User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Great Invasions 2 - a daydream thread

Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:07 pm

There were a few months last year when the Hungarian currency was strong while the dollar was weak. Luckily, I realised that it won't last, and ordered a bunch of boardgames for a relatively cheap price.

One of them was the Azure Wish game Hispania, and I just gave it a solo try yesterday.
And of course it made me remember my fond memories of - Great Invasions!

I know that Calvinus is now busy with polishing up World War One, but I do think that actually goes on a very good pace, so maybe it is not too early to start daydreaming about the perfect sequel to GI! Maybe we can come up with some good ideas for Calv. :)
Altough I think we ought to give the man a bit of rest once he finishes fixing up WW1, he should start to work on GI2 after those 7-8 hours of relaxation! :wacko:


I think Great Invasions managed to integrate the most historical flavor I have ever seen in a game. It had the historical process of barbarian hordes becoming civilized empires, it had economies, and above all, it was rich in ethnical and religious detail, which I think is crucial for the period in question, since both aspects were wildly fluctuating. And with the strategems, it covered the actions and events normal game mechanics could not incorporate.

Of course, it was far from perfect. Gathering experiences from GI and WW1, here are my preferences for a future GI2:

-turn based! I think the deep strategy genre suffers from real time gaming. It is a strain on resources, and altough EU3 does manage to go by it, I would much, much, much prefer a turnbased game.

-Calv could use the map straight out of WW1, but I would prefer simpler graphics. WW1 has some quite pretty graphics, but also I understand its a strain on lower end systems. The economical, cultural, religious, etc. details of GI must be preserved, even expanded if possible, so resources should be saved.

-the multiple countries thingie. The basic premise MUST STAY. Empires must decay and disappear or the entire historical flavor goes right out of the window, But! Since this was a problem for so many people, how about using the mechanic of that old game, Medieval Lords, or something like that. At one time a player would only control a single country, but it could switch over to an other one, at a cost of victory points. This way, you would get to control a single country, yet you would not be kicked out of the game when your Vandals get overrun by Muslim hordes, for example.

-use the local community. Back in the days, Great Invasions came "out of the blue" for most people. Now we have the AGEOD community, with a lot of people very talented in history, and with a desire to see quality historical games. Best solution could be a payed open beta scheme alá' Stardock.

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:30 pm

+1 :thumbsup:

GI 2 , well done, would be great. And I agree in general with you, Tamas, except about this:

Tamas wrote:-the multiple countries thingie. The basic premise MUST STAY. Empires must decay and disappear or the entire historical flavor goes right out of the window, But! Since this was a problem for so many people, how about using the mechanic of that old game, Medieval Lords, or something like that. At one time a player would only control a single country, but it could switch over to an other one, at a cost of victory points. This way, you would get to control a single country, yet you would not be kicked out of the game when your Vandals get overrun by Muslim hordes, for example.


You yourself are stating that this was and is a problem for many people. Why ? because it is clunky, and I beg to differ with you, anachronic and an-historical. What is the logic of controlling the Bizantine empie and some saxon kingdom in the British isles at the same time ??? :bonk: I do not mind to control a decaying empire and try to revert history ! That's exactly what I love most to do. And if my country is destroyed, that's called loosing the game. Start again. Good. :thumbsup:
So, this SHOULD NOT STAY, IMHO ;)

+1 also to a beta paying system. I think that's the future of game development, in these +/- "niche" markets. And please, make everything to avoid the previous messes :D

User avatar
JMass
Corporal
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Trieste, Italy

Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:51 pm

+1! :thumbsup: Number one in my personal dream list!

Tamas wrote:-turn based! I think the deep strategy genre suffers from real time gaming. It is a strain on resources, and altough EU3 does manage to go by it, I would much, much, much prefer a turnbased game.


Absolutely! :cool:

-Calv could use the map straight out of WW1, but I would prefer simpler graphics. WW1 has some quite pretty graphics, but also I understand its a strain on lower end systems. The economical, cultural, religious, etc. details of GI must be preserved, even expanded if possible, so resources should be saved.


I would like to see more regions, a differentiation between cities and fortresses, more resources.

-the multiple countries thingie. The basic premise MUST STAY. Empires must decay and disappear or the entire historical flavor goes right out of the window


I agree but I don't like the automatic disappear of a country leaded by a player, if he plays very well he could delay the event.

At one time a player would only control a single country, but it could switch over to an other one, at a cost of victory points. This way, you would get to control a single country, yet you would not be kicked out of the game when your Vandals get overrun by Muslim hordes, for example.


I totally agree, I don't like to play more than one country or to play one religion (religions must belong to the AI, I think), I would have also the possibility to play small scenarios on just a piece of map (i.e. the Gothic war in Italy).

-use the local community. Back in the days, Great Invasions came "out of the blue" for most people. Now we have the AGEOD community, with a lot of people very talented in history, and with a desire to see quality historical games. Best solution could be a payed open beta scheme alá' Stardock.


Ready to go! :bonk:
"Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands."
[SIZE="1"]Αυτοκράτορ Κωνσταντίνος ΙΑ' Δραγάσης Παλαιολόγος[/size]

Now playing, testing or modding: AJE-BoR, Ancient Warfare, CMBN, CMFI, CTGW, FoG, RUS, Squad Battles, WWII-Europe
Idling: a lot of games

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Well you either did not read that paragraph properly, or I was not clear. :P I suggested players only controlling one country at a time, but being able to switch to an other if need be. Much like an immortal advisor of kings. :)
It worked well in the old game, Medieval Lords. There could be a VP cost for switching (probably a pre-determined price written in the scenario, so for example, "buying" Gepides would be much cheaper than the Huns), and a bid process for MP if several players want the same country.

But an EU-ish "only one country for a player, ever" solution would not work for sure in this period.

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:58 pm

JMass, as for delaying decay, there are several ways to do that already in GI, the mechanics are there. But if you guarantee that a player-driven country would be on the map until annexed completely, you would destroy the simulation value completely.

As for control of religions, I rather liked that, altough I could live with the AI controlling them. Alternatively, they could be tied to certain countries, and/or there could be a VP-bidding for their control (with like one player could control one country and one religion that way).

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

Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:17 pm

Nice posts :thumbsup:

FYI, Before GI was a computer game, it was a boardgame I designed based somewhat on the Hispania series... never got published because Azure Wish went out of business before i had a chance too... ;)

Calvinus is extremely busy with WW1, and will be so for quite a few months from now... and will NEED a rest after that (or his wife will kill him before computer gaming does :mdr :)

BUT, without blowing a secret, a good guy has volunteered with us to make a review of GI code, as well as WW1, to see how it could be improved and updated, code and engine-wise...

So all great ideas and volunteers here could really see something come true, in the future...but not before at least 2 years IMHO (although we could 'beta' this in 12 months)... my 2 cents...

:cool:
Image

User avatar
Jayavarman
Lieutenant
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:31 pm

Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:40 am

Nice the hear those developments. :)
"Sad fragility of human things! What riches and treasures of art will remain forever buried beneath these ruins; how many distinguished men - artists, sovereigns, and warriors - are now forgotten!"

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: ICQ WLM

Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:58 pm

Well, this is obviously great news... had a lot of fun with that game... :thumbsup:
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte


BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)

AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!

Feanor
Civilian
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:03 pm

Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:51 pm

GI is a unique gaming experience, probably comes closes to a "historical simulation" in computer games, i really would buy any prequel of this game.

Return to “General discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests