Why am I not getting into Ageod games?

[MengJiao]

I think Ageod games can be criticized from several different perspectives.  However, unit graphics is one that I have not heard.  Ageod games are generally praised for the artistic quality of the unit cards and map.

I too have had some trouble getting into some of the more complex Ageod titles, such as the first ACW and the Napoleonic title...however, the smaller more manageable titles have really captured me...especially both Birth and War in America titles. Just spectacular games there.

  Well, the graphics sometimes seem kind of eccentric and randomly motivated.  For example, I just got Espana and all of the Loyalists are smoking cigarettes on their troop icons (except the elite Mountain Battalion and the Regular Bde down south).  The Nationalists don't smoke apparently, even the Juvenes (in 1936?  was there a Papal Bull against smoking or something?).  I hope its a joke or that Mexico sent cigarettes.  Or maybe its a proletarian thing.

[MengJiao]

The graphics are quite attractive, Jarhead. Just not very functional. There are lots of tiny symbols that aren't clear.

What I would really like to do is just glance at the map and be able to assess the situation. "Ah, there is a strong enemy army there. Oh, my strongest division is here."

Perhaps the word I'm looking for is "situational awareness"?

Michael

  Yep.  The truth of the situation is in the tiniest dots on the bases of the "pieces"...which is somewhat annoying.  If I were commanding things on some strategic level, wouldn't I have a staff that could do some kind of summary of at least where the suspected main enemy concentrations were?  As it is (and here I am playing Espana 1936), you have to go look for the number of dots and their color so you get sucked down right away to the level of total confusion and irritation.  I was really peeved looking at whatever is west of Andalusia as the Nationalists swept into Seville and my Destroyers failed to intercept and the local Loyalist garrisons were overrun.
  But, I pulled myself together, concentrated some troops, sank a Nationalist battleship and started checking those dots.
  Then the Basques came blasting out and crushed a Nationalist force at a nice rail junction.  I hadn't expected them to do well since they were seemingly plain militia attacking with only about 2 times the defense as far as I could tell.  Apparently they ran into artillery in round 1 and then pressed on to win in round2.  I was inspired to look at their specs -- a very cohesive bunch those Basques.  By then the Catalan Anarchists had stormed Zaragosa and other concentrations were taking shape and I began to have some idea what was going on so the earlier annoyance was sort of worth it.
  Now of course, the AI is looking sneaky and threatening down south and around Madrid.  But never mind, I'll requisition some money and order some Russian Bombers so Picasso can paint:  "Seville: Blown to Bits".

[solops]

I have Espana 1936, Civil War II, and other Ageod games. They are well-made, cover interesting topics and display plenty of historical research.

And yet I'm not getting into them. I can usually get a feel for how a game should flow, but not with them. I don't have a good sense of how a campaign should proceed, and I don't have a good sense of how different units behave in movement and combat, not to mention supply. The mix-and-match system of moving combat units into and out of container formations is interesting, but a bit clunky.

One aspect I find difficult is the graphics. I would love if they had NATO symbols with combat and movement valued prominently displayed. The leader portraits I find peculiar, and more appropriate for a Napoleonic game than a 20th Century war.

Is it just me? I feel like that as a grog, I should be into these games. Am I a wargaming Philistine who can't appreciate aesthetics?

Michael

I agree 100%. I have several titles as well. I do not play them and will probably not buy any more for exactly the reasons you stated above, all of them.

[MengJiao]

The graphics are quite attractive, Jarhead. Just not very functional. There are lots of tiny symbols that aren't clear.

What I would really like to do is just glance at the map and be able to assess the situation. "Ah, there is a strong enemy army there. Oh, my strongest division is here."

Perhaps the word I'm looking for is "situational awareness"?

Michael

  Speaking of tiny symbols -- in Espana, if you look really closely you can see minute images that show political stuff the other side is doing in regions you can observe.  Since the game has "filters" (and some are pretty useless) for the maps, why can't more of them be useful?  for example:  suspected enemy concentrations or radio activity, enemy and friendly political actions.  The Supply map "filter" is very useful as is the control filter -- but "Major Regions" seems pretty useless.

[MengJiao]

I have Espana 1936, Civil War II, and other Ageod games. They are well-made, cover interesting topics and display plenty of historical research.

And yet I'm not getting into them. I can usually get a feel for how a game should flow, but not with them. I don't have a good sense of how a campaign should proceed, and I don't have a good sense of how different units behave in movement and combat, not to mention supply. The mix-and-match system of moving combat units into and out of container formations is interesting, but a bit clunky.

One aspect I find difficult is the graphics. I would love if they had NATO symbols with combat and movement valued prominently displayed. The leader portraits I find peculiar, and more appropriate for a Napoleonic game than a 20th Century war.

Is it just me? I feel like that as a grog, I should be into these games. Am I a wargaming Philistine who can't appreciate aesthetics?

Michael

I agree 100%. I have several titles as well. I do not play them and will probably not buy any more for exactly the reasons you stated above, all of them.

  One thing I was wondering about -- and at this point I'm pretty convinced that this particular aspect of AGEOD works pretty well -- is the idea that the stacks should have combat factors and movement factors and be NATO symbols.  I guess I like the non-factored, non-NATO representation.  For example, the leaders make good representations of the formations since their characters determine a lot about the formation.  As for the movement and combat factors -- you can see the movement when you order the move (though of course it might be intercepted or routed) and the combat factor -- well, that varies by terrain and fighting posture and supply and so on so I've gotten used to going with a general idea along the lines of: X formation has an Okay commander, some artillery, some supply and outnumbers the presumed defenders and they are on a plain attack (no assault) posture so they ought to get where they are going and do some damage without getting destroyed in the process.

[Nefaro]

The units actually have a "combat factor" estimate.  So I take it that whomever originally mentioned that, along with just having NATO military symbols on the stacks instead of artwork, was just wanting plain jane tabletop style counters with no artwork on them.  Especially since most periods covered by the AGE games only have cavalry, infantry, and artillery which are easily discernible from their counter art as-is and NATO symbology is shown for each element and created division. 

The artwork is a big draw for me in these games.  Hell.. you saw how much I tossed a fit about the dead-looking interface in Civil War 2.  I'd certainly not be buying them anymore if they transformed future AGE games into looking like a stereotypical tabletop wargame with no art other than the box and minimalist map.  And then with the World War 2.  :P  Matrix has buttloads of such titles already. 

[DicedT]

I don't care whether Ageod uses NATO symbols or not. But tiny dots barely visible on a big monitor don't count. Divisional symbols buried under the portrait of some leader whose face I don't recognize don't help. The artwork is pretty, but art should support the game, not the other way around.

I think Ageod work better with familiar conflicts like the American Revolution or American Civil War, where the portraits of many of the commanders are familiar, and most players have a sense of the capabilities of leaders and armies. The system gets much less intuitive for more obscure (to a North American audience) conflicts like the Spanish Civil War.

Michael

[Bison]

The unit cards give all the details you want DiceT and those are pretty straight forward with a little of detail.

[GJK]

I think that others touched on the reasons DicedT on the first page; you're a board wargamer trying to find the same level of complete control in a computer wargame and you just won't get that level of control with any computer wargame.  Computers are great in that they can crunch all kinds of numbers and handle doing all sorts of tasks that just would be impossible to handle on your own with charts and dice.  However, when your gaming background is one where you are used to knowing exactly where each of your units are located, their strengths in attack and defense and you know the complete range of possible results in an attack or defense and you physically roll for that result or draw that card and then apply the outcome yourself, then you feel removed from a game where the computer does all of that for you.  Maybe you're like me when it comes to PC wargames: I get lazy.  I click and click and click and eventually I get tired of trying to read stuff on the screen and trying to predict the outcome.  It's just all too easy to just do it...just attack here and there, just move there or here.  Rinse and repeat.  You can't do that with boardgames.  You either have to know the rules well enough to know where and how you can move and attack or otherwise you play it wrong.  Plus side for the computer games: it wont let you do it wrong.  Minus side: it will do it for you if you want it to and thus you have more of a disconnect.

A similar game system that on paper (screen) I should love is Hearts of Iron.  It has all of the elements of a WWII ETO game that I love to game but try as much as I have, I just can not get in to HOI.  There's just tons of stuff going on and yet I feel like I have very little control over it all.  I should just invest the time to learn the thing inside and out but I get bored or distracted from it much too easily.

The boardgame vs computer game argument has been debated to death so no need to rehash that here.  I just wanted to pipe in and say that I think I know exactly where you're coming from.

[DicedT]

Very good point, GJK! I actually agree that computer games - and wargamers - need to get out of the paper games straightjacket. Though it's worth remembering that paper games have been grappling with information presentation for a long time, so we shouldn't toss out the lessons there.

The problem is that Ageod games haven't escaped the straightjacket. There's lots of geeky numbers and micromanagement there, just like any complicated wargame. I can access that information if I'm willing to squint hard or do a lot of mouse-clicking. I think there are a lot of graphical options that could make that easier.

Michael

[Tuna]

I say 'no' to the Nato symbols in this kind of game... It's good to see the General icons in this game, because the Generals are going to have a lot to do with the outcome of the battles. So it's good to see who your looking for quickly. Also it adds to the immersion.


I do like Nato Symbols on 'modern' WWII an on type games though.

[MengJiao]

Very good point, GJK! I actually agree that computer games - and wargamers - need to get out of the paper games straightjacket. Though it's worth remembering that paper games have been grappling with information presentation for a long time, so we shouldn't toss out the lessons there.

The problem is that Ageod games haven't escaped the straightjacket. There's lots of geeky numbers and micromanagement there, just like any complicated wargame. I can access that information if I'm willing to squint hard or do a lot of mouse-clicking. I think there are a lot of graphical options that could make that easier.

Michael

  I agree there are a lot of problematic things about war games and a lot of problematic things about AGEOD -- BUT, I think AGEOD has pushed some things (the variability of "factors" for example) to the point that an entirely different level of problems can be seen and that new problematic level is the question of your point of view (POV) in a game.  and that question is Who are you in the game?  If you are the supreme commander so to speak then are you really a council or cabinet in a governement?  In Espana as a Loyalist you sort of represent most of Spain (at least according to Espana 1936).  And that is just plain problematic.  If you have an authentic/realistic POV or role in a game it should be limited and commanding your forces should entail a lot of role-playing style game play.  Again, very problematic.  Moreover, you could not possibly have the kind of information most games give you about things.  Your information would come from different sources with very different levels of plausibility -- no matter how well the information might be represented graphically. 
For example -- suppose you were an Army commander in Spain.  You might have weeks-old intelligence about enemy weapons flowing to the front.  You might have crystal-clear aerial photos of enemy positions that might just be decoys.  You might have yesterdays reports from division HQs and so on.
Your orders might not get through and they might not be understood or obeyed.  You might have to deal with politcal pressure from above and from locals and even from subordinants.  You might have to deal with your wife, your mistress, your kids and your drinking problems and insomnia.

AGEOD is some tiny step down this road-- it least it reveals a possible problematic way for games to go.

[Slick Wilhelm]

I say 'no' to the Nato symbols in this kind of game... It's good to see the General icons in this game, because the Generals are going to have a lot to do with the outcome of the battles. So it's good to see who your looking for quickly. Also it adds to the immersion.


I do like Nato Symbols on 'modern' WWII an on type games though.

I agree with Tuna 100%. Nato symbols would really ruin the visual style of the AEGOD games.

I have to admit that the AGE engine has a lot going on beneath the covers. You really have to know how the engine works in order to do well. Supply, your General's abilities and liabilities, the correct amount of command points to make your army efficient, fatigue, terrain, unit stance...the list goes on and on.

The AGEOD games are not ones that you can just start dragging and dropping units willy nilly and expect to have a good outcome. It takes some work to learn the engine well. I feel that I'm still learning with every game I play.

[Grim.Reaper]

I am kind of in the same boat as the people who have a hard time getting into the Ageod games.  All their subject matter interests me and I own just about all their titles, but every time I try to get into the game, I often walk away for some reason.  I think they all seem to have good depth and I have no issue whatsoever about the graphics and user interface.  Just something doesn't click with me.

I know this will be an unpopular opinion and might seem weird, but I think all their patching/updates also make me hesitate in playing the game.  I can see how others would see all the patches/updates as positive, a game company supporting their game for years, but I partly hold back because of it.  I am the type of player that likes to invest time in the "finished/final" product, especially games that require long commitments of time.  The last thing I want to do is be in the middle of a long campaign and a new patch comes out that corrects a major issue that was unknown before.  On one hand its great the developer released a patch, but on the other hand I now think to myself if I should start over because the bug might have impacted the earlier parts of the game.  I know many of the patches are compatible with current campaigns, but in my mind I am now thinking that issue could have altered the game all along and then makes me want to start all over again.  I am sure that I am overthinking this, but that is how my crazy mind thinks:)  Same thing happens to me in sport management games like OOTP where they release patches well after the release, which then makes me concerned how it impacted my baseball universe.

With all this said, something about the latest ACW2 has me itching to give it a try again...just hoping I don't meet the same fate:)

[Tuna]

When AGEOD is 'still' patching something in the latter years, I don't look it as they are 'fixing' it but more they are fine tuning/enhancing it.