Maybe it is never too early to talk about another sequel, but it feels early. Even so, while reading the discussions in the improve CW2 forum and the modding forum, I've developed a set of desires I want to get off my chest.
Basically, playing the game, working on my mod(s), and reading the forum have taught me that there is a different civil war game that interests me. This other game is a game where creating and organizing armies and deploying generals is even more developed. I want to piece together regiments into brigades as governors notify me that regiments are trained and are ready to move into a theater. I want some regiments to vote for colonels, some governors to ask I use someone, to get to choose some myself, etc (majors and lieutenants within regiments would be out of my hands). I want the name pool for officers to be very historically accurate with officer abilities to be historical with randomization optional and improvement with experience. I want to asses battle performance and assign colonels to brigades when I can (and seniority to decide these issues at other times). I want to see generals request promotion for subordinates and to have to pick out generals for promotion from those who are and who are not praised by their superiors. I want promising leaders to die tragically. I want detailed information about regiment, brigade, and division performance in battle. I want information about these things to trickle in somewhat. I want less graphical slickness and more space in the game for tables and text.
I love how close the current game is to this, but the more I get into the guts of it, the more I wish the game were just a little bit different in ways that a mod can't really help.
Of course, another major direction of dream development is to expand the tactical aspect of the game to include a tactical battle sub-game onto the basic game (like Total War or whatever). This difference between AGEOD games and TW games that really intrigues me is that in TW, I never really cared about the sub-leaders and hierarchy of regiments/brigades/armies. When playing a TW game, I want it to be bigger, which is a very simple desire - if hard to satisfy. One great thing about this game to me is that it opens up a large number of very complicated desires.
I'm kind of mixed on these. I know you're probably aware it's a tall order and we've both talked a bit about what we'd like to see, but maybe we could get a modified battle planner. Sort of like the posture/ROE settings, but more robust. You won't be able to control your men, but at least you could exercise greater control over the battle planning. Involving the state governors and fleshing out the promotion system would be really nice touches, especially if brigade construction were a drag-and-drop affair.
I'm really not too attached to the idea of adding a full real time strategy game on top of this, I just meant to note that it has been proposed.
After I submitted the thread, I realized there is a name for what I want. It is Madden Franchise Mode/Football Manager for the Civil War. I haven't played Madden for a decade and never played Football Manager, but I think that idea describes my proposal pretty well.
After I submitted the thread, I realized there is a name for what I want. It is Madden Franchise Mode/Football Manager for the Civil War. I haven't played Madden for a decade and never played Football Manager, but I think that idea describes my proposal pretty well.
I used to play to some Civil War wargames but I believe that adding a tactital level would slow a lot the game and make the PBEM more difficult.
Moreover the goal of CW series is to put you in the shoes of the decision makers and is pretty good at it. And still it provides a wealth of details regarding the tactical level (different kinds of unit, experience, elite units, frontage, engagement distance, ...).
Moreover the goal of CW series is to put you in the shoes of the decision makers and is pretty good at it. And still it provides a wealth of details regarding the tactical level (different kinds of unit, experience, elite units, frontage, engagement distance, ...).
I agree with your first statement that the tactical/real time strategy isn't the goal here.
Actually, I disagree with your second statement. I think the goal is to make a strategy game with a focus on high level geography and broad choices made by the District/Army leadership and including many logistic elements and some degree of simulation of the choices of the presidents and secretaries of war.
I think the game is leaving out most of the choices made by state and federal decision makers. The activity of the war departments isn't really simulated at all; recruitment might be based as much in Blizzard Warcraft as in history. Politics is well simulated but heavily abstracted. Personal politics related to the political standing of generals is simulated with seniority and NM costs of promoting a general before a higher seniority general. State politics and the relationship between a state and the federal government is simulated by the sizes of force pools in states. Federal politics are simulated by the costs of decisions. I'd like a game which really drills down into these things. The current game engine does a great and interesting job simulating the strategy and logistic elements of the war. My current dream is to keep that aspect as it is and build a simulation of the war department and add more detail in state/federal politics.
Actually, I disagree with your second statement. I think the goal is to make a strategy game with a focus on high level geography and broad choices made by the District/Army leadership and including many logistic elements and some degree of simulation of the choices of the presidents and secretaries of war.
I think the game is leaving out most of the choices made by state and federal decision makers. The activity of the war departments isn't really simulated at all; recruitment might be based as much in Blizzard Warcraft as in history. Politics is well simulated but heavily abstracted. Personal politics related to the political standing of generals is simulated with seniority and NM costs of promoting a general before a higher seniority general. State politics and the relationship between a state and the federal government is simulated by the sizes of force pools in states. Federal politics are simulated by the costs of decisions. I'd like a game which really drills down into these things. The current game engine does a great and interesting job simulating the strategy and logistic elements of the war. My current dream is to keep that aspect as it is and build a simulation of the war department and add more detail in state/federal politics.
tripax wrote: recruitment might be based as much in Blizzard Warcraft as in history. Politics is well simulated but heavily abstracted. Personal politics related to the political standing of generals is simulated with seniority and NM costs of promoting a general before a higher seniority general. State politics and the relationship between a state and the federal government is simulated by the sizes of force pools in states. Federal politics are simulated by the costs of decisions. I'd like a game which really drills down into these things. The current game engine does a great and interesting job simulating the strategy and logistic elements of the war. My current dream is to keep that aspect as it is and build a simulation of the war department and add more detail in state/federal politics.
I agree, there is some highly abstract points. I'm afraid we won't see what you are asking for in CW3 or later as it would require a complete rethinking of the game engine which is problematic for a small development team as Ageod.
I'm not sure that it would be a large overhaul of the engine itself. I see three big steps:
1) I imagine the team has considered adding more levels of leadership so brigade and regimental leaders could be on the way (as well as leaders above army).
2) The ledger files with regiment information took a step sideways between AACW and CW2, I could imagine it taking two steps forward.
2a) A better ledger would include better integration between the ledge and actions the player can take (such as forming divisions and promoting leaders).
3) I'm sure they are thinking about creating a more nuanced promotion system, this is on the minds of a lot of players, too.
After that, creative use of events to modify how recruiting works and possibly a bit more flexibility in event logic and you would have a CW3 that is very close to what I'm suggesting.
1) I imagine the team has considered adding more levels of leadership so brigade and regimental leaders could be on the way (as well as leaders above army).
2) The ledger files with regiment information took a step sideways between AACW and CW2, I could imagine it taking two steps forward.
2a) A better ledger would include better integration between the ledge and actions the player can take (such as forming divisions and promoting leaders).
3) I'm sure they are thinking about creating a more nuanced promotion system, this is on the minds of a lot of players, too.
After that, creative use of events to modify how recruiting works and possibly a bit more flexibility in event logic and you would have a CW3 that is very close to what I'm suggesting.
I have to admit that I'm not terribly excited about your proposals here, either ("like Total War" doesn't interest me in the least); which, frankly, is why I didn't reply to this earlier.
Sorry.
Regardless,
regarding points 1 and 3: from what I see, the team's interest seem to be the exact opposite... sort of. The other games seem to be simpler in terms of leaders and how they work. My sense is that, if anything is done with promotions it'll be to simplify it rather than make it more nuanced.
Honestly, I hope that they don't touch the leaders system. To my mind, the way that it is in AACW/CW2 is about right.
I most definitely agree with the point about the ledger, though. It was about the first thing that I noticed about CW2. I wouldn't be so forgiving of the change, either: the ledger in the CW2 iteration of the AGE is a step backwards. AACW's was much better.
Sorry.
Regardless,
regarding points 1 and 3: from what I see, the team's interest seem to be the exact opposite... sort of. The other games seem to be simpler in terms of leaders and how they work. My sense is that, if anything is done with promotions it'll be to simplify it rather than make it more nuanced.
Honestly, I hope that they don't touch the leaders system. To my mind, the way that it is in AACW/CW2 is about right.
I most definitely agree with the point about the ledger, though. It was about the first thing that I noticed about CW2. I wouldn't be so forgiving of the change, either: the ledger in the CW2 iteration of the AGE is a step backwards. AACW's was much better.
Just to be clear, "like TW" is the opposite of what I want.
I haven't played any non-civil war AGEOD games, and what you say about other games being simpler in terms of leaders and how they work surprises me - does that include To End All Wars (which is newer than CW2)? I hadn't thought of it, but if you are right that they don't intend to do 1 & 3, that fits into their constant use of the word flavor to describe things. I now realize that they made very few changes to flavor elements between AACW and CW2 (unit names, force pools, generals included) - except RGDs. Their engine focuses on a decent combat and good logistic system put onto a very good geography with a very good AI to play against. Maybe to a degree, that is what they are selling - with flavor put on top.
I guess what I'm saying is that the flavor is what I like most, and I wish they'd develop that. In my mod, that is a big focus of mine. As I mod, I notice that if they did 1, I'd get even more of what I like. If they did 3, I'd get to use it more. And if they did 2, I'd get to see it more.
I haven't played any non-civil war AGEOD games, and what you say about other games being simpler in terms of leaders and how they work surprises me - does that include To End All Wars (which is newer than CW2)? I hadn't thought of it, but if you are right that they don't intend to do 1 & 3, that fits into their constant use of the word flavor to describe things. I now realize that they made very few changes to flavor elements between AACW and CW2 (unit names, force pools, generals included) - except RGDs. Their engine focuses on a decent combat and good logistic system put onto a very good geography with a very good AI to play against. Maybe to a degree, that is what they are selling - with flavor put on top.
I guess what I'm saying is that the flavor is what I like most, and I wish they'd develop that. In my mod, that is a big focus of mine. As I mod, I notice that if they did 1, I'd get even more of what I like. If they did 3, I'd get to use it more. And if they did 2, I'd get to see it more.
I think that what you should focus on asking for is more mod tools. They're likely never going to have the time to put into "level design" that it seems you're asking for.
I tend to agree with you though, by the way. I like the "flavor" of CW2 over the other games, so far. EAW is definitely simpler in terms of the structure of the chain of command(s).
I tend to agree with you though, by the way. I like the "flavor" of CW2 over the other games, so far. EAW is definitely simpler in terms of the structure of the chain of command(s).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests