User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4563
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Why not GI gold ?

Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:49 pm

As Calvinus is developing WW1 Gold, why not consider afterwards a GI gold ??
It could be a stepping stone to a future GI 2, but keeping basically the same game engine, units, map, rules, etc as the original. The "only" ;) improved features, IMHO, could be:
- Some tweaks for increased stability and compatibility with Vista/7
- Some reported bugs corrected
- The incorporation of the "official" mod
- The streamlining of playing just one nation (we can already do it, but events of AI controlled nations should stop showing and asking for player intervention, as an option)
- The ability to play stratagems, react to events, etc. with the game paused :coeurs:
- More player feedback (more tooltips...), auto-pausing after a battle, battle reports...
- A proper tutorial :D

I would buy it. :thumbsup:

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: ICQ WLM

Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:58 pm

That's really an interesting suggestion... :thumbsup:

We should try to convince Luca to do it... ;)
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte


BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)

AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!

User avatar
WallysWorld
Captain
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: Canada

Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 am

Excellent suggestion!

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13295
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:28 pm

It is not Luca to convince (although some work should go into this) but his wife ... and I have never seen a foreign man convince a Sicilian lady :mdr:

More seriously, it could be somewhat easier to "convert" the game on an AGEOD engine... map and artworks could be easily recycled, the existing construction module works and we have multifaction play available with VGN... ;)
Image

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: ICQ WLM

Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:48 pm

PhilThib wrote:It is not Luca to convince (although some work should go into this) but his wife ... and I have never seen a foreign man convince a Sicilian lady :mdr:

More seriously, it could be somewhat easier to "convert" the game on an AGEOD engine... map and artworks could be easily recycled, the existing construction module works and we have multifaction play available with VGN... ;)

Well, you will really need to expand a bit the AGE engine to do everything you could do on GI ;) ... but why not?... :D

EDITED: OH MY! this is my post 2000! :p ompom:
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte




BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)



AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!

Palpat
Colonel
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:27 am

Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:08 pm

PhilThib wrote:the existing construction module works and we have multifaction play available with VGN... ;)


Hey!
Isn't this something new??
A scoop only for Great Invasion forum!

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4563
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:35 am

Well, I am happy that my suggestion is at least getting some attention ;)

PhilThib wrote:It is not Luca to convince (although some work should go into this) but his wife ... and I have never seen a foreign man convince a Sicilian lady :mdr:

More seriously, it could be somewhat easier to "convert" the game on an AGEOD engine... map and artworks could be easily recycled, the existing construction module works and we have multifaction play available with VGN... ;)


Well, Phil, of course I would like to see GI in a AGEOD engine. But I seem to have read somewhere that even the code language of the AGEOD engine and Calvinus's are different, so surely what you are referring must be a GI 2 or something similar. And you yourself implied more than once that this eventual project required some factors, namely financing, volunteer team, programmer team, etc, that simply were not available, so this at best is a long term "dream", no ?

Now, a "GI gold" seems a lot easier to achieve. Let's see if I can convince the Calvinus famiglia: :)

- Professional pride: It would be a way to at least come close to finally delivering the game that ought to have been delivered back in 2005 but wasn't.
- Financial reward: Calvinus has stated more than once his ongoing willness to correct some bugs in GI when/if he gets time (IIRC, some crashes, the diminishing population, faith points...). If the work involved was connected to the release of a gold version, at least some financial compensation would ensue.
- Ageod "prestige" and marketing: It would be a good strategy to rekindle interest in a game covering the dark ages and would attract more potential buyers, not only to future games but also for the current ones.
- It is not a lot of work :cool: : Of this I am not that sure, as I do not understand nada about programming, but at least to me it seems so: The engine, map, rules, events, stratagems, units, etc, would be exactly the existing ones. Stability and compatibility problems could be trickier but the experience gained in WW1 could be used. The rest seem simple things: more options for issuing orders (stratagems, specially) while paused; AI taking care of all decisions of the nations not directly controlled by the player, if he so chooses (no more annoying decisions about Ostrogoths accepting peace or not while I wish to play just as Britons ;) ); more feedback: more tooltips, specially on the tutorial, covering some obscure things (like the misterious ageing of hordes :bonk :) , and if possible a better log. And you even have available a good and fat manual: you just have to remove the word beta and correct some minor mistakes ;) .
- It would be useful work: if GI 2 is undertaken, a revision of the manual, rules, events, stratagems etc of GI would have to be done anyway
- ... and everybody does it: even you :D . After all, many of this arguments are probably the same ones that led to the decision of developing a WW1 "gold", after all...

Regards

(PS: Congratulations, Generalisimo :thumbsup :)

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: ICQ WLM

Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:33 am

Franciscus wrote:Now, a "GI gold" seems a lot easier to achieve. Let's see if I can convince the Calvinus famiglia: :)

- Professional pride: It would be a way to at least come close to finally delivering the game that ought to have been delivered back in 2005 but wasn't.
- Financial reward: Calvinus has stated more than once his ongoing willness to correct some bugs in GI when/if he gets time (IIRC, some crashes, the diminishing population, faith points...). If the work involved was connected to the release of a gold version, at least some financial compensation would ensue.
- Ageod "prestige" and marketing: It would be a good strategy to rekindle interest in a game covering the dark ages and would attract more potential buyers, not only to future games but also for the current ones.
- It is not a lot of work :cool: : Of this I am not that sure, as I do not understand nada about programming, but at least to me it seems so: The engine, map, rules, events, stratagems, units, etc, would be exactly the existing ones. Stability and compatibility problems could be trickier but the experience gained in WW1 could be used. The rest seem simple things: more options for issuing orders (stratagems, specially) while paused; AI taking care of all decisions of the nations not directly controlled by the player, if he so chooses (no more annoying decisions about Ostrogoths accepting peace or not while I wish to play just as Britons ;) ); more feedback: more tooltips, specially on the tutorial, covering some obscure things (like the misterious ageing of hordes :bonk :) , and if possible a better log. And you even have available a good and fat manual: you just have to remove the word beta and correct some minor mistakes ;) .
- It would be useful work: if GI 2 is undertaken, a revision of the manual, rules, events, stratagems etc of GI would have to be done anyway
- ... and everybody does it: even you :D . After all, many of this arguments are probably the same ones that led to the decision of developing a WW1 "gold", after all...

Regards

Obviously, I do not have the code of the GI engine... but I think that (what I put in bold) is probably the most difficult task of all that you listed in there.
Bringing the engine to today's standards is a very complex work... specially an old engine that has been in the works for a long time... (I do not remember exactly when calvinus started working on that engine, but it was waaaaay back).
On the other side, like you said, the good thing is that now, calvinus has all the extra experience of WWI ;) ... so maybe that helps... :thumbsup:

Franciscus wrote:(PS: Congratulations, Generalisimo :thumbsup :)

Thanks! :D
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte




BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)



AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!

alexander seil
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:22 pm

Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

I would certainly pay for more patching.

I personally don't see much of a reason to transition to AGEOD's engine, since, frankly, the Europa Universalis-like gameplay of Great Invasions makes a lot more sense to me in a game where you play whole nations than a turn-based system, plus, well, the only things wrong with this game are rampant bugs.

Palpat
Colonel
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:27 am

Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:38 pm

Indeed, rampant bugs and CTD. And perhaps engine slugyness.

But I'm willing to pay for any future patch or lite expansion à la "For the Glory".

User avatar
Jayavarman
Lieutenant
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:31 pm

Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:35 am

I will pay.
"Sad fragility of human things! What riches and treasures of art will remain forever buried beneath these ruins; how many distinguished men - artists, sovereigns, and warriors - are now forgotten!"

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: ICQ WLM

Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:17 pm

Jayavarman wrote:I will pay.

+1 :thumbsup:
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte




BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)



AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1354
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:10 pm

Well I will preorder the moment the news comes up :D

But I think the core question is wether the engine can handle the "landless" wandering barbarians better. Namely, to make the whole country-searching and founding more smoothless for the AI nations.

User avatar
Tecnócrata
Conscript
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:48 am
Location: The Land of Thieves.

Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:29 pm

I, for one, support any effort regarding this. I still play GI and can be much better.
[SIZE="3"][font="Book Antiqua"]I told you that we'll meet again here. The Place Where There Is No Darkness.[/font][/size]

Palpat
Colonel
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:27 am

Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:48 am

Perhaps after WW1 gold? :innocent:

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1354
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:49 am

I was thinking the other day, that perhaps one of the fixes which MIGHT fit with the engine, would be that Barbarians would be much more like Raiders in terms that they would not gain control of a province they enter.
At least, not until they settle all of their hordes, which should trigger a switch making their units capture provinces like normal.

Of course, unlike Raiders, they would not be automaticaly in war with anyone ie. they would not attrite to oblivion automatically.

What would be needed, beside coding the above, is an AI adjustment, so it learns to march toward the historical regions, declaring wars on the way (still present to a large degree), and keeping military units tight with the horde, and an evaluation ability to see when it is wiser to settle the horde (ahistorical settling lands > total anihilation)

Return to “Great Invasions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest