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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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
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
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.
Seriously, best wishes to AGEOD for their new challenges, in the hope they'll give another chance to operational Napoleonic one day.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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).
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests
Maybe you haven't got any experineces for it.