cbd wrote:Actually "Wargamer Napoleon 1813" was a game that covered this campaign. It had issues and is now an open source project on SourceForge, but not much activity for quite a while.
BigDuke66 wrote:It does not really help morning about what have could been, let's look at the future.
For NCPII I hope for more depth on all levels, shorter turns(1 week), smaller provinces, a "real" Napoleon's campaign(from him graping power to...), more diplomatic, more economy and maybe more "events" the player can trigger I think of all the improvements Napoleon introduced(for example garbage collection introduced in the German area left of the Rhine).
Athens wrote:1792 -1815 with one week turns = 1196 turns. A little too long maybe
berto wrote:Only (maybe) if you focus on a 1792-1815 Grand Campaign.
What about, just to give a few examples:
--1805-1815 Grand Campaign
--1812-1815 Grand Campaign
--1805 Campaign Scenario
--1812 Campaign Scenario
Again, why not have the best of all worlds?
NCP2 need not be an empire-building Crown of Glory type strategy game. It can be that and more.
berto wrote:Automated testing/QA is key.
Anyway, I know this isn't the point and we are rehashing the past, but Ageod and the Phils would have been financially more successful with a properly yet simply done NCP rather than a halfbaked product (NCP) and a very complicated and all encompassing game such as PON that is very difficult to play if you don't have either a NASA type computer or infinite patience and time (I have a baby and a wife, a tough job, when I can get 2 or 3 times a week an hour of play time, I am lucky, if half of it goes in turn resolution...)/
Athens wrote:For one part, yes. For gameplay balance, AI behaviour, above 500 turns is IMHO like piloting the Titanic: you may turn, but much slower than with a lighter boat.
Athens wrote:1792 -1815 with one week turns = 1196 turns. A little too long maybe
Franciscus wrote:I must say I agree with you. And when you speak of NCP, you could in reality also speak of WiA, RoP, and RUS, that not only, for one reason or the other, are also (still) in a "half-baked" state, but probably could have been better and simpler games if they were more like AACW in their design.
Regards and thanks for your insight.
Athens wrote:NCP had 3 major faulty designs decisions:
1) The AGE engine is tailored for Strategical/operational depiction of a war. A full operational war would be for example the 1864 Lee/Grant campaign or the 1806 Prussia invasion by Napoleon. At this scale, the engine doesn't work well, as regions and 2 weeks turn scale are too large to encompass all the needed nuances needed for a full operational game. On the contrary, a bit of startegic choices between several great plans or theaters with the added big operational AGE part is just working fine, in BOA,AACW. In NCP, only Spain and Russia campaigns were close to this model.But...
2) NCP was the first AGEOD game built against its AI. I'm not even saying without thinking about AI stuff but against. From NCP, rules have been added without adapting AI to the scope. Examples? Options. the famous options. Do you know there's no AI decisions for options? Options are driven by events. An event is just firing an option for an AI on the base of a random 100 dice roll. In AACW, options were built in stone, but AI has algorythms to choose between full or partial conscriptions. In ROP, there is just a die roll. Period.
I could multiply the examples. So the AI is now playing a game it "understands" less and less. NCP AI was just pitifully helpless in some scenarios( 1815 campaign foe example). ROP 1.02 was on the same level, with AI sending tiny packets in the deep enemy rear, starving soon.
AACW had the same problem but at last the AI had some "grisp" on the whole system and the American theater, with its low unit density, is more forgiving than NCP, ROP, for errors in maneuvering.
To be fair, most has been made to improve AI skill since ROP 1.02 and the concentrate command has solved some problems. The AGE engine has gotten many events command to tailor the AI too. Tools are here and the stock AI is much better than 2 years ago. Generally, opeartional AI "thinking" has been constantly refined and retrofitted in older games, improving the overall AI experience. It remains current AACW game againts US AI has generally won in 1862 or a little longer by imposing self restrictions. Not exactly thrilling, as AGE AI continues to ignore too often the real importance of distance, to sum up the main reason to its errors.
That's only apart work I've done for ROP 1.03 and RUS, these commands aren't used. AGEOD has my work, some explanations about the method ( which gives results ) but of course, reading AI logs and scripting 500 events is somehow less glamour and easy than " having great game ideas" or engeneering or coordinating.
A weak AI on a secondary subject with a complex engine gives a boring game. Only popular subjects like WW2 may afford to have a terrible ai and become commercial success ( WHich is the name of this Swedish company doing that ?)
3) PBEM is clumsy and nothing has been done to easy it. Many players aren't by nature skilled in computer stuff. A complex way to exchange file is just confining PBEM to the most dedicated.
1) I can't really agree here. The Age Engine does not require a specific turn scale, it could be 2 turns/month, but also weekly turns, monthly turns, daily turns or light year turn. Likewise the map scale can be adjusted. Where I agree is that of course NCP's map scale did not allow a good representation of Napoleonic manoeuver and strategy. But the solution would not have been to up the scale to a more strategic level, but rather the opposite to make smaller regions to allow for manoeuver and look at ways for forces to react to the enemy, either automatically (based on leaders, doctrine and random factors) or semy-automatically (adding orders similar to the current stance and posture)...
Athens wrote:The AGE engine doesn't adress night/days turns,rail capacity , possibility to force a unit to start movement at the X day of the turn or wait some days in a region, very small detachments for scouting/recon/ foraging ( the current hits model produces strange results when subelements are very different in size), etc. All this should be adressed for a truly operational scale.
veji1 wrote:This is still possible by the way, and wouldn't be to expensive, and I would buy it because whatever you say on the AACW AI, it was still solid enough for me to enjoy playing against it for 5 years on and off with some personal house rules of course.
Kev_uk wrote:I like NCP, a lot actually, it was my first game of AGEODs catalogue that I purchased. Learnt the game mechanics, rules, and so on, then because I liked it so much I brought AACW and then BoA2. However, my main gripe about this title was that there was no Grand Campaign.
AACW and RuS both have big campaign games, and, what with the stunning map of NCP and its theatre, maybe, just maybe, AGEOD could have created a GC with this game. This is something that would have made it shine out from the crowd. You could combine the diplomacy of Emipre in Arms with the tactical/strategic component of NCP for instance, and I think that would have made this game a winner.
I hope for a return to NCP with a grand strategic layer, maybe from 1792 and the start of the revolutionary wars up until 1815. Hard work to code that I appreciate, but maybe in the future?
Taillebois wrote:I've got most of the AGEOD games, and many others. For occasional players the AI is fine, I seldom get a victory. I think people who are so clever or so brilliant that they find the AI a pushover should change to a different game system or play PBEM. For me one point about a computer game is that I can play the computer, not a human being with its irritating habits and ego.
I still find AGEOD battle results a mystery but I've learnt to just accept that. The games are attractive and amusing, albeit PON and TEAW are just too big for my attention span, although I do occasionally play the scenarios.
Most of this thread was from 2011 so I suppose that was when NCP2 became March of the Eagles = a neglected Paradox game with more emphasis on battles than previously.
I'm in the middle of an AJE game, but perhaps I'll fire up NCP and have another go at the Last Flight of the Eagle scenario.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest