by Gustavus was an effective tactic.  In Wedgwood, all she says is Gustavus developed "new methods" of infantry fire.
This leaves me wondering what did he do?  Guthrie goes into it in detail.  For me, that is the approach.
Both styles complement each other, but homogenized history leaves me cold.

[MengJiao]

The demo of Revolution Under Siege was pretty good with the more open and fluid nature of the campaign. But I still struggled to keep up with who and what was where every turn.

Thus being truly accurate to the Russian Civil War.  >:D

Yep! Personally, I think Revolution Under Siege was the most successful title using the AGE engine. Or maybe Rise of Prussia.

Personally, I thought I was one of the few people who thought RUS worked well.  And for me, Rise of Prussia was by far the best AGEOD.  After Rise of Prussia, nothing seemed to work as well.  I am, however, pretty such the 30-years-war is well within the AGEOD sweet spot.

[Nefaro]

I've only played some of the smaller RUS scenarios, but they were enjoyable.  As usual in wargames, the handling of aircraft units is a bit odd.

I still enjoy the Roman-era AJE/BOR series the most, but that could just be due to period preference.  BOA2 is much smaller in scope, but very similar.  As previously mentioned, the game system works well with periods involving no long strategic front lines and line battles on the smaller scale.

[MengJiao]

This might be interesting ... I haven't really had too much time to mess around with my few AGEOD titles, but what ones I did -I think that it has a lot of potential.

Fwiw, though I think you might be better insight into something this scale from Wedgwood or Wilson as opposed to Guthrie (my comment is about scale mostly).

Guthrie's good -it is just that, his books are more like articles from S&T as opposed to something like a narrative of the war ( for example - he sort of touches on Pappenheim's campaign after he talks about Lutzen (and of course Pappenheim died at Lutzen) ... so it is more about a topical approach than a contextual one.

Looking forward to this one.

  It should be good.  I read Wedgewood long ago and Gutherie not so long ago, however I find Wilson's book really made me ponder the events and their logic.  The book is not a particularly easy read and I'm on my second attempt to absorb parts of it rather than read it straight through -- but it is rewarding and enlightening:


       http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/866