wosung wrote:Historically plausible data on numbers of playing pieces (no 1k British Empire Divisions or ships of the line)
Realistic naval ranges
wosung wrote:Oh, well
and bring this baby on to WW2, or make WW2 your next project
Well more than anything else is that I would beg from a game from this era is that nations are not so homogenous. Relationships between countries depend on where their national interests overlap or conflict, and those "national interests" are often a function of culture as well as security.
For example, relations with Great Britain would have to take into consideration their leadership in opposition to slavery, their paranoia over India's security, suspicion of rival naval power. Prussias and Austria's concerns overlap in the dominance of the North German Confederation, and in preserving the conservative order with Russia... and the latter preservation should be accomplished in context of mutual domination of ethnic minorities in Eastern Europe, who should not be ignored in internal stability. There is the ever-present Balkan question, and Russia's incessant insecurity at the borders and the cusp of her perrenial expansionism in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Manchuria and, of course, the Bosphorus.
There are minimal dynastic considerations... which can afford to be simplified and focused on immediate royal family members (monarch and crown-princes) and the dozen major European dynasties. There are numerous other minor frictions... i.e. legality of slavery, protection of Christians in non-Christian states, etc. The primary diplomatic mechanism should be represented... the international conference. Here, all participant's interests would be laid at the table for resolution. The presence of influential leaders or prospective commercial interests in certain regions would lead to conflicts and new challenges on the international scene (i.e. Cecil Rhodes and Africa, Gordon and Sudan).
Oh for heaven's sake I could go on and on and on and on. The problem I see is actually creating this level of "simulation." It is something I have a hard time seeing AgeoD accomplishing, despite all of that EU experience on the resume. Birth of America and most likely the upcoming ACW games are just too good at what they do. To turn around and begin simulating the international system of the 19th and early 20th century seems like at least a 90 degree shift in focus.
But what made BoA so great is the chess match, the dilemmic strategic choices forced upon the player in war. The fact is, dilemmic strategic choices are forced upon the international player in peace, and probably more so since those choices embrace a diversity of other considerations (commercial [think Open Door], moral [think Gladstone] and dynastic [think Carlism]). The problem is that games don't simulate the delicate international order, the Tournament of Shadows, the Congress of Berlin, the Monroe Doctrine, etc. etc. Games are played as simulations of war, and peace only as a prelude and prepatory phase to war. Only Civilization IV has successfully eliminated the incentives to war in its gameplay. Could AgeoD do the same? Would AgeoD do the same?
Here the people seem more anxious to get an heir to Imperialism than to Vicky.
Users browsing this forum: Maple Leaf and 3 guests