Posts: 371
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:36 am

looks promising

Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:43 pm

Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:12 am

Wonderful news!

Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:08 pm

Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:51 am

Great!!!, I reemember suggesting exactly this as a day one expansion To WON!!!!!

User avatar
H Gilmer3
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
Location: United States of America

Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:32 pm

beuckelssen wrote:I think Altaris did a great job with TEAW. A great game with great ideas implemented in the classic AGEOD engine. For this game I would like an important number of events in which the player can choose from different options. Not just 2 o 3 events, a lot.... :coeurs:

I´m curious about the great campaing with 4 players. I don´t know much about these conflicts... It would be possible interactions between the 4 factions? Because if, for example, I am Russia and the War of Spanish Succession never affects to my conflict with the Swedish..... well, in that case, it would be a problem being 4 players (possible delays) instead of a good thing.

I too have really enjoyed To End All Wars. That game so inspired me I started doing AARs and Let's Plays. :)
To End All Wars AAR in the War Room. Join us as we laugh, we cry, we drink beer, and we joke on how badly I play......!

Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:59 pm

Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:01 pm

Sruba wrote:Just to be sure, this is not a game which would use new AGEOD engine we have heard rumours ?

I am asking myself the same question. I have read somewhere about an Archon engine but not sure of its state.

Marshal Villars
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:42 am

Awesome News: Make Fortresses More Realistic

Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:33 am

I am a massive fan of AGEOD and Philippe Thibaut. There is no company which does higher quality historical pre-modern simulation gaming. This is awesome news. :w00t: :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs: :thumbsup:

As a die-hard fan of this period (1683-1789), I have been looking at the screen shots for Wars of Succession and I feel there is a serious issue which may be developing with fortresses. I feel strongly that there is a strong "superstar fortress" effect which is happening in AGEOD games, and this game. There is something in gaming I call the "Superstar Fortress Effect". That means that of all of the fortresses which were built, those that had battles near them and/or sieges got mentioned by historians. Those which did not have major battles or sieges were forgotten. On the "Wars of Succession" screen shot, France has most of its frontier fortresses (90% it seems) in Alsace-Lorraine, the Southern Alps, and the Atlantic coast. This is, in my opinion, for two reasons, 1) Vauban was the foremost fortification designer of the era and as such, locating reference materials on his upgrades and new fortifications is very easy. Heck, you can find maps of all of his works, and 2) because of the number of battles and sieges in and around others. The problem with this, and several other wargames games (of all brands) is that other regions are often ignored because of this. On the "Wars of Succession" preview map, other countries around France are missing 60%, 80% or even 90% of their fortresses. :dada:

France (Alsace-Lorraine region): Has about 90% of historical fortresses :dada:
France (Southern Alps region): Has about 90% of historical fortresses :dada:
France (Atlantic Coast): Has about 90% of historical fortresses :dada:
France (Spanish Border): Difficult to see, but it seems that the regions I can see the designer has included all of the relevant fortresses, leadning me to believe that he has basically mapped all of the major fortifications of France in the area :dada:
Swabia (Baden Wurttemberg region): Missing about 85+% of fortresses :sherlock:
Bavaria: Missing about 85+% of fortresses :sherlock:
Savoy: Missing about 40% of fortresses (no doubt, it has 60%, because the reference material for the War of Spanish Succession discusses action around those included) :sherlock:
Po River Valley, Genoa, and Northern Appenines: (Missing about 60%) :sherlock:
Spain: France seems to have its noteable, minor fortresses on its side of the border, but Spain is missing its fortresses. :sherlock:

Because of the "Superstar Fortress Effect" some fortresses are gone from games because of their own success. In his Blenheim campaign, Marlborough himself avoided Ingolstadt because he called it the strongest fortification in southern Germany (though he sent the Prince of Baden to siege it to get him away from the Blenheim battlefield). As a result this fortress is barely mentioned if it is mentioned in these histories at all. Result: it is missing from virtually every game I have ever played. Including, I see, the upcoming "Wars of Succession".

One argument could POSSIBLY be made: that in order to make the game "playable" and have "action" and movement, fortresses have been scrapped (this would be unacceptable in a World War 1 game... imagine throwing 80% of trenches out to create "action" in World War 1. Obviously the trenches and fortifications should be kept and mechanics adjusted. However, if this is the case, then France should also lose 80% of its fortifications. Which, as we all know, would be ridiculous.


If a high density of fortresses is making this game "unplayable" (or allow for less movement of armies than was historically the case - as reading histories of the conflicts give me a much more playable feel than WW1 would have), then the fortresses are over-powered. And this is my suggestion on how that is the case: Unless a fortress had: 1) a strong garrison, 2) a quality leader, 3) good stockpiles of supplies, odds were high that if a sizeable army came along with artillery and started to lay siege that the whole affair would be over in 3-14 days (this could be calculated like an "overrun" attack, costing a few extra movement points for the marching army). If an approaching army had just won an important battle in the field (or if a major engagement had been won by the enemy in the 100 or so miles around the fortress), the fortress would often surrender upon the approach without siege lines being laid. One factor that would increase resistance was if the defending side had a sizeable army in the field nearby. Additionally, if the residents and rulers of the city were friendly to your cause (and there was no garrison to take their ability to easily open the doors to the enemy away), then the doors could also be opened without a shot fired. Finally, there was always the (remote) possibility of a coup de main -- a surprise attack on a fortress or a trick which got the defenders to open the gates to an attacker. Maybe 1 in 70 fell like this, depending on how it is measured - but generally not those which were best prepared.

Additionally, fortresses which could not be taken could be masked with about 8000 to 10,000 troops to prevent supply problems in your rear areas.

The fact of the matter is that fortresses of this period were a serious problem for advancing armies. It wasn't until the age of Napoleon that these problems were reduced for attackers because of several factors: 1) better roads allowed for better transport of artillery AND better supply of massive stationary armies, 2) artillery itself got much lighter due to a revolution in metals and carriage design, 3) an improvement in and professionalisation of the engineering corps, 4) bigger armies which allowed for more fortresses to be masked and bypassed. To simply throw fortresses out of this game because they might slow things down is not the way to do this. It would be like throwing most trenches out in a WW1 game -- sacriledge. Remember, although Louis XIV's armies were by far the largest in Europe AND they at times approached the size of Napoleon's armies, he never even managed to threaten Vienna effectively. I believe that his troops never made it past Bavaria (though I do believe they threatened Bohemia at one point). ARMIES OF THIS PERIOD DID NOT MARCH FAR INTO ENEMY TERRITORY. Marlborough managed his Blenheim campaign because most of it was across friendly territory and he had pre-positioned supplies to speed progress.

As most of the readers of this forum know, the defence was in the ascendancy during this period in time. From the late 1500s to the time of Napoleon perhaps, fortresses dictated the pace of operations. Taking them could be an exhaustive process. Entire campaign seasons could be spent taking just one major frontier fortress in the low countries. But they could also fall at the drop of a hat if weak willed or ill-prepared. By adding most of the missing fortresses (which I have in a database which took hundreds of hours to research), players could choose their own strategies, instead of having those of history forced on them. AND, the game would not be rendered unplayable if the above proposed rules for taking unprepared fortresses were implemented.

User avatar
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:20 pm

Interesting, like if in France there was only Chambord castle and Carcassone fortress :)

Brigadier General
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:09 pm

Good points Monsieur le Marechal! The Wars of Succession should be very much wars of fortresses and fortifications. I think you could add all the fortresses and still keep it fun by adding more siege-related RGD and creating new siege-related abilities for leaders and units. This would create a min-game where players would need to strategize where they placed their most effective siege-ability related leaders and units, as these would reflect the commitment to holding or taking particularly important fortresses. Your point on loyalty is well-taken. A fortress in a region loyal to the enemy should be susceptible to having an "open the gates" RGD played on it, which would flip control based on a percentage chance related to loyalty, forcing a side to leave significant garrisons or leaders with special "governor" abilities in disloyal regions they hope to hold. This would be a fun way to give uses to allied leaders, since for example the Austrians may have a general of Italian background who isn't very good in field warfare, but has a political value in leading a garrison of an otherwise disloyal Italian city, making it immune to "open the gates" RGD played by the enemy. Making loyalty more relevant would give a lot more play to political RGD and events, as these, if cleverly played, can turn once-unassailable regions into easier pickings (and vice-versa).

User avatar
Posts: 13111
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:06 am

Yes, points are in good way. We are thinking along those lines, to get the siege warfare "interesting" and historically accurate while not preventing gameplay. Those suggestions, and in particular the RGD ones, are going the right way.

AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1228
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:09 am

+1, in the old WON threads I also pointed at how control of key fortresses over some chokepoints (rivers notably) should be essential for effective campaigning and fortress control and overtaking should be a central feature of this game.

AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1228
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:39 am

Uhm. I posted a reply to this thread last week talkin about fortresses and such and I see it did'nt get through moderation, is this thread under some sort of strict censorhip ?? :confused:

EDIT : yay visible again.

Return to “News from AGEod”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest