veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:22 pm

I bought it at the Time and was crushed that this great concept didn't work out : the scale of the tactical battles, and their focus on formations, was indeed very interesting, and the operational side was brilliant, with the added bonus of the reinforcements one could buy, etc..

That game was planned and organised in a way that the player would have been able to play a quite long campaign, managing his depot and supply system, his recon, his protection of forts and first and secondary fronts... really had the game not been hopelessly bugged it would have set the standard.

To be honest I sort of wished that NCP could have been in an Ageod sort of way, with 90% of it coming from AACW, what that game could have been.

This is actually my main gripe with NCP, and when you look at what Bohémond is doing, it would have been so simple !

Really 80% of the job should just have been on drawing a map and units, building the rest of the game on a tweaked AACW engine would have been enough.

Basically what this game could have been is a few long campaigns, some buildable by the community, such as 1805-1807, 1812-1814, peninsular war, with partial or full maps of the scale of the ROP map (better than the NCP map, too big for the period) and one week turns. The whole diplomatic engine could have been made up of coalition or french side entry and exit levels based on objective cities, NM and VP levels ( say you play the 1805-1807 campaign as the french, you have triggers for getting minor german and italian troops on your side, and their is also a prussian entry level that builds up steadily with time and events). With a few simple adjustments to the code (terrain effect, MTSG, recon, frontage and size of units) and a simple reinforcement and replacement window, in which for example instead of buying individual units the players have more "political" options at their disposal à la levee and political pages of AACW such as call on a specific class, requisition horses, etc..

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...)/

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:22 pm

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.


I remember this; it was bugged to pieces, very unplayable but had a good concept behind it that looked like it lacked any decent support from a now defunct publishing company.

Never knew it had gone open source...

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:25 pm

I always thought that NCP would have worked with, as you suggest a better diplomatic/political/campaign component. As it stood, it was just a series of Napoloens battles, spanning at the most several months.

I found it fun, but if Ageod combined the diplomatic stuff from Empires in Arms with their tactical battle resolution, keeping that wonderful map they made, then it would have worked really well.

User avatar
BigDuke66
Brigadier General
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:24 pm

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).
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

User avatar
Bernadotte
Lieutenant
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: south of munich (germany)

Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:23 pm

@veji1
Very well spoken, I couldn't have done it better !
I totally agree.
Thank you.

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:39 pm

Play Empires in Arms - either the hard to get hold of boardgame (very expensive now), or the Matrix Games PC version. Then, combine that with the tactical Ageod game we have now....

A winner.

Athens
Brigadier General
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: definitly elsewhere

Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:55 pm

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).


1792 -1815 with one week turns = 1196 turns. A little too long maybe ;)
Fatal Years mod for RUS: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2875975

My blog: http://moddercorner.com/about/

[SIZE="2"]Players quotes about Fatal Years:[/size]

the more I play this the more I become convinced that RUS is one of the best strategy games I have ever played... and I have played many since the mid 80's. The AI in this mod is at level with Sid Meier's best efforts.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:07 pm

Athens wrote:1792 -1815 with one week turns = 1196 turns. A little too long maybe ;)

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

etc., etc.

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.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

Athens
Brigadier General
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: definitly elsewhere

Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:21 pm

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

etc., etc.

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.


Yes but don't forget the more turns a game has, the more difficult to test it for obvious reasons ;) And even a 1805-1815 would be roughly 520 turns. We aren't all dedicated players without family and business. I know how in computer world players are always on paper asking for more details, but in the end, most buy games not too bugged and easier to access and play :)
Fatal Years mod for RUS: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2875975



My blog: http://moddercorner.com/about/



[SIZE="2"]Players quotes about Fatal Years:[/size]



the more I play this the more I become convinced that RUS is one of the best strategy games I have ever played... and I have played many since the mid 80's. The AI in this mod is at level with Sid Meier's best efforts.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Automated testing/QA is key.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

Athens
Brigadier General
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: definitly elsewhere

Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:45 pm

berto wrote:Automated testing/QA is key.


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.
Fatal Years mod for RUS: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2875975



My blog: http://moddercorner.com/about/



[SIZE="2"]Players quotes about Fatal Years:[/size]



the more I play this the more I become convinced that RUS is one of the best strategy games I have ever played... and I have played many since the mid 80's. The AI in this mod is at level with Sid Meier's best efforts.

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:46 pm

veji1 wrote:(...)
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...)/


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.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:33 am

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.

I would say that observant, discerning, thoughtful human testing of even 500, 200, 100 turns is unlikely. On a repeated basis. Through all alpha/beta iterations of the .exe and data files. Down all the myriad paths and into all the nooks and crannies of possible game play. Not with a small corps of unpaid beta testers. It's an impossible task. Ain't gonna happen.

Given the vast scope and ambition of its games, AGEOD will never really solve their testing/QA problems. Moving to one-month turns or X hundreds of turns is no solution.

So what is AGEOD to do? Automate as much as possible. Give the matter lots of thought as to how they might do that in a meaningful way.

Human testing will only get you so far. Not very far at all, really. Automated testing is no panacea either, cannot test for everything, obviously. But it will take you farther, faster than "merely" human testing alone ever will.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
BigDuke66
Brigadier General
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:06 am

Athens wrote:1792 -1815 with one week turns = 1196 turns. A little too long maybe ;)


I thought about 1799 when he got First Consul, Ok that is still a lot but this game isn't really complicated and won't get it with the things I listed.
When I think of WITP:AE with about for 4 Years with day turns and the massive detail that is depicted that would be a tough nut, NCPII would be cake walk against this.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1308
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:13 am

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.


I don't understand what you mean. In what sense is AACW superior to WiA for instance? That last game certainly isn't half-baked in any sense. AACW on the other hand had to go through a number of upgrades before it reached the imperfect level (of the existing games it's the one that most needs a IInd version, even before NCP) it's at now. Yes, many Ageod games have common issues, mostly with scenario design in my opinion, but I would not call any half-baked...
Marc aka Caran...

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:56 am

Agree with Caranorn, BoA, Wia and ROP are games with a voluntarily limited scope and they work fine. The only game that really has a problem is NCP because the napoleonic era called for a game a lot more like AACW than BOA...

Anyway, I can of think that the best napoleonic game we could get on an AGEOD engine would probably be a 1805/1807 mod of ROP, or a 1813 game on the ROP map. The ROP scale and map are just perfect for such a game.

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:52 pm

YMMV, of course, and I am just expressing my opinion and feelings

My statement that those games are "half-baked" is due to the fact that they are in fact "unfinished" - beta patches with over a year ? (and yes, I know the main reason). And indeed there are lingering problems in the gameplay, like the allways fair coastal weather in WIA, the starving russians in RoP (I can not remember if it was ever solved, I confess I lost interest...)
(maybe now RUS is finished, with 1.03 and FY mod)

As to the design, I will give just my opinion: nothing was gained, in terms of gameplay FUN with the system of "pseudo-recruitment" in NCP and beyond (via options). Building our armies is part of the appeal of AACW, that somehow was, at least to me, partially lost, to no major gain in NCP and beyond (maybe more historicity ?)
Also, why ditch the simple "economics" model of AACW ? Again, maybe it would be unhistorical, but is fun and simple.

What I think could have been done was to simply maintain the same fundamental design of AACW and "simply" change the map/units, and create a few more games (NCP, etc), that would probably be less buggy and maybe more popular, and concentrate the inovations in PoN.

Again, this is just a personal opinion and as we know, we are talking of the past, so, not really that important... :)

Athens
Brigadier General
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: definitly elsewhere

Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:09 pm

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.
Fatal Years mod for RUS: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2875975



My blog: http://moddercorner.com/about/



[SIZE="2"]Players quotes about Fatal Years:[/size]



the more I play this the more I become convinced that RUS is one of the best strategy games I have ever played... and I have played many since the mid 80's. The AI in this mod is at level with Sid Meier's best efforts.

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1308
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:22 pm

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.


2) The ai is really one area I never understood, except noticing how easy it is to win against the ai in all Ageod games (and many other companies' games), regardless of ai settings. This is a serious issue and I hope people like you, who understand this aspect can help Ageod improve existing games and more importantly future games...

3) Concerning PbeM I think these games are not ideal for that style of playing (I started one game of RoP PbeM, in the end we quit, in part because we could not get our turn overs organised sufficiently, so some days we'd manage 3-4 turns, most days just 1 or 2 and quite often none at all). But as long as the ai is not a worthy opponent for more than a few games (after a few games you learn how to exploit the ai's weaknesses and then if you are a bright player you will start to play so as not to exploit them, which in turn will eventually make the game boring or at least less immersive). Other ways to transfer game files might be a better approach for these games, but those ways should be easily automated (that is no need to move files manually) and an integral part of the game program itself (not require overly much tweaking around with your computer, the internet etc.)...

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)...

I'm not sure what the future looks like for this game engine. I think it still has a lot of potential and the Ageod team is in my opinion exceptionally skilled and devoted, not to speak of the large dedicated tester base which can bring a lot of varied knowledge and experience into any new designs. A lot I fear will depend on how sucessful PoN is in the end and how much support the devs will receive from Paradox for future games and to support older ones. In any case I expect any new projects will be set back by several months at least...
Marc aka Caran...

Athens
Brigadier General
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: definitly elsewhere

Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:30 pm

caranorn wrote:
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)...

.


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.
Fatal Years mod for RUS: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2875975



My blog: http://moddercorner.com/about/



[SIZE="2"]Players quotes about Fatal Years:[/size]



the more I play this the more I become convinced that RUS is one of the best strategy games I have ever played... and I have played many since the mid 80's. The AI in this mod is at level with Sid Meier's best efforts.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:28 am

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.


No one says the AGE engine is a purely operational scale engine indeed. But some of the aspects you are talking about can be well abstracted :
- the scouting and recon in a napoleonic game should be based on the amount of light cavalry in a stack, this can be easily coded by giving light cavalry special detection [EDIT : and cloaking] abilities.
- delayed movement in AACW worked OK, you would just have to adapt it to or 5 day turns a NCP type of game.
- Foraging could also be coded by giving for example special abilities to french troops in earlier campaigns that mean that they consume less supply and therefore rely less on slow supply wagons or depots.

Honestly no one is saying it would be perfect but the tools were/are there to have a good NCP game based on the AACW engine, with a few changes (5 days or 1 week turns) and a proper map of Europe, to a scale similar as that of ROP.

Then on the very same map, with just a layer applied to it showing railways, AGEOD could have made a 1850-1870 wargame covering the italian war of independance, the Prussian wars of german unification, the Russia against Ottoman/France/Uk war, etc...

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.

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:19 am

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.


I find the Ageod AI's, whilst not brilliant by any means, are relatively good enough to play and experience a degree of challenge with. Not dumb as some wargame AI's are, plus they do not use scripted logs which makes most games from the Ageod catalogue different each time you play. To an extent. Always room for improvement however.

User avatar
Templer
General
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:33 pm
Contact: Website

Bonaparte's genius worthy?

Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:09 pm

Napoleon was a genius, Napoleon was French. Right?
AGEOD developed ingenious games and AGEOD is French. Right? :thumbsup:

When AGEOD developing a game to Napoleon Bonaparte, this game should be the preference of the company. Right?

Unfortunately, Napoleon's Campaigns is the weakest game of AGEOD. Unfortunately, that's right! :(
Greetings
Templer

Meng
Civilian
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:37 pm

Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:39 pm

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?


I had a whole bunch of AGEOD games a few years ago. When I thought of getting back into them, NCP was what I thought of first. I think after a few months of NCP, I'll get RUS and by the time I've played that for a while then hopefully AJE will be available.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2224
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:29 am

Interesting thread

Taillebois
Brigadier General
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:53 pm

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.

Temgesic
Sergeant
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:53 pm

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.


Fire it up! I love this game, with the official legacy patch i think the most of the bugs and problems are gone and the game is fully playable. Yes it´s not WON but WON didn´t became really what we all hoped for either.
Now i got a little touch in the fingers myself to start a NCP campaign, perhaps trying to keep the Russians from taking Finland in the Russo-Swedish war of 1808-09.

User avatar
Liberty Bell
Captain
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: Gothia

Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:47 pm

NCP has always been my favourite. I had hopes for a NCP2, with shorter scenarios. But of course I knew that players wanted a grand campaign. For me the NGP is to long and my PC lag. So I found myself, still playing NCP. :)

This is just a question from an idea. Should it be possible to link the scenarios? For me the war plans in TEAW was a great development. If the scenarios was linked and dependent of different decisions (war plans) and earlier results, a campaign could be build of scenarios. For example if you lose in 1812 your starting armies 1813 will be less. Every year scenario should have war plans to choose from.

Could this be done?
or am I an idiot :bonk:

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:06 am

It would be very hard to be done, as all start situations are scripted in hard text and we don't have something that reads saves and transforms them in setups for another scenario
Image

Return to “Napoleon's Campaigns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests