AGEOD Forums

Sofar I know there are only seven nations playable throughout the upcoming Grand Campaign. But I want to know if it is possible to modify the faction files so that I could play perhaps Egypt or China or Mexiko or Brazil or even Paraguay from 1850 onward. Even the Boer states would be a nice try to compete with the greater nations. I would like the challenge to play with some minor nations because I think that playing with Prussia the later Germany will be a not so great challenge if someone knows how to play proper.
I hope for some good possibility to play some minor nations and to try to change history.
Imagine what had happened if Mexiko could have resisted the French Expedition and had later invaded the USA aside the Confederates.
Or making Paraguay to a strong economic and military regional power in South America and reaching his goal to gain access to the Atlantic conquering Uruguay. Or playing with Egypt and developing the country to a more modern one and expand further south and west and even conquer Syria and the Hedjaz and perhaps Lybia. Or playing China and modernize the country and prepare it for upcoming conflicts with the British, the Japanese and the Russians and expand their holdings.
Even the Brazil Empire could be a real challenge with the inner conflicts and the upcoming war with Paraguay.

Sofar my opinion and hope for a very good Grand Campaign play...

greetings

Hohenlohe

It will be definitively possible to modify some files and have all factions playable. The team is concentrated on having 7-8 great to play, so to not overstretch our resources, but modders will be welcome to do what they want and like

I would assume that having playable nations in scenarios is more viable than having them playable for the grand campaign. One thing about 'VgN' is that it is not like 'Victoria' in terms of ability to create a major power out of a tiny nation, or to act willy-nilly as to how the player wants to play over the nation (i.e., Mexico was signifiantly more pro-Union than pro-Confederate). I would rate it more of a historic simulator than a sandbox game.

McNaughton wrote:I would assume that having playable nations in scenarios is more viable than having them playable for the grand campaign. One thing about 'VgN' is that it is not like 'Victoria' in terms of ability to create a major power out of a tiny nation, or to act willy-nilly as to how the player wants to play over the nation (i.e., Mexico was signifiantly more pro-Union than pro-Confederate). I would rate it more of a historic simulator than a sandbox game.

Not to get all technical, but it is Victoria which is the simulator (well, the second one, in theory), since it relies on clear models to produce outcomes that are supposed to approach the historical ones. A game that relies on events and scripting (in order to produce historical or plausible outcomes without having an underlying model) is not a simulator.

alexander seil wrote:Not to get all technical, but it is Victoria which is the simulator (well, the second one, in theory), since it relies on clear models to produce outcomes that are supposed to approach the historical ones. A game that relies on events and scripting (in order to produce historical or plausible outcomes without having an underlying model) is not a simulator.

And you say that based on your entire experience on VGN?... right?...

Really, I think that you have completelly misread McNaughton reply... to put it in a simpler way:
Victoria (vanilla) -> You can conquer the world with Bavaria.
VGN -> that will NOT be posible because of historical constraints built inside the engine.

That doesn't mean that Victoria is bad and VGN is good... they are just different.

And you are basing that on your entire experience with V2?

There are different kinds of constraints, in any case. There are constraints that just say "don't do that" and constraints that arise organically from the way the system functions. Given what we know about VGN, and its focus on warfare rather than economic and political modeling, it's safe to say that it will have to rely on events, scripting and hard rules to preclude certain undesirable behaviors. One obvious way to restrict players from conquering the world as a minor faction, is to make minor factions unplayable, for example

alexander seil wrote:Given what we know about VGN, and its focus on warfare rather than economic and political modeling, it's safe to say that it will have to rely on events, scripting and hard rules to preclude certain undesirable behaviors.

Humm...based on what I see on this box art (link below), I thought the priority was the same for Victoria 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria2boxart.jpg

alexander seil wrote:And you are basing that on your entire experience with V2?

There are different kinds of constraints, in any case. There are constraints that just say "don't do that" and constraints that arise organically from the way the system functions. Given what we know about VGN, and its focus on warfare rather than economic and political modeling, it's safe to say that it will have to rely on events, scripting and hard rules to preclude certain undesirable behaviors. One obvious way to restrict players from conquering the world as a minor faction, is to make minor factions unplayable, for example

VGN is not particularly focused on warfare. The economic model of VGN is full of details. I don't know the specifics of Victoria II, but I believe we can more than hold our own here.

alexander seil wrote:And you are basing that on your entire experience with V2?

I wonder where did I ever talk about Victoria 2...
By the way, neither McNaughton talks specifically about Victoria 2...

alexander seil wrote:There are different kinds of constraints, in any case. There are constraints that just say "don't do that" and constraints that arise organically from the way the system functions. Given what we know about VGN, and its focus on warfare rather than economic and political modeling, it's safe to say that it will have to rely on events, scripting and hard rules to preclude certain undesirable behaviors. One obvious way to restrict players from conquering the world as a minor faction, is to make minor factions unplayable, for example

After reading this, I really think you do not know what you are talking about... the focus of the VGN Grand Campaign is NOT warfare.
Please, check the thread about VGN details and you will see that.

Generalisimo wrote:I wonder where did I ever talk about Victoria 2...
By the way, neither McNaughton talks specifically about Victoria 2...

Victoria is mentioned, and VGN's competitor is Victoria 2, not some game from 6 years ago.

After reading this, I really think you do not know what you are talking about... the focus of the VGN Grand Campaign is NOT warfare.
Please, check the thread about VGN details and you will see that.

The absence of any meaningful information about anything (other than the assurances that it will be, and I paraphrase, "more awesome than Victoria") and the focus of most screenshots suggests otherwise? Maybe it's time for a dev. diary.

deleted

alexander seil wrote:Victoria is mentioned, and VGN's competitor is Victoria 2, not some game from 6 years ago.

Victoria 2 hasn't been released yet... so, in public, we can only compare what VGN would be to the predecesor of Victoria 2... so, the great Victoria that has already gave us a lot of fun.

alexander seil wrote:... Maybe it's time for a dev. diary.

See? we agree on something...

Really, I have said this from the very beggining, VGN and Victoria (1 & 2) are different games... I don't think we can compare them directly (starting from the RTS vs TBS design decision )... except the obvious refference to the period they cover...

alexander seil wrote:Victoria is mentioned, and VGN's competitor is Victoria 2, not some game from 6 years ago.



The absence of any meaningful information about anything (other than the assurances that it will be, and I paraphrase, "more awesome than Victoria") and the focus of most screenshots suggests otherwise? Maybe it's time for a dev. diary.

Competitor ? You are aware that AGEOD is owned by Paradox? I think that it is fair to say that VGN will be more awesome than Victoria. Also Victoria2 should be better than Victoria. If these two are not better, then what is the point in developing them? But somehow I think that you are trying to compare VGN with Vicky2. If so, then you do talk some rubbish as you can not have any real knowledge of both games.

alexander seil wrote:Victoria is mentioned, and VGN's competitor is Victoria 2, not some game from 6 years ago.



The absence of any meaningful information about anything (other than the assurances that it will be, and I paraphrase, "more awesome than Victoria") and the focus of most screenshots suggests otherwise? Maybe it's time for a dev. diary.

There is lots of information. Look through the forum.

A prediction - Vainglory of Nations will be cherished and played indefinitely, like Ageod's Civil War and Wars in America, while Victoria 2 will have to rely on some future expansion to save the game, kind of like HOI 3 and Semper Fi. Feel free to disagree, but events will determine the issue.

alexander seil wrote:And you are basing that on your entire experience with V2?

There are different kinds of constraints, in any case. There are constraints that just say "don't do that" and constraints that arise organically from the way the system functions. Given what we know about VGN, and its focus on warfare rather than economic and political modeling, it's safe to say that it will have to rely on events, scripting and hard rules to preclude certain undesirable behaviors. One obvious way to restrict players from conquering the world as a minor faction, is to make minor factions unplayable, for example

I think you underestimate Ageod. This is not Paradox. The two Philippes and crew are not limited to the mechanics used by Paradox in the past, as you will learn if you approach Vainglory with an open mind. I predict that Vainglory will be a triumph!

We hope so anyway!

Lets stay cool, gentlemen, so that this thread don't derail, that would be a pity for the VGN project.

Have a seat and take a glass of whiskey, or do you prefer some cigars?





Now let me get back to my programming. Time to decide the colonial penetration values of some buildings.

Le Ricain wrote:Competitor ? You are aware that AGEOD is owned by Paradox? I think that it is fair to say that VGN will be more awesome than Victoria. Also Victoria2 should be better than Victoria. If these two are not better, then what is the point in developing them? But somehow I think that you are trying to compare VGN with Vicky2. If so, then you do talk some rubbish as you can not have any real knowledge of both games.

I assume that the availability of "real knowledge" is why there's a thread on this very forum dedicated solely to bashing Victoria 2?

Point is, Paradox, for what it's worth, consistently releases information, organizes it and presents it. I don't have to sift through a thousand posts with basically no content (like yours, or my response to it), before I actually get to any meat.

And, since I know nothing of the mechanics of VGN, I have to presume what I see on paper (and, as someone not involved in the development of either game, that's the best I can hope for until release) for Victoria 2 is better, because -

a) It is there, on paper, organized and well presented.
b) It convincingly resolves major issues with both the previous game, and modeling the 19th century in general (i.e., modeling population movements in response to economic changes). Whether or not it works out is, at this stage, irrelevant, since no guarantee exists that either game won't be a broken, buggy mess. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet that BOTH are going to be broken and buggy on release.

The bottom line is, AGEOD needs to invest some time into marketing this game to its own forum members, at the very least. Or the Paradox forum members. Or something. Right now it's essentially a black box. Seriously, people, dev. diaries are your friend.

Back to topic, dear people...

Dear fellows, is there a certain limit for the AI playing with more than 8 playable nations??
Will be the Zulu Nation/People existing ingame so that they could be made playable??
I consider to make some minor nations like Egypt, Siam, Paraguay,Brazil, Zulu and Argentina playable additional to the existing ones.

Will you offer us some advice how to modify certain files after the games' release??

greetings

Hohenlohe, who consider VGN will be a great game equivalent to VIC2...

The AI already handle 130+ nations right now

Having a nation playable by a human will just ask for changing a flag. But as we said, we only propose 8 or so nations as playable, because we need to concentrate on them and do them right, with their peculiarities. If you are motivated, then nothing prevent you from fleshing out any nations so it has its interest though. And yes, modding will be strongly supported and encouraged.

Hohenlohe wrote:Will you offer us some advice how to modify certain files after the games' release??

Realistically, take a look at other AGEOD games and you will see generally what extent of things you can modify. There are some very detailed mods out there based upon AGEOD games (notably AACW), so look and see what is possible through the existing modding threads.

Hohenlohe wrote:Will you offer us some advice how to modify certain files after the games' release??

As always... yes, surelly.

But, you have to realize that the game is designed to be played with an "important" nation... this is not a full sandbox game in which you can conquer the whole world with Uruguay.
So, playing with the Zulus, unless you add hundreds of events, will not offer you many alternatives.

There are some nations with a rich enough history to be valuable nations to mod as playing (Spain, Ethiopia, China, etc.) for the Grand Campaign, but most other minor nations (Zulu, Paraguay, Mexico, etc.) do not have the scope of historic interest to warrant a 70 year gamespan of play. However, specific scenarios for these nations during a particularly interesting period (i.e., Paraguay and Mexico in the 1860s, Zululand in the 1870s) would be very interesting.

As Generalissimo said, this is not a sandbox game (i.e., do as you please), but more of a how can you function within the limitations of that particular nation (culture, economy, geography, demographics, industrialization, etc.). Do not expect to change Russia into a new-Great Britain, or to conquer the world as Luxembourg .

McNaughton wrote:I would assume that having playable nations in scenarios is more viable than having them playable for the grand campaign. One thing about 'VgN' is that it is not like 'Victoria' in terms of ability to create a major power out of a tiny nation, or to act willy-nilly as to how the player wants to play over the nation (i.e., Mexico was signifiantly more pro-Union than pro-Confederate). I would rate it more of a historic simulator than a sandbox game.

If that's the VGN design philosophy, count me in - my credit card is cocked and loaded. I don't want to lead Mecklenburg-Schwerin to world domination. I do want a good "feels like the 19th c." simulation.

Go team!

McNaughton wrote:As Generalissimo said, this is not a sandbox game (i.e., do as you please), but more of a how can you function within the limitations of that particular nation (culture, economy, geography, demographics, industrialization, etc.). Do not expect to change Russia into a new-Great Britain, or to conquer the world as Luxembourg .

I like that.
I like sandbox, but when I have to choose I prefer historical plausibility to sandbox.
EU3, V2, HoI3, EU:R are great games, but not "plausible" most of the time.

Agree.I'd like to see historical plausibility and depth with AGE engine games.

Pocus: You are not planning on having Calvinus work on this, are you? t

Do not t(h)ro(w)ll oil on the fire Tagwyn! Calvinus did a good job with WW1 gold and people are happy playing it.