HHFD50 wrote:Has there been any serious consideration for allowing major powers to take FULL control of minor allies? I think it is quite ridiculous to be waging a campaign in say Italy as France, and the entire Italian army is off wandering around aimlessly elsewhere. Not to mention, the 5 unit stack all artillery army. Also, why not also have a two player campaign along the lines of To End All Wars? One side is Pro-French, the other anti-French, and England and France control ALL the allied nations in their faction. Oh, and the naval AI must be tweaked. I am able to get Napoleon and the Grand Army across the English Channel (about 7 turns to accomplish), while Nelson and his fleet is blockading Cadiz and a small Spanish fleet? Hello? lol Makes no sense!
HHFD50 wrote:Why not simply adjust the game as two sided player so you can play multiple countries in your alliance as the same player like in Napoleon's Campaigns 1? or ROP? It is such a beautiful game with immense potential but horribly flawed.
HHFD50 wrote:Why not simply adjust the game as two sided player so you can play multiple countries in your alliance as the same player like in Napoleon's Campaigns 1? or ROP? It is such a beautiful game with immense potential but horribly flawed.
vaalen wrote:HHFD50 wrote:Why not simply adjust the game as two sided player so you can play multiple countries in your alliance as the same player like in Napoleon's Campaigns 1? or ROP? It is such a beautiful game with immense potential but horribly flawed.
I like this idea very much. The few serious problems with the game are very serious, but they could be fixed with scripting, and a two sided game as you describe.
Most of the game is very beautiful and works well, but the open world sandbox stuff is where the problem lies. Take that aspect away and you have a magnificent game. And Ageod knows how to do this,they just lack the large amount of time it would take to make these revisions. Yet designing a new game would take even more time, and is not needed.
veji1 wrote:vaalen wrote:HHFD50 wrote:Why not simply adjust the game as two sided player so you can play multiple countries in your alliance as the same player like in Napoleon's Campaigns 1? or ROP? It is such a beautiful game with immense potential but horribly flawed.
I like this idea very much. The few serious problems with the game are very serious, but they could be fixed with scripting, and a two sided game as you describe.
Most of the game is very beautiful and works well, but the open world sandbox stuff is where the problem lies. Take that aspect away and you have a magnificent game. And Ageod knows how to do this,they just lack the large amount of time it would take to make these revisions. Yet designing a new game would take even more time, and is not needed.
I might be mistaken but I really thing you are very optimistic on the whole "taking the sandbox stuff out". The game was built as a sandbox game, it's really hard to take things out in a program and hope it still works well, it's a lot easier to add data into a working program : the working programs for a 2 side game existed already in TEAW with diplomacy management... it will probably exist in an even closer form in WOS. It will probably work a lot better and be stable than trying to fix WON and playing whack a mole with the difficulties that will be discovered along the way.
vaalen wrote:... based in large part on my extensive experience with AGEOD games that started out with big problems, but were greatly improved by the Developers and volunteers.
Taillebois wrote:How about producing a game editor that makes it possible for those with only average intelligence to produce scenarios? CMANO, Pike and Shot, and Tigers on the Hunt are all Matrix games where players have produced a hundred or so scenarios. But AGEOD seem determined to keep their secret sauce to themselves.
PhilThib wrote:vaalen wrote:... based in large part on my extensive experience with AGEOD games that started out with big problems, but were greatly improved by the Developers and volunteers.
Indeed, without volunteers there is not a chance it will ever happen
PhilThib wrote:First knowledge (basic) of Excel
Second good understanding of the game mechanisms and the files structure
Third patience and dedication
Fourth long-term commitment
Fifth, experience (can be done with my help) in how to use the tools for creating scenarios and modding files
veji1 wrote:To be brutally honest, the work done for this game in terms of OOB, leaders, map, etc.. will probably be used later on but the game itself is kaput. Either they need a game with the new engine to make it work in this sandbox (many playable countries, open alliances, sort of super EiA in a way) style or they will have to revert to more strict "2 sides war" with events and Foreign intevention ledgers governing the siding of minors/majors with France or the coalition.. in that regard, basically having a WON 2 or say a NCP3 on the War of Succession engine sounds like the best outcome one could hope for in the next 12 months or so... at best.
PhilThib wrote:First knowledge (basic) of Excel
Second good understanding of the game mechanisms and the files structure
Third patience and dedication
Fourth long-term commitment
Fifth, experience (can be done with my help) in how to use the tools for creating scenarios and modding files
PhilThib wrote:Wars of Succession uses the old engine, but with the simplified rules (like the Alea Jacta Est series): no complex command chain or supply, no diplomacy just to name the three most blatant differences...
PhilThib wrote:Yes, on the other hand so many people complained on the idea that you had to play the whole of a side (players who wanted to play - only - say Russia or GB, and not the all anti-French coalition) that the error was understandable...
Overall I still feel that, with dozens of hours of dedicated and knowledgeable fans this is feasible
HHFD50 wrote: Also, why not also have a two player campaign along the lines of To End All Wars? One side is Pro-French, the other anti-French, and England and France control ALL the allied nations in their faction.
Durk wrote:While it is a bit of a challenge to sort out how to handle all nations, this is my recommendation:
One player plays France, Spain and Turkey.
The other player plays England, Russia, Austria and Prussia.
Do not be shy about playing all diplomatic options and such.
If events bring Spain to revolt, this works as rebel Spain joins the Allied coalition and you let England run them. As with all nations, when they shift coalitions, you agree to allow the other player to control.
Not a bad way for a two player game, and much better than putting any nations into AI.
There is some information online, you could search this site for help. But essentially, you share being the host. Turn one, one of you plays all their factions and saves. Then sends all file to the other. Then, in all subsequent turns turns, you put all files into the game folder, then:
You make your move
Execute the game turn
Make your next move and save
Then send all files to your opponent.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests