veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:58 pm

Philsavory wrote:Thanks for the speedy reply. I haven't received a message like you've described yet, but I'll keep my eyes open. Did you get the message the turn after you concluded the expeditionary forces treaty, or was it a few turns later? Thanks in advance.


It rings a bell, I got a message saying that Nassau had accepted to lend me troops to, but no susbequent message with actual troops, whereas I got both for Baden and Wurtemberg, so there might be an issue there.

Philsavory
Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:06 am

Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:10 pm

veji1 wrote:It rings a bell, I got a message saying that Nassau had accepted to lend me troops to, but no susbequent message with actual troops, whereas I got both for Baden and Wurtemberg, so there might be an issue there.


It's now several (4-5) turns on, still no forces from Württemberg. Nassau and Baden have now agreed to supply me troops, but nothing yet.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25423
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:36 am

That's not the first time I got these reports and I have already checked what can go wrong. So far, I have found nothing and that's the same code that tests if they can give troops and that gives troops, so this is rather weird... Will again check for the third patch.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Offworlder
Brigadier General
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Malta

Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:50 am

Could it be a leader issue? It seems that the AI is more accommodating when giving individual brigades without leaders. Also the most problematic remain Nassau, Baden and the RHC in this sense. Could it be because they have small numbers of troops available and therefore one would be taking their whole army away?

Another issue that seems to plague the minors (actually does this apply for minors only?) is the inability of the AI to form divisions out of the troops available. Good examples are Bavaria and Naples. Both start with one or more ready built divisions. The AI keeps piling forces in these divisions even if it actually screws them up (like by putting militia and garrison troops in them which slows them up considerably). When there are no more slots, only independent units are maintained. Naples is an extreme case since by the second year, they actually get a good number of leaders (some of which are quite good) but the fresh forces levied by Naples remain totally unorganised. Though I've cited Bavaria and Naples, this is the case for all the rest of the minors.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:56 pm

Pocus wrote:That's not the first time I got these reports and I have already checked what can go wrong. So far, I have found nothing and that's the same code that tests if they can give troops and that gives troops, so this is rather weird... Will again check for the third patch.


It's strange because on the same turn 3 countries said yes (Nassau, Baden and Wurtemberg) in the diplomatic box and in the same turn 2 delivered troops in the "troops' message box", but nothing for Nassau. Could there be a hole in the way a country identifies the troops to lend where it just fails to do so ?

Offworlder
Brigadier General
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Malta

Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:42 pm

Maybe it's tied to some percentage of the force it can give? Nassau essentially deploys one brigade and until 1809 it normally only builds another brigade and some artillery. Baden does go on a shopping spree and in two years or so buys several brigades and lots of artillery. Wurtemburg tends to have the most balanced expansion (though still artillery heavy)

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:58 pm

Offworlder wrote:Maybe it's tied to some percentage of the force it can give? Nassau essentially deploys one brigade and until 1809 it normally only builds another brigade and some artillery. Baden does go on a shopping spree and in two years or so buys several brigades and lots of artillery. Wurtemburg tends to have the most balanced expansion (though still artillery heavy)


Not really, Baden gave me 2 regiments (6 elements) and no leaders whereas Wurtemberg gave me something like 3 cavalry brigades, 2 regiments, 2 leaders, 1 horse arty and one regular arty whereas their forces are just marginally bigger.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:59 pm

Oh by the way, one little thing left, it would be really nice if those italian dragoons and Polish lancer units we get at the beginning of the game in Italy could refill at some point, it's frustrating to see them incomplete.

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:03 pm

veji1 wrote:Oh by the way, one little thing left, it would be really nice if those italian dragoons and Polish lancer units we get at the beginning of the game in Italy could refill at some point, it's frustrating to see them incomplete.


Are they linked to the foreign recruitment national modifier? France should get that from the start or make the elements French in game terms.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:09 pm

RebelYell wrote:Are they linked to the foreign recruitment national modifier? France should get that from the start or make the elements French in game terms.


Nah, when you get that modifier it doesn't fill them out. there might be a label issue, ie maybe they are labelled as a foreign unit, but with french elements, so it gets blocked ?

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:19 pm

veji1 wrote:Nah, when you get that modifier it doesn't fill them out. there might be a label issue, ie maybe they are labelled as a foreign unit, but with french elements, so it gets blocked ?


I got them to fill out at one game I think, I was buying a lot of replacement in that experimental game. Could it be that they are last in the replacement line?

Philsavory
Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:06 am

Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:57 pm

Pocus wrote:That's not the first time I got these reports and I have already checked what can go wrong. So far, I have found nothing and that's the same code that tests if they can give troops and that gives troops, so this is rather weird... Will again check for the third patch.


Thanks, Pocus. I look forward to the third patch :thumbsup:

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:58 am

veji1 wrote:There are still some loose ends that could be tied together, I just figured I'd point some that I have seen up to now in my latest game started under the April 11th patch (btw thanks for the big data improvement for troop names, it's awesome !) :
- As the french The Neuchatel regiments can now be recruited in Besançon, but the swiss ones just can't be recruited...
- When the HRE is dissolved and the RHC created early 1806, the RHC is neutral which means that french can't pass throught it, etc... Makes no sense.
- The expeditionary force system still needs work or to be circumvented for quasi-vassals : leave it as a tool for multiplayer for example, but otherwise just give F4 decisions to get the equivalent from vassals : every so and so the french player would get cards giving him access for some EPs or money or VPs or what to some troops from its vassals/minions (KOI, Holland, Switzerland, RHC, Westphalia, Poland, etc...). The current system really is just cumbersome and doesn't work.
- The supply situation is still very tricky re flow and production within allies / neutrals / recently defeated ennemies.
- The AI still has weird warmongering issues : in the 2 games I started since the latest patch each time the Austrians have DOWed me fairly quickly after Pressburg. Why ? Did I stay there too long (in which case this needs fixing) ? Was there something making the peace conditions obsolete very quickly ?


Just quoting a thread I started in April : none of the things I had signaled have been significantly improved... this is 8 months after the game is out.

It really is a shame, all I want is a game to have fun with when it have time to play on some evenings or in the train. My kid is on holiday and I am back at work this week, I have sparetime some evenings, and in the game I am currently playing my allies accept or not lending me troops but without effect, I have to run around capturing cities in Prussia as fast as I can before starving even though I have built depots every second province back all the way to Köln, the Swiss regiments still can't be recruited, and the RHC has appeared even though I haven't dissolved the HRE because i have had to start war with Prussia before finishing of Austria as it had declared war on Wurtemberg...

I really want to love this game as much as I loved AACW, but to no avail. I thing I am going to buy myself an old stable version of Pro Cycling Manager like PCM 2013 and play that for a while, I hope this game will be fixed, because in probably 1000 turns of play time I have never reached past late 1807, never had the opportunity to pay the spanish Ulcer which I imagined to be bugged as hell since it's even further down the road than the buggy start.....

I have, I think, been constructive in my inputs and criticism of this game since day 1, I am an old Ageod Grognard if seldom active on the forums beyond AACW and WON boards, but I am starting to think that this game is a lost cause. I am happy I supported Ageod by buying it because I hope they keep making games, I like the niche they are in and what they try to do, but I will have to label this game as a miss at this stage.

To keep my good spirits and not become increasingly irritated, I am going to shelve it for a while and will go back to it once the clamour of "all has been fixed, come along fellow players" starts being overwhelming, which I hope will happen asap.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:00 pm

We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions
Image

MarshalJean
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm

Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:51 pm

PhilThib wrote:We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions



Wow...Well, if this is the case, PhilThib, I hope that a new Napoleonic grand campaign game can be made with the new engine. Even if it doesn't make all nations playable, I think the scope and scale of the map, the troop production options, the RGDs, the strategic decision mechanism (F-3/F-4 screens), and at least two way diplomacy should still be involved. I think the problems with the current WoN come down to the diplomatic problems caused by so many parties making decisions using an engine not designed to handle it. But so much of the rest of the game is wonderful.

But I would hate to see AGEOD abandon this incredible era because this game has been so disappointing. To me, AGEOD's ethos and game style lends itself remarkably to the Napoleonic Wars, so I REALLY hope that a new Napoleonic game will be forthcoming on the new engine.

In the meantime, I have learned enough scripting syntax (it's easy to pick up using the Wiki and looking at the event folder) that I am able to mod bad/erratic/irrational decisions made by the AI when the turns call for it, keeping my game more rational and challenging. In some ways, learning this scripting syntax has also made the game surprisingly fun because I can create some of my own history as well. But I also use the "easy supply" system to skip the problems that have been mentioned by veji1 from the start, which is generally not ideal for hard-core wargamers. Anyway, I plan to still have fun with the product, hoping always for more improvements. Thank you.

MJ

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:46 pm

PhilThib wrote:We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions


Thanks for your answer Phil Thib. As I said, I am not mad at you or AGEOD, I know you are a small team and I hope you keep making games because in the type of niche of games I like to play, they aren't that many developpers. I too hope the new engine will allow Ageod to take the next step after having realized that the engine who worked fine in WIA and AACW had reached its limits... I am just sad that the game I had been waiting for for ages didn't pan out as hoped.

Regarding your second paragraph, I can only concur as in the NCP2 threads of the old NCP forum I was one of the few cautioning against being overambitious and saying that it would be a lot better to have a 2 sides game with simple TEAWstyle diplomacy focusing on the actual operational wargame rather than an unwieldy grand game with AI for 10s of factions.... This would have been great and would still, just like in TEAW been open to multiplayer in PBEM.

Let's hope the next games work out great.

risorgimento59
Civilian
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:56 pm

Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:21 pm

@veji1:
I share your point of view of course, but...
You're better take the bike off the garage and ride on your own legs instead, meanwhile.
You'll have much more fun than playing PCM2013 (or buggier PCM2016), no contest!
If you're fit enough, maybe we could even consider to climb together up to hard Praderadego (Treviso, Italy), which begins right at Castel Brando, the place where Home of Wargamer of Slitherine took place in 2015.
I think the work on Archon was disclosed at that time, wasn't it?
Although odds don't look favourable, we may spot some forgotten note on the road about their top-secret development plan, killing two birds with one stone after all. :D

Seriously, best wishes to AGEOD for their new challenges, in the hope they'll give another chance to operational Napoleonic one day. ;)

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:22 pm

risorgimento59 wrote:@veji1:
I share your point of view of course, but...
You're better take the bike off the garage and ride on your own legs instead, meanwhile.
You'll have much more fun than playing PCM2013 (or buggier PCM2016), no contest!
If you're fit enough, maybe we could even consider to climb together up to hard Praderadego (Treviso, Italy), which begins right at Castel Brando, the place where Home of Wargamer of Slitherine took place in 2015.
I think the work on Archon was disclosed at that time, wasn't it?
Although odds don't look favourable, we may spot some forgotten note on the road about their top-secret development plan, killing two birds with one stone after all. :D

Seriously, best wishes to AGEOD for their new challenges, in the hope they'll give another chance to operational Napoleonic one day. ;)


Don't worry mate, I cycle a fair bit but I live in a big city and when you get home at night after work (cycle home of course), well an hour or 2 of playing on some evenings is very relaxing.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:31 am

I am not replying to the bicycling information and challenge, though I enjoy biking in beautiful areas. I am responding in deep support of WON as designed.
I understand that players who wish to play a single country against AI are finding frustrations in being able to have a robust opponent. However, for someone like me who learned to play all sides of board games because of no local opponents, I love this game as a:
1. Solitary player who plays all seven factions activity with no AI except uncontrolled minors. The game interface is very dynamic for solo play if you do not mind playing against yourself in all factions. I have done this sort of solitary play for so for so many decades that my short term memory confuses with the duration with my daily exercise on my bike. Truly a fine solo game.
2. PBEM player who loves the challenge of multiplayer games. Diplomacy is truly a part of this game in the old manner of the game Diplomacy where friendship and treachery in equal measure are needed. While it is a challenge to play with seven players with egos, boredom, holidays, inattention, ineptitude, dynamic mind bending action, and such; this game is well designed if all factions have active players. All games with more than three players have issues with frequency of play and players leaving the game, this is a minor issue compared to the delight of playing this game. Get into a multiplayer game - you will love the outcome.
For players who are still in doubt about why this game is such a solid design, I recommend you find a pbem game. It is of CW2 quality or even better.
What it is not is a good solo player versus AI game.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:43 am

Durk wrote:I am not replying to the bicycling information and challenge, though I enjoy biking in beautiful areas. I am responding in deep support of WON as designed.
I understand that players who wish to play a single country against AI are finding frustrations in being able to have a robust opponent. However, for someone like me who learned to play all sides of board games because of no local opponents, I love this game as a:
1. Solitary player who plays all seven factions activity with no AI except uncontrolled minors. The game interface is very dynamic for solo play if you do not mind playing against yourself in all factions. I have done this sort of solitary play for so for so many decades that my short term memory confuses with the duration with my daily exercise on my bike. Truly a fine solo game.
2. PBEM player who loves the challenge of multiplayer games. Diplomacy is truly a part of this game in the old manner of the game Diplomacy where friendship and treachery in equal measure are needed. While it is a challenge to play with seven players with egos, boredom, holidays, inattention, ineptitude, dynamic mind bending action, and such; this game is well designed if all factions have active players. All games with more than three players have issues with frequency of play and players leaving the game, this is a minor issue compared to the delight of playing this game. Get into a multiplayer game - you will love the outcome.
For players who are still in doubt about why this game is such a solid design, I recommend you find a pbem game. It is of CW2 quality or even better.
What it is not is a good solo player versus AI game.


Fair enough, but solo play against the AI is what 90% of buyers do, and it is what I do too, because I don't play on regular hours, etc etc.

What you are saying is that they are plenty of great tools in this game if you strip away the AI and most mechanisms that need it to act (exp forces, etc)... Fair enough, but the AI is still a big part of the game !

elxaime
General
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:59 am

PhilThib wrote:We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions


On the very small team issue, has AGEOD considered doing a Kickstarter with the purpose of hiring another person, with the various levels of backers getting discounts on future products? This might be a way to transition some beloved old titles to the Archon engine faster. Maybe there are enough fans who would be willing to do this. So many games are gems, but some are gems in the rough that just need some polishing but don't get it due to the lack of AGEOD human capacity to attend to them all.

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:04 pm

Do all of the scenarios have several different nations that can be played, or is diplomacy restricted to a Grand Campaign?

It would be pretty difficult to wargame Napoleon's different campaigns if Allies were dropping in and out of alliances.

That said, part of the angst of the 1813 campaign was the unravelling of Napoleon's alliance, though most of that happened after the disaster at Leipzig. I would want to see the Bavarian defection dependant on a drop in national morale rather than a timetable. Something somewhat similar should happen with the Saxons.

(I only ask this because I don't own the game).

User avatar
Straight Arrow
Brigadier General
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Washington State

Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:18 pm

Durk wrote: opponent. However, for someone like me who learned to play all sides of board games because of no local opponents, I love this game as a:
1. Solitary player who plays all seven factions activity with no AI except uncontrolled minors. The game interface is very dynamic for solo play if you do not mind playing against yourself in all factions. I have done this sort of solitary play for so for so many decades that my short term memory confuses with the duration with my daily exercise on my bike. Truly a fine solo game.


Yes, that's how I've played the bulk of my games for the last 50 years. Try turning the AI off and flip flop. Playing both sides can create very challenging games as well as forcing an all-around mastery.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:24 pm

PhilThib wrote:We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions


I think I have been a little bit too nice in my reaction to this answer : Big changes in the game are not possible and big design issues are there to stay. but some work could and should still have been done : the Swiss regiment recruitment issue is trivial in its impact of the game but it's typical of something that could and should have been quickly fixed, same for some events (RHC creation as neutral instead of alliance member, etc...). This clean up job should have taken place since the release. It didn't because the team didn't take the time to do it, which wasn't a ginormous amount of time.

So yes the big diplomacy GC thing never being properly fixable is a valid argument I respect, but come on, you still owe us some fixes on some pretty basic things.

Varin
Conscript
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:51 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:18 pm

PhilThib wrote:We understand your concerns. However, as we mentioned earlier many times, we are a very small team with low time available on the "old" Ageod engine, because 99.9% of our resources are committed to the new engine development. The time we give to the game (and we do give quite a lot despite what some - not you - may think) is entirely taken on our free/personal time, our professional time going almost in full to the new engine or to support external teams active on future titles.

After much retrospect and reading the players' remarks and complaints, I believe now it was a mistake to "listen" to the demands of some crowd asking for a grand campaign with diplomacy and all major nations playable. I personally feel that my original design decision back in 2008 was better: 2 sides, no "open" diplomacy, no sandbox gameplay style. This used to be, even if sometimes too rigid, the 'Ageod Style' and we should have kept it likewise. I realize that listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake.

This said, we can work out improvements on the current game to fix the most problematic points. We have duly noted the various points and remarks made by all our faithful players. We just lack - for now - the necessary hours to implement the corrections and suggestions


First off I really enjoy this game and think it is a superb in its ambition and just needs to be fine tuned and debugged, so please remember that I am a fan when I say;

You response is basically telling anyone that you will take their money and if the game does not work as intended then tough because we do not have time to fix it. That you are a very small team may be reality but from a consumer point of view that is irrelevant.
By saying that you are now spending 99.9% of your time on future projects is telling people NOT to buy anything from you when it comes out but to wait, wait, wait, and maybe buy it some time later IF the forums report that any issues have been addressed. How long till the issues in this game are fixed? a Year? or more? So the smart thing to do is wait and buy the game when it works. Might be cheaper then too.

As for blaming the games issues on "listening to the sirens of the majority was a mistake". Good way to insult your customers! How dare they say what they wanted from a game they were going to pay money for. Yes of course it is their fault the game is bugged in places.

Bottom line - If you cannot promise that you will fix any problems a game may have why on earth would people buy it? Most of us understand how complex the game is and are patient enough to wait for fixes. This is still an excellent game just wants some more work.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:54 pm

Philippe wrote:Do all of the scenarios have several different nations that can be played, or is diplomacy restricted to a Grand Campaign?

It would be pretty difficult to wargame Napoleon's different campaigns if Allies were dropping in and out of alliances.

That said, part of the angst of the 1813 campaign was the unravelling of Napoleon's alliance, though most of that happened after the disaster at Leipzig. I would want to see the Bavarian defection dependant on a drop in national morale rather than a timetable. Something somewhat similar should happen with the Saxons.

(I only ask this because I don't own the game).


Though the specific number of nations in the small scenarios varies, the typical number is three nations. Diplomacy is not a part of these short scenarios.

There are actually three Grand Campaign starts depending upon what the players wish to be the nature of France's grand strategic vision and ambition.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:05 pm

This is not a good game. It's a good idea for a game in genre in need of a good game. But it was a mistake to try to shoehorn multiple historical wars into a single "campaign." And the old engine is showing its age. And the reach of the tiny AGEOD team has long since exceeded its grasp -- they remain committed but essentially amateurish in their approach. I've pretty much given up on their new games.

Having said all that, they're doing the right thing by focusing on the new game engine. They desperately need to push the reset button, both technically and philosophically. They're working on a better engine -- that's a necessary first step. But they also need to become far more disciplined -- focus on what the engine does well, resist adding bells and whistles that don't really advance the core game, and then tighten up QC. Focus on what you know you can do well, and do it well, before trying to add new fluff.

BoA was one of the greatest games ever made, largely because it was original, yet tightly-focused. No ill-conceived frills.

I've been an AGEOD fan since the beginning -- under another name since the forum ate my original account -- but I haven't enjoyed any of their last several games. I'm content to write off the past, though, and look forward to a better future. Here's hoping they develop both a new engine and new mindset.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1914
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:31 pm

I would only narrow AGEOD games only for WON and PON that has long turn rates not suitable for solitaire AI play but indeed I've seen players lose interest in a 7 player WON game. Hope for the better.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:29 pm

fred zeppelin wrote:This is not a good game. It's a good idea for a game in genre in need of a good game. But it was a mistake to try to shoehorn multiple historical wars into a single "campaign." And the old engine is showing its age. And the reach of the tiny AGEOD team has long since exceeded its grasp -- they remain committed but essentially amateurish in their approach. I've pretty much given up on their new games.

Having said all that, they're doing the right thing by focusing on the new game engine. They desperately need to push the reset button, both technically and philosophically. They're working on a better engine -- that's a necessary first step. But they also need to become far more disciplined -- focus on what the engine does well, resist adding bells and whistles that don't really advance the core game, and then tighten up QC. Focus on what you know you can do well, and do it well, before trying to add new fluff.

BoA was one of the greatest games ever made, largely because it was original, yet tightly-focused. No ill-conceived frills.

I've been an AGEOD fan since the beginning -- under another name since the forum ate my original account -- but I haven't enjoyed any of their last several games. I'm content to write off the past, though, and look forward to a better future. Here's hoping they develop both a new engine and new mindset.


+1.

BoA and AACW were intense love affairs for me. I adored those games like I have only adored a few games before in my life... But really I bought CW, a mere rehash of the gem AACW with limited improvements, and WON and both times I have been somewhat (CW) or sorely (WON) disappointed.

I will now bury this game, erase it from my desktop and hope that they make darn good games with the new engine.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1914
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:50 pm

I would say you barely underestimate the topics&challanges in other games. :) Maybe you haven't got any experineces for it.

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests