[quote="Taillebois"][/QUOTE]
Dear Taillebois, the day AGEOD accepts your "brilliant" ideas will be the same day that I will be searching for a new favourite (war)gaming company.
Some people, like me for example, actually like challenging games ....
-
Taillebois
- General of the Army
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm
- Location: Nr GCHQ Cheltenham
Sure, but you need somebody to be in business to produce challenging games.
In post #25 PhilThib says 200,000 euros should do the trick.
Well, looking at the bottom of the forum I see less than 7,000 registered members so that's about 30 euros each assuming registering is a good indicator of liking challenging games enough to want to be involved in some way. By contrast I think Paradox has about 150,000 registered members.
Chess can be played and enjoyed at Grand Master level and at beginner level. It retains its attraction by being accessible at the easy level and drawing people in who try it and then want to improve.
Having made a game for Grand Masters I think Ageod can entice new players by making it more accessible. That doesn't mean it is dumbed down for those who like to play at Grand Master level. It does mean that it won't be such an exclusive club for those who revel in such things
In post #25 PhilThib says 200,000 euros should do the trick.
Well, looking at the bottom of the forum I see less than 7,000 registered members so that's about 30 euros each assuming registering is a good indicator of liking challenging games enough to want to be involved in some way. By contrast I think Paradox has about 150,000 registered members.
Chess can be played and enjoyed at Grand Master level and at beginner level. It retains its attraction by being accessible at the easy level and drawing people in who try it and then want to improve.
Having made a game for Grand Masters I think Ageod can entice new players by making it more accessible. That doesn't mean it is dumbed down for those who like to play at Grand Master level. It does mean that it won't be such an exclusive club for those who revel in such things
It's not like paradox games are easy to learn... 
The idea of different difficulties for different players is good. Maybe a bigger selection of options where you could turn on and off rules when you start playing the game could do the trick.
Regarding random scenarios... it don't make much sense in an historical wargame like this, IMHO
It can be cool on tactic games, but on a strategic game like these?? 
The idea of different difficulties for different players is good. Maybe a bigger selection of options where you could turn on and off rules when you start playing the game could do the trick.
Regarding random scenarios... it don't make much sense in an historical wargame like this, IMHO
It can be cool on tactic games, but on a strategic game like these?? -
Generalisimo
- Posts: 4176
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact: ICQ WLM
arsan wrote:It's not like paradox games are easy to learn...
Well, recently a friend told me that he managed to conquer Poland with Germany on HoI3 with JUST FIVE mouse clicks
... so, the difficulty and the learning curve is really being reduced IMHO with each iteration of the engine. (NOTE: if you do not know, now with the Theaters HQ, you can left the AI in control of a theater and so it will ask for the necessary forces to perform an action, then you produce those forces and assign them to that theater so the AI makes the fight and you just command strategically
).Also, you can see this in many other games, where many things are being automated and left outside the control of the player just to reduce the micromanagement...
With changes like that, the ultimate goal for many companies is to try to attract the "casual gamer" to buy these "historical wargame" games.
arsan wrote:The idea of different difficulties for different players is good. Maybe a bigger selection of options where you could turn on and off rules when you start playing the game could do the trick.
Exactly... I really think a company should ALWAYS try to please BOTH types of players... the usual "grognards" that want the maximun details and the casual gamers that just want to try the game...
When you manage to please both, just like you said, by giving them a lot of option to turn on/off, you will surelly increase your customer base in the long run...
arsan wrote:Regarding random scenarios... it don't make much sense in an historical wargame like this, IMHO
The engine is not designed for that, so that's sci-fi really... it will never happen unless Pocus invests hundreds of hours into coding that new "tool"... something that I do not see happening in the short/middle term...
"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!
Napoleon Bonaparte
BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)
AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!
I'm unconvinced that AGEod or any other company for that matter can ever create an 'historical' campaign that covers the entire Napoleonic Wars. It seems to me that the moment you begin you create a 'what if' situation.....unless of course the game is produced as a 'simulation'.
Lets say for example that you begin in with the 1805 campaign. Then you have to take into consideration that the Confederation of the Rhine was not formed until 1806 and its existence (at least in its historical form) was totally dependant upon the performance of the French armies in the field up to 1806.
So what if, in our new NCP2 game, Austria does not lose in 1805. That the French fail at Austerlitz or are repulsed at Jena-Auerstedt by the Prussians. Does that mean that the Confederation fails to come into existence? Or if it does is it in a lesser form? Perhaps AGEod make it so that the Confederation comes into being no matter how the sides perform in 1805 because thats what happened historically but then surely that would make it a simulation rather than a game?
Then again the Confederation began to fall apart in 1812 with the French invasion of Russia, and sped up in 1813 after the battle of Leipzig. What happens in this AGEod grand campaign if France does not invade Russia in 1812?......or will it be forced to?
In my example I've simply used the Confederation of the Rhine yet the Napoleonic Wars are littered with alliances being formed, broken, reforged, etc that it seems to me that to create an 'historical' campaign that encompasses the whole of the period becomes a nightmare that would leave most totally dissatisfied.
My own opinion is that the best the way forward for a NCP2 (assuming one aim is to retain as much historical accuracy as possible) would be to give players recruitment/economic options etc but within the limits of designated senarios......eg wars of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th coalitions. Once you attempt to lump the lot together you open an entire 'what if' can of worms that cannot possibly be 'historical' without forcing players to adopt certain stances.
Lets say for example that you begin in with the 1805 campaign. Then you have to take into consideration that the Confederation of the Rhine was not formed until 1806 and its existence (at least in its historical form) was totally dependant upon the performance of the French armies in the field up to 1806.
So what if, in our new NCP2 game, Austria does not lose in 1805. That the French fail at Austerlitz or are repulsed at Jena-Auerstedt by the Prussians. Does that mean that the Confederation fails to come into existence? Or if it does is it in a lesser form? Perhaps AGEod make it so that the Confederation comes into being no matter how the sides perform in 1805 because thats what happened historically but then surely that would make it a simulation rather than a game?
Then again the Confederation began to fall apart in 1812 with the French invasion of Russia, and sped up in 1813 after the battle of Leipzig. What happens in this AGEod grand campaign if France does not invade Russia in 1812?......or will it be forced to?
In my example I've simply used the Confederation of the Rhine yet the Napoleonic Wars are littered with alliances being formed, broken, reforged, etc that it seems to me that to create an 'historical' campaign that encompasses the whole of the period becomes a nightmare that would leave most totally dissatisfied.
My own opinion is that the best the way forward for a NCP2 (assuming one aim is to retain as much historical accuracy as possible) would be to give players recruitment/economic options etc but within the limits of designated senarios......eg wars of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th coalitions. Once you attempt to lump the lot together you open an entire 'what if' can of worms that cannot possibly be 'historical' without forcing players to adopt certain stances.
There would be choices on a political ledger like with "move capital" in AACW. The player concerned would have say three or four picks depending on circumstances like date, current strengths, capitals and regions controlled, money, NM. etc. The player would choice an option that might create a strong Confederation, or average or weak one. He would have different costs and benefits as well. Maybe the Confederation would break down over time or if France didn't control certain cities/regions or even upgrade too if certain things occur.
Other players would have similar choices with their neighbours and circumstances.
Other players would have similar choices with their neighbours and circumstances.
-
squarian
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:41 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I think Soundoff has a point about an open-ended structure of diplomatic options - Empires in Arms, for instance, was by design a free-wheeling diplomatic game like Diplomacy, which made it attractive as a multi-player game. Unfortunately, it also meant that EiA often strayed from anything recognizable as the Napoleonic Wars - it was too open-ended to stay on a satisfyingly historical path.
How likely is it that an NC2 1805-15 campaign game will be played by seven (or five or whatever) players? Is there even a sufficiently large PBEM community to make many multi-player games possible? Given the reality that even with seven (or five or whatever) at start, often PBEM players will drop out and need to be replaced, how often will multi-player PBEM games reach a conclusion?
The answer, as experience with EiA suggests , is no. But rather than abandon the idea of a long campaign, which is what many people want to see in NC2, maybe it would be best to have a more structured diplomatic and options system.
Fewer diplomatic choices and options would help to keep the game on-track and resembling a plausible counter-history version of the Napoleonic Wars - which is what most of us want. For instance, if a Spanish-Ottoman coalition was historically implausible (as I think most historians would agree), then why make it an in-game option? Likewise, a political restructuring of the Holy Roman Empire (the Confederation of the Rhine) was a realistic option for the "Son of the Revolution", but not for the legitimist great powers - so why make it available to anyone but the French player?
Reducing the freewheeling scope of the political options & alliances might disappoint some players who are hoping for an EiA-style game, but it will help to make an NC2 long campaign much more satisfying as a alt-historical game.
How likely is it that an NC2 1805-15 campaign game will be played by seven (or five or whatever) players? Is there even a sufficiently large PBEM community to make many multi-player games possible? Given the reality that even with seven (or five or whatever) at start, often PBEM players will drop out and need to be replaced, how often will multi-player PBEM games reach a conclusion?
The answer, as experience with EiA suggests , is no. But rather than abandon the idea of a long campaign, which is what many people want to see in NC2, maybe it would be best to have a more structured diplomatic and options system.
Fewer diplomatic choices and options would help to keep the game on-track and resembling a plausible counter-history version of the Napoleonic Wars - which is what most of us want. For instance, if a Spanish-Ottoman coalition was historically implausible (as I think most historians would agree), then why make it an in-game option? Likewise, a political restructuring of the Holy Roman Empire (the Confederation of the Rhine) was a realistic option for the "Son of the Revolution", but not for the legitimist great powers - so why make it available to anyone but the French player?
Reducing the freewheeling scope of the political options & alliances might disappoint some players who are hoping for an EiA-style game, but it will help to make an NC2 long campaign much more satisfying as a alt-historical game.
As far as diplo actions I think were getting a bit off course. I have said before, I am for more options, not less. I don't see it as the problem that some do. You just establish triggers for the ability to perform certain diplo actions. Just like in EU3, You have a list of diplo actions that each nation can perform. And each diplo action has a list of prereq's that need to be enforce before it can be attempted. *shrug* To use one of Soundoffs examples, If the French lose at Auterlitz? The Rhine Confederation can't be formed.
As a game, NCP2 cannot be totaly constrained by the real events of the time period. If you don't want any deviation from real events? Then read a book. Or just play NCP1, where the only change is whether you win the battle or not. You can't have it both ways. The very nature of a campaign game is that the outcome of events will be changed by the actions or non-actions of the player. Sometimes the change will be subtle, sometimes radical. That is what gives the game more replayability. MHO
As a game, NCP2 cannot be totaly constrained by the real events of the time period. If you don't want any deviation from real events? Then read a book. Or just play NCP1, where the only change is whether you win the battle or not. You can't have it both ways. The very nature of a campaign game is that the outcome of events will be changed by the actions or non-actions of the player. Sometimes the change will be subtle, sometimes radical. That is what gives the game more replayability. MHO
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
For me, NC2 must be a 2-player game, not a multiplayer... Britain and the coalitions he forms vs France and allies... with a diplomatic engine to attract other powers to your side...
"... tell the Emperor that I am facing Russians.
If they had been Prussians, I'd have taken the
position long ago."
- Marshal Ney, 1813
Beren wrote:For me, NC2 must be a 2-player game, not a multiplayer... Britain and the coalitions he forms vs France and allies... with a diplomatic engine to attract other powers to your side...
I could certainly live with the two faction game you describe. Though I wouldn't be unhappy with the ability to choose between the five major nations. (England/ France/ Austria/ Russia/ Prussia ) Maybe we could have both. With specific campaigns for Russia/ Prussia/ Austria, and a major campaign for total factions headed by France and England.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
IF there is a NCP2, I'm unsure the map will be remade from scratch, given the time and cost it impacted on NCP1. I prefer that AGEOD spends money on more development time for both the data and the code...
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I understand that, but than it will never be to Napoleonic Wars what AACW was to the ACW, ie the very best operationnal simulation. I understand that the Napoleonic period, with the diplomatic interactions and multiplicity of participants is tough to properly emulate diplomatically, etc...
But at least the purely military aspect of it could be emulated with a AACW type engine. But due to the better road network and overall development of the areas where most of the fighting took place, ie Germany and Italy for the main part, but western and central europe overall, smaller areas and shorter turns (one week instead of 2) are needed, otherwise it becomes more of a Empire in Arms "move the big stack around with Nappy in it and thrash the other big stack" rather than a proper simulation of the campaing game...
Again I can understand if such a decision was made, but it would probably call into question the very interest for many players of a NCP2 along that line. I for once would dream of a game à la AACW with the type of detailed mapping in the ROP game for Europe...
But at least the purely military aspect of it could be emulated with a AACW type engine. But due to the better road network and overall development of the areas where most of the fighting took place, ie Germany and Italy for the main part, but western and central europe overall, smaller areas and shorter turns (one week instead of 2) are needed, otherwise it becomes more of a Empire in Arms "move the big stack around with Nappy in it and thrash the other big stack" rather than a proper simulation of the campaing game...
Again I can understand if such a decision was made, but it would probably call into question the very interest for many players of a NCP2 along that line. I for once would dream of a game à la AACW with the type of detailed mapping in the ROP game for Europe...
Pocus wrote:IF there is a NCP2, I'm unsure the map will be remade from scratch, given the time and cost it impacted on NCP1. I prefer that AGEOD spends money on more development time for both the data and the code...
I don't see why the map has to be totaly remade. Both AGEOD and modders have been tweaking the AACW map for years. Could not something on a bit larger scale be done with the NCP1 map? I know adding area's is a ****. But, surely it's better than starting over from scratch, and much less time consumming.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Well.. I suppose it isn't mandatory to remake the map, but I am surprise as to why did AGEOD not manage to translate all the qualities of AACW in NCP... AACW is truly a fantastic game, but NCP fails to recapture its qualities because it is too limited, scenarios too short or not interconnected enough, the player doesn't have enough power to organise his forces and recapture history in the operationnal game nor the diplomatic and alliance shift..
We have discussed it before, but if not a grand campaing, longish campaigns, Ie a few years, 1805-1807, 1808-1809, 1812-1815.. etc, a diplomatic engine that is simple (aka the FE ledger in AACW) but still allows the players (one playing France and Allies, the other UK and allies) to try to get more countries to join, or not to defect (Prussia, Austria, Russia) depending on victory points, control of some locations, etc...
Such a game would be a success comparable or bigger than AACW, probably significantly bigger with Paradox's support for distribution...
This is clearly a project with lots of potential, just the historical period will get you more players than the 18th century or the victorian times... Etc...
Hopefully it will get made..
We have discussed it before, but if not a grand campaing, longish campaigns, Ie a few years, 1805-1807, 1808-1809, 1812-1815.. etc, a diplomatic engine that is simple (aka the FE ledger in AACW) but still allows the players (one playing France and Allies, the other UK and allies) to try to get more countries to join, or not to defect (Prussia, Austria, Russia) depending on victory points, control of some locations, etc...
Such a game would be a success comparable or bigger than AACW, probably significantly bigger with Paradox's support for distribution...
This is clearly a project with lots of potential, just the historical period will get you more players than the 18th century or the victorian times... Etc...
Hopefully it will get made..
veji1 wrote:Well.. I suppose it isn't mandatory to remake the map, but I am surprise as to why did AGEOD not manage to translate all the qualities of AACW in NCP... AACW is truly a fantastic game, but NCP fails to recapture its qualities because it is too limited, scenarios too short or not interconnected enough, the player doesn't have enough power to organise his forces and recapture history in the operationnal game nor the diplomatic and alliance shift..
We have discussed it before, but if not a grand campaing, longish campaigns, Ie a few years, 1805-1807, 1808-1809, 1812-1815.. etc, a diplomatic engine that is simple (aka the FE ledger in AACW) but still allows the players (one playing France and Allies, the other UK and allies) to try to get more countries to join, or not to defect (Prussia, Austria, Russia) depending on victory points, control of some locations, etc...
Such a game would be a success comparable or bigger than AACW, probably significantly bigger with Paradox's support for distribution...
This is clearly a project with lots of potential, just the historical period will get you more players than the 18th century or the victorian times... Etc...
Hopefully it will get made..
I agree with that, and with the other contributions which propose to keep only essential links between the scenarios if players want to realize a enormous campaign with all of them :
- Each campaign, whatever the player win or loose, should continue, following the history or following only one or two other possible realistic scenarios.
- Players should keep the experiences of the generals and the troops which survive the last campaign.
- Political & territorial changes should be transfered in the next scenario/campaign.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
-
Generalisimo
- Posts: 4176
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact: ICQ WLM
andatiep wrote:- Each campaign, whatever the player win or loose, should continue, following the history or following only one or two other possible realistic scenarios.
- Players should keep the experiences of the generals and the troops which survive the last campaign.
- Political & territorial changes should be transfered in the next scenario/campaign.
With the current engine, that's impossible.
Pocus will need to code such "dynamic" behaviour from scratch
Each scenario (battle scenario or mini/full campaign) is a world on its own... and there is no posible connection between them.
"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!
Napoleon Bonaparte
BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)
AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!
The easiest path now would not be to create new mechanisms to link scenarios together, but to expand on the work done for VGN in order to create a real grand campaign.
If NCP2 is to be done, one day, I mean
If NCP2 is to be done, one day, I mean
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Well, we knew that NCP2 would be post VGN at least. Due to the engine requirements. So we are certainly looking at a couple years down the road as a best case scenario.
On a side note. Gamersgate just sent me a notice of AGEOD week, or some such. Seems Paradox has started marketing AGEOD games. Prices were a bit high. But I hope it brings in some cash. Help you guys get the new games out faster.
Nial
On a side note. Gamersgate just sent me a notice of AGEOD week, or some such. Seems Paradox has started marketing AGEOD games. Prices were a bit high. But I hope it brings in some cash. Help you guys get the new games out faster.
Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
CheerfullyInsane
- Private
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:34 am
Newbies two cents:
While a game with multiple playable nations, and 1 week turns may sound like a grognards wet dream, it seems impractical.
6 or 7 nations means weird alliances, plus it doesn't exactly make the AI easier to program.
Beside, think of playing e.g. Austria. Getting smacked around by Nappy for a couple of months, then spending the next 2 years rebuilding your army.
Not really my idea of fun.
So I'd go with the 2-player version (france vs. Britain + allies).
Just so each player has something to do besides blockading the french ports, and fiddling with whatever economic system gets implemented.
I don't see a big problem......Well, not an insurmountable one, with the wheelings, dealings and creations of minor nations.
E.g. the Rhine Confederation will need a trigger to get the opportunity for France to establish it, say conquering a specific set of areas. After that France can draw manpower/resources from it as long as he stays above X National Morale/Engagement Points. If he falls below, the territory stays under french control, but conscription and WS production is no longer possible.
Something along those lines at any rate.
Though I freely admit I don't know enough about the period to set the triggers in either case. Biggest problem for me on commenting on these things whether NCP or AACW is that I know the historic battles pretty well, but draw a blank when it comes to the national levels.
So bear that in mind before ridiculing me.
Sure.....Another couple of iterations of the engine, and you can push a button in 1939 that says "Go to War", and the computer takes care of the rest until 1945.....
Sorry
I find that there is more than enough going on under the hood with the engine as is. Robbing me of even further information would put me off completely.
Now, I'm fully aware of the risk of creating an "Über-grognard" game that will sell exactly 200 copies. I've been around the wargaming scene long enough to remember what happened to SPI when they started to listen exclusively to what their hard-core fan-base wanted.
On the other hand, these kind of games are by their very subject-matter niche.
Trying to oversimply things might attract more casual gamers, but it'll probably scare off the fans of the original engine.
A "casual" Napoleonic Era(ish) game at present would be Total War: Napoleon
Which is about as historically correct as.....as........Well, it isn't.
Which leaves the theory of options..... Which I'm kind of iffy about after tinkering with FoF.
It's all very well that you can add this or that specific thing, but in reality I find that these options are so inter-dependant that it doesnt really work.
I think that ultimately the game will just have to be too complicated for casual play..
Just like I have learned to live with wargaming being considered slightly geeky by everyone I know.
So what would I like?
1. Diplomacy options obviously. But limited (read: plausible) options.
While I don't want to be constrained to history, I really don't like these totally free games like EiA.
Weirdest thing I've seen happen in that one was England, France and Prussia joining together to perform "el stompo" on Russia.
2. Detailed battle-reports.
I'm an information-addict.
Looks like that's been implemented in RoP already, so I may have to invest in that too.
3. Strategic rallying points.
Just like replacements can be received in any major city, it should be possible to set a city as a rally-point, receiving all newly created units.
Obviously with a delay, so that regiments recruited in France don't magically appear a week later in Warzaw, but just so you don't have to hand-march every single unit to their new destination yourself.
Just to prove I'm not totally against automation to eliminate micro-management.
That's about it off the top of my oddly-shaped head.
CheerfullyInsane
While a game with multiple playable nations, and 1 week turns may sound like a grognards wet dream, it seems impractical.
6 or 7 nations means weird alliances, plus it doesn't exactly make the AI easier to program.
Beside, think of playing e.g. Austria. Getting smacked around by Nappy for a couple of months, then spending the next 2 years rebuilding your army.
Not really my idea of fun.
So I'd go with the 2-player version (france vs. Britain + allies).
Just so each player has something to do besides blockading the french ports, and fiddling with whatever economic system gets implemented.
I don't see a big problem......Well, not an insurmountable one, with the wheelings, dealings and creations of minor nations.
E.g. the Rhine Confederation will need a trigger to get the opportunity for France to establish it, say conquering a specific set of areas. After that France can draw manpower/resources from it as long as he stays above X National Morale/Engagement Points. If he falls below, the territory stays under french control, but conscription and WS production is no longer possible.
Something along those lines at any rate.
Though I freely admit I don't know enough about the period to set the triggers in either case. Biggest problem for me on commenting on these things whether NCP or AACW is that I know the historic battles pretty well, but draw a blank when it comes to the national levels.
So bear that in mind before ridiculing me.
Generalisimo wrote:Well, recently a friend told me that he managed to conquer Poland with Germany on HoI3 with JUST FIVE mouse clicks ... so, the difficulty and the learning curve is really being reduced IMHO with each iteration of the engine.
(NOTE: if you do not know, now with the Theaters HQ, you can left the AI in control of a theater and so it will ask for the necessary forces to perform an action, then you produce those forces and assign them to that theater so the AI makes the fight and you just command strategically
Sure.....Another couple of iterations of the engine, and you can push a button in 1939 that says "Go to War", and the computer takes care of the rest until 1945.....
Sorry
I find that there is more than enough going on under the hood with the engine as is. Robbing me of even further information would put me off completely.
Now, I'm fully aware of the risk of creating an "Über-grognard" game that will sell exactly 200 copies. I've been around the wargaming scene long enough to remember what happened to SPI when they started to listen exclusively to what their hard-core fan-base wanted.
On the other hand, these kind of games are by their very subject-matter niche.
Trying to oversimply things might attract more casual gamers, but it'll probably scare off the fans of the original engine.
A "casual" Napoleonic Era(ish) game at present would be Total War: Napoleon
Which is about as historically correct as.....as........Well, it isn't.
Which leaves the theory of options..... Which I'm kind of iffy about after tinkering with FoF.
It's all very well that you can add this or that specific thing, but in reality I find that these options are so inter-dependant that it doesnt really work.
I think that ultimately the game will just have to be too complicated for casual play..
Just like I have learned to live with wargaming being considered slightly geeky by everyone I know.
So what would I like?
1. Diplomacy options obviously. But limited (read: plausible) options.
While I don't want to be constrained to history, I really don't like these totally free games like EiA.
Weirdest thing I've seen happen in that one was England, France and Prussia joining together to perform "el stompo" on Russia.
2. Detailed battle-reports.
I'm an information-addict.
Looks like that's been implemented in RoP already, so I may have to invest in that too.
3. Strategic rallying points.
Just like replacements can be received in any major city, it should be possible to set a city as a rally-point, receiving all newly created units.
Obviously with a delay, so that regiments recruited in France don't magically appear a week later in Warzaw, but just so you don't have to hand-march every single unit to their new destination yourself.
Just to prove I'm not totally against automation to eliminate micro-management.
That's about it off the top of my oddly-shaped head.
CheerfullyInsane
Personally on my wish list would be the ability to transfer elements. I know it is superficial but it frustrated me a little bit not being able to transfer battalions when Wellesley lands with single element brigades. Of course the AI wouldn't have to be able to do it because from the players perspective it is not known and doesn't really affect the overall gameplay.
Not sure anyone's mentionned this yet. I'd like to see companies as the basic elements (as in RoP), the smallest units battalions and/or regiments, command structures to then represent brigades and divisions (so a chain of command bellow the corps level). One major problem I had/have with NCP is how some elements are battalions, other regiments and some even undersize brigades...
Marc aka Caran...
my wishlist:
1. I really want NCP2, so this is my first wish.
2. a great campaign with diplomacy and a historical corridor (so to say). Let us be Napoleon but don't give us too many options to stray too far from history. At the same time: Don't let history overwhelm a good game, either. Stay as much as needed at reality, but don't forget a to make a good balanced game.
Napoleon was strong and successful, but as a gamer I want a challenge. Make the obstacles hard to overcome. I want to be in control. I want to feel like Naopoelon did in his time. That doesn't exclude a challenging game. He made his victories look easy (sometimes), but all great masters of their craft do this. I feel like Frederick did when I play ROP and this is for me the perfect translation of history into a computer game (which is why I love ROP to pieces).
In my mind it would be a strategical wargame with mild doses of diplomacy (and maybe a little bit economy?). Make it two or three "big players" and some minor states which can be swapped around or stay neutral, something like this. With maybe scripted events where I can chose if I would stay near history or stray from it (like in ROP). Or give us dynamic mission goals from VGN, so yu can simulate the different campaigns better. I think there is something possible with the tech you have in this regard.
The map from NCP is a-okay for this kind of game. I would even say it is the perfect fit. The current scale of it represents the perfect balance between a strategically and operational wargame AND a grand strategy game - and this is exactly what is needed for a napoelonic grand campaign. If the regions where detailed like in ROP it would be overkill and too much to organize.
Turn time... I think 10 days would be fine, so you can simulate the speed Napoleon had in his campaigns and you could at the same time reduce a turn overkill a little bit. Make 2 or 3 camapigns and concentrate on the most important time periods of Napoleon. Maybe 2 to 4 years each whatever is manageable for your team.
3. a limited tactical engine. Okay, AFAIK battles where seldom front to front, because generals always tried to position themselves tactically astute to give themselves an advantage. Right now it doesn't matter much from where I get into a region. I can't attack the back of an army, but I would like to have this in the game. It doesn't have to be spectatcular, just something so that my good planing and cunning decisions in positioning my army pays off even better or that my dumb moves get punished even harder. You get the point?
For this I would like that we maybe can give simple orders to different parts of the troops (go here and there - fast or slow, maybe including the ROE options - not much more). Just like in a football manager game: I lay the ground and the engine will do the rest and shows me if I am successful with my guesswork.
With very limited options and no influence while the soldiers are fighting (my AI officers will of course command) I hope it is possible to create a good AI a little bit easier. That would be a dream come true, as I very much like the strategical prowess of the AGEOD engine, but miss the tactical end a little bit. Now you have a diplomatic engine, then why not make a little tactical engine too - this would be the icing on the cake.
4. translate the campagns from NCP1 into the new game (or take at least the better balanced, good ones) and fine tune them, so that we have all in one game with all the new features (replay, etc.)
This game would be a dream come true, together with what you have from NCP1 and the new diplomatic engine with dynamic mission goals you can make the perfect Naopoleon game - just do it, please. It would be the next mighty blow from AGEOD. I'm sure!
edit: oh and I would like to keep the "troop production" from ROP for creating new units. I very much like that system. It makes sense, helps the player and doesen't make things too easy - the perfect feature.
1. I really want NCP2, so this is my first wish.
2. a great campaign with diplomacy and a historical corridor (so to say). Let us be Napoleon but don't give us too many options to stray too far from history. At the same time: Don't let history overwhelm a good game, either. Stay as much as needed at reality, but don't forget a to make a good balanced game.
Napoleon was strong and successful, but as a gamer I want a challenge. Make the obstacles hard to overcome. I want to be in control. I want to feel like Naopoelon did in his time. That doesn't exclude a challenging game. He made his victories look easy (sometimes), but all great masters of their craft do this. I feel like Frederick did when I play ROP and this is for me the perfect translation of history into a computer game (which is why I love ROP to pieces).
In my mind it would be a strategical wargame with mild doses of diplomacy (and maybe a little bit economy?). Make it two or three "big players" and some minor states which can be swapped around or stay neutral, something like this. With maybe scripted events where I can chose if I would stay near history or stray from it (like in ROP). Or give us dynamic mission goals from VGN, so yu can simulate the different campaigns better. I think there is something possible with the tech you have in this regard.
The map from NCP is a-okay for this kind of game. I would even say it is the perfect fit. The current scale of it represents the perfect balance between a strategically and operational wargame AND a grand strategy game - and this is exactly what is needed for a napoelonic grand campaign. If the regions where detailed like in ROP it would be overkill and too much to organize.
Turn time... I think 10 days would be fine, so you can simulate the speed Napoleon had in his campaigns and you could at the same time reduce a turn overkill a little bit. Make 2 or 3 camapigns and concentrate on the most important time periods of Napoleon. Maybe 2 to 4 years each whatever is manageable for your team.
3. a limited tactical engine. Okay, AFAIK battles where seldom front to front, because generals always tried to position themselves tactically astute to give themselves an advantage. Right now it doesn't matter much from where I get into a region. I can't attack the back of an army, but I would like to have this in the game. It doesn't have to be spectatcular, just something so that my good planing and cunning decisions in positioning my army pays off even better or that my dumb moves get punished even harder. You get the point?
For this I would like that we maybe can give simple orders to different parts of the troops (go here and there - fast or slow, maybe including the ROE options - not much more). Just like in a football manager game: I lay the ground and the engine will do the rest and shows me if I am successful with my guesswork.
With very limited options and no influence while the soldiers are fighting (my AI officers will of course command) I hope it is possible to create a good AI a little bit easier. That would be a dream come true, as I very much like the strategical prowess of the AGEOD engine, but miss the tactical end a little bit. Now you have a diplomatic engine, then why not make a little tactical engine too - this would be the icing on the cake.
4. translate the campagns from NCP1 into the new game (or take at least the better balanced, good ones) and fine tune them, so that we have all in one game with all the new features (replay, etc.)
This game would be a dream come true, together with what you have from NCP1 and the new diplomatic engine with dynamic mission goals you can make the perfect Naopoleon game - just do it, please. It would be the next mighty blow from AGEOD. I'm sure!
edit: oh and I would like to keep the "troop production" from ROP for creating new units. I very much like that system. It makes sense, helps the player and doesen't make things too easy - the perfect feature.
-
Tirailleur
- Private
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Germany - Bielefeld
How about to implement a grognard option “historical delay” for messages like the option “historical attrition”. You are Napoleon (for example) and your orders for your generals, that are a few days away from your position, have a deliver time and it needs time to read and act on it (depends on the attributes of the leaders). So you in your HQ don’t know the exactly position and the behaviour of your other units that are far away. The positions are the ones that you only know from messengers – so they can be some days old (you can see this by grayed-out units for example). You see your units (far away) not moving, only the information of the position on day “x”.
And you know the outcome of a battle with a unit that is a few days away only if the messenger delivers you the information (you see the battle result a few days later). It can be that messages are captured by enemy units.
I like this option in Frank Hunter’s Campaigns on the Danube, where you have messages like “3 days ago the town X was captured” or “5 days ago Davout had a battle with…”.
And you know the outcome of a battle with a unit that is a few days away only if the messenger delivers you the information (you see the battle result a few days later). It can be that messages are captured by enemy units.
I like this option in Frank Hunter’s Campaigns on the Danube, where you have messages like “3 days ago the town X was captured” or “5 days ago Davout had a battle with…”.
This is a nice idea... the feature is already partly in the game, working with the strategic value of the leader (the higher the value, the faster the orders are given to subordinate corps). Napoleon's dispatches service was the most efficient of all in that time, but of course there were inevitable delays...and mistakes
-
Tirailleur
- Private
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Germany - Bielefeld
This idea would be only an option for more atmosphere by showing what happens in the battles.
I read the AgeWiki about the combat that is very detailed and I know that there is a detail battle report implemented in ROP (that I own :thumbsup . How about to take the existing internal rules and display the combat with animations instead of the circle: a sketch from the battlefield with roughly the terrain and the weather conditions, little blocks (red and blue or better like the battle report ones) for the units – their behaviour is dictated by the rules. Something like you would look at an old battlemap in a history book or you are at the HQ and look on the map where the units as blocks are placed on.
For simplicity you could show the results of the moves and combat every battleturn (1 hour). So you could see directly what is going on, on the battlefield.
O.k., but I think this is a lot of work to do...
I read the AgeWiki about the combat that is very detailed and I know that there is a detail battle report implemented in ROP (that I own :thumbsup
. How about to take the existing internal rules and display the combat with animations instead of the circle: a sketch from the battlefield with roughly the terrain and the weather conditions, little blocks (red and blue or better like the battle report ones) for the units – their behaviour is dictated by the rules. Something like you would look at an old battlemap in a history book or you are at the HQ and look on the map where the units as blocks are placed on.
For simplicity you could show the results of the moves and combat every battleturn (1 hour). So you could see directly what is going on, on the battlefield.
O.k., but I think this is a lot of work to do...
Return to “Napoleon's Campaigns”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests