Thoughts

[HHFD50]

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!

[Pocus]

You should request an expeditionary force to the minor, he should comply and give all his land forces almost.

[HHFD50]

I always request, and the only country that ever supplies any of their forces is Bavaria. Not Italy, not Spain, sometimes the Dutch Republic, but land only. No naval expeditions from anyone despite 100 relations.

[veji1]

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!

Vicberg made a mod earlier in the year along the lines of total annexation of minors by major powers.

The truth is that the game is way too complicated for its own sake, the engine gets lost in the infinite numbers of calculations going on about minor diplomacy, troop building, etc.. and really some simple features like expeditionnary forces have never properly worked....

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.

[HHFD50]

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.

[veji1]

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.

Because all the code was made around a sandbox open game. It's a lot harder to try to fix a maze by putting signs at each and every intersection saying "don't take this route" to the engine, rather than to start afresh using the framework they had for TEAW and are using for WOS and applying the napoleonic data to it.

The problem in WON lies deep within...

[vaalen]

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]

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]

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.

Veji, I see your point, and it has merit, but I respectfully disagree with you. As I see it, WON is basically an AGEOD game, and its basic systems are essentially identical to those of most Ageod games, and a number of improvements have been made which should not be thrown out. The sandbox mode has never been suited to AGEOD games, which, with the exception of PON and TOAW, have always been two sided, and, after some patching , have worked very well.

The problem with WON, as I see it, after extensive campaign game play, is mainly two fold.

1. The AI makes horrible and unhistoric decisions about declaring war. and the system allows such things to occur.

2. The AI makes horrible decisions about building forces, and organizing forces in the sandbox mode. It cannot organize or build armies that can compete with the players.

Both of these areas have been largely handled by scripting in previous AGEOD games, and very successfully. No one knows the system as well as the developers, and they were planning to do a two player DLC which would have fixed the game. Unfortunately, the research and input needed for scripting is very time consuming, and they are too busy to do this at this time They even asked for a volunteer to help them. I have faith that they can fix the game this way, without throwing away all the beauty and good features that work that are already in the game. If they do this, I am certain the game will be magnificent.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I strongly feel that way, 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.

Regards,

Vaalen

[Taillebois]

From Vaalen:

""The problem with WON, as I see it, after extensive campaign game play, is mainly two fold.

1. The AI makes horrible and unhistoric decisions about declaring war. and the system allows such things to occur.

2. The AI makes horrible decisions about building forces, and organizing forces in the sandbox mode. It cannot organize or build armies that can compete with the players. ""


Does this really matter if like me you are an occasional and not very good player?

The only real disadvantage to me of this game is the huge turn processing time. I realise this is partly because of my low spec system but I see from others that 3-5 minutes is common even with good machines. I'm getting to the point where I play two different AGEOD games at once - on different machines. - hot desking between turns, and getting my Parthians mixed up with my Prussians.

[PhilThib]

... 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

[Taillebois]

How about giving a free copy of NCP to anyone who has bought WON? This might be a nice gesture to those who bought this game and have found it not living up to billing or expectations. (PS - it won't benefit me because I already have a copy).


Sometimes I think the AGEOD team are a bit like a relative of mine who is always running out of money because they insist on producing something artistic rather than something that sells. Every so often the begging bowl comes out with a bleat about the hard life of an artist.


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.

I've got just about all the AGEOD games and add-ons but goodness me it feels a bit indulgent at times with PON and WON particularly. I'm sure glad you guys are not programming avionics.

[PhilThib]

Good points. Will forward to sales and marketing at Matrix, this no longer depends on us devs....

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.

There are already dozens of tools to help designers to do mods, and if you look at the games made by Miguel (Leibstandardte) or Ben (Altaris), or the AJE or RUS games (modders), this is clearly feasible. But indeed it requires a bit more time than it would with a full-inclusive editor unfortunately, and this is where is our weakness lies.

However, the time to develop the editor would have taken 1 year or so from Pocus time and this was never made possible in our history. Hopefully with the next engine...

Indeed, games that have included a full-fledged editor from start are more successful in attracting a crowd of modders...but in the end, only those who really want to do something fully will remain, editor or not...

[Pocus]

Complex games don't have fully integrated editors, because such thing means covering with nice UI, buttons and safeguard each concept, variable, gamerule of the engine, so this is a tremendous effort. Indeed, one year full time would be required for AGE.

See Paradox, they don't have an editor for their games, and yet there are tons of mods.

[Taillebois]

Well somebody did the smaller scenarios for Hearts of Iron; and somebody did the smaller scenarios for the AGEOD games.

Is there not a way of making scenarios that doesn't require the almost super human efforts of those who made RUS, Espana, TYW and of course Calvinus and his WW1?

I think almost all the AGEOD, Paradox, Matrix games are fantastic in the amount of history they can bring to life in one way or another.

Perhaps some one could write a guide on how to do scenarios? Start with simple variations on the existing scenarios - e.g. re Last Flight of the Eagle - what if Wellington and troops were in Calais not Brussels?

[veji1]

Well beyond making mods easier, fundamental design issues remain. I for example have come to think that a "cheating" AI in terms of force building and composing would work a lot better. And this can't really be modded. The idea would be that instead of building troops the conventionnal way and having to then put them together as coherently as possible, the AI would be given at regular intervals, with some extra triggers when some cities are invaded for example, more "built up" troops. In all AGEOD games it has proved a big weakness. No wonder the best playing experience to be had was either :
- in AACW with the 1862 campaign as the CSA in more complicated troop building games : the Union was given a largely structured army already, and for a while this structure held and would give the player a fun and solid challenge for 12 months or so of gaming time.
- in BoA and other games where troop building is a lot simpler : you have few units given to you and you just put them in a stack, no need to actually build troops (which means building the right balance, etc) nor to structure them (divs, corps, etc..).

In WON just as in other games, this is a big issue : once the french trash Austria or Prussia once, they are done for, because the AI has to pass reforms, build troops, etc... and it just can't do that properly. It would be a lot better if the AI was given troops regularly and had way less ressources to be used only for replacement chits...

This is a design issue.

[vaalen]

... 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

What skills would a volunteer need, and what precisely would be needed from the volunteer?

[PhilThib]

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

[vaalen]

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

Thank you for this information. Unfortunately, I do not qualify.

But maybe someone else does?

[ncc1701e]

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.

Hello,

I am catching up on all the topics in the forum about this game. I am completely new to it so forgive my question.
I am wondering why the War of Succession engine will do anything better than the current Wars of Napoleon engine?
Is it not the same engine? Or, is War of Succession the first game that will work on the brand new AGE engine we are sometimes reading?

Thanks

[PhilThib]

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...

[ncc1701e]

Great, so I have taken the good game engine then. I would like command chain, supply and diplomacy.

And regarding the following, I have began to read AGE wiki. I hope this will give me a good overview of the second point.

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

Something strange is that I could not find the CSV splitter tool on the wiki:
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Csv_splitter

Is it still the good link?

Thanks

[PhilThib]

I believe the link is dead. Send me an email at pthibaut@ageod.net, I will send you the splitter

[veji1]

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...

Exactly. War of Succession is just a game better tailored to the existing engine, whereas WON asked him to do much more than it ever could.

A WON game with 2 playable sides, a diplomatic ledger similar to the one of TEAW, aka crude and efficient, and events that help reboot forces for losing sides (ie army reforms that give new and better organised troops to Austrians, Prussians, Spaniards, Russians, Swedes, etc...) could have been a very good game.

[PhilThib]

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

[veji1]

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

I understand why you made WON as it is, and fans can't complain that you don't listen to them, it's just that it was too difficult to deliver for a small studio like yours. You tried, but it was too hard.

But TEAW offers a great template for how a long conflict with allies dropping in and out could work out with the traditionnal engine, and so did ROP already long ago actually.

[nlancier]

Game is very good especially for the ones who were looking for a napoleonic campaign game for a long time and WoN deserves a patch really hope AGEod will hear these people. Not having password protection for pbems is a bit strange tho for a game with 7 players ^^

[nlancier]

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.

But still can be played by 2 players if wanted right? viewtopic.php?p=384054#p384054
Like mentiooned on that topic:

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.

[Durk]

Yes, it works just fine for two players. With the method you posted.