AGEOD Games: gimme recent reviews

[CountDeMoney]

I know they've pumped out a few titles and we've had previous threads months ago and on the old Languish, but I want to hear recent opinions after patches and updates, etc.

I wanna hear about Napoleon's Campaigns, Birth of America, Wars In America, WW1, ACW.  Talk to me.

[Syt]

WW1 was not developed in house. It was a turd at release, but it's been patched up a fair bit. I'd have to try again before giving a recommendation. There's a gold version in the works, though, with among other things the map orientation changed to north being on top instead of on the left that you might want to hold out for. Other than that some great concepts and details (economy, research, having to declare Great Offensives in order to test new techs and doctrine), marred by a horrid interface.

Wars in America (BoA2) would be a good starting point, I guess. It's not overly complex but fun, and you can focus on the military side (politics is mostly handled by events). You can especially try if the system is for you before moving to ACW which has a more complex chain of command model. WiA has scenarios for French & Indian Wars, War of Independence and 1812. It's a really fun game IMO. Just make sure your troops spend winters in camps. I had a whole French army erode because they were surprised by winter in October while still on campaign.

Napoleon's Campaigns was a bit of a letdown for me, because you have only campaigns lasting between a couple and around 70 turns, depending on scenario (with a few exceptions, like Spanish Campaign). Again, sole focus on the military side, with little to no politics - just move your troops about. In most scenarios the troops are already in a chain of command, so there's little incentive of moving them about; and the campaigns are mostly too short for playing the promotion politics game. I prefer Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition.

American Civil War is their best game, probably, and the most complex. What I didn't like much was that even though you have some control over production and reserves you'll also get units based on events which is a bit confusing. TBH I never checked if there was a list of events (it probably exists somewhere), so YMMV. Check out the AARs on their forums.

Also, they have a Rise of Prussia game in the works, focusing on the campaigns of Frederick the Great - will most likely be like Wars in America, but in Europe.

[Tamas]

Yeah. Wait for the gold version of WW1, but do buy it then. The interface will still be mostly the same, but it will worth to fight with it (it already does imho but no point in purchasing the current edition when the gold is maybe a few months away)

I do echo Syt: start with Birth of America 2. It is a fun game on its own right and you will get used to the concepts and interface.

Then you should move on to American Civil War, it is great. Speaking of which, I think I have lost my installer files for these, will have to beg AGEOD to give them to me again. Anyways, it is a very good game, and you can PBEM it with PDH who will exploit your ass to oblivion.

Buy the Napoleon game only if you are a big fan of the period.

[Lettow77]

 I enjoy AGEOD's ACW alot. The South almost always loses multiplayer.

[Berkut]

I enjoy AGEOD's ACW alot. The South almost always loses multiplayer.

Wow, that is unprecedented for a ACW game. In my experience, every single game slants things so heavily towards the south to counter the Union numerical advantage that good southern play is almost impossible to beat without getting ridiculous.

[Ed Anger]

The only problem with the AI in the Civil War game is the large amount of Rebel raiding. Cavalry and partisan units? Ok. A corps commanded by Braxton Bragg crossing the Ohio? No.

Also, I think there is a multi game pack.

http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/agstcobaof17.html

Might be cheap at GoGamer.com.

About the Nappy game, the AI just isn't up to snuff. As the french, you'll slice the AI to ribbons. The Spanish Ulcer scenario is fun though.

[PDH]

ACW is a good game, perhaps the only problem is that it lets a competant Union actually move and fight in 1862 with the actual large armies they can create, thus making the historically realistic possibility of the South being crushed early happen.

[Ed Anger]

ACW is a good game, perhaps the only problem is that it lets a competant Union actually move and fight in 1862 with the actual large armies they can create, thus making the historically realistic possibility of the South being crushed early happen.

That is the fun part.   

That and sending the crap commanders to Oregon to sit out the war.

[PDH]

I do like the fact that the concept of Retard Camps out west continued in this game.

[Winkelried]

I do like the fact that the concept of Retard Camps out west continued in this game.

Considering what happened to Pope I'd say that "retard camps" are somewhat historically accurate. 

[PDH]

Considering what happened to Pope I'd say that "retard camps" are somewhat historically accurate. 

Yeah, but Sigel, Banks, Butler needed to be there too...at the very least.

[PDH]

Also, most games never seem to have Confederate retard as horrible as the Union retard - both had more than their fair share.

[Ed Anger]

Burnside at 3 stars and McClernand too. McClernand in one game pissed me off soooo much. His 20,000 troops disintegrated in Kentucky MARCHING ACROSS THE STATE because he was too slow.

[Syt]

Also, most games never seem to have Confederate retard as horrible as the Union retard - both had more than their fair share.

Which is why I prefer playing with randomized stats. Though I think only Forge of Freedom ever had the stats random and hidden, so that you'd only realize a retard is commanding your Army of the Potomac after two or three battles.

[PDH]

McClernand should be sent solo to assault Memphis.  Too bad leaders never seem to die in the game.