Which wargame or strategy game would you like that AGEod develops in the middle term

[PhilThib]

Des moddeurs ont testé et il y a des pistes....quand ils auront avancé dessus, je serai ravi de vous proposer d'évaluer les choses...

Le moteur dispose d'une phase de poursuite, que l'on peut régler par de nombreux paramètres...à mon avis cela peut se 'modder'

[tyrex]

tyrex,
While it would take some reworking of combat to model ancient battles I think it could be done within the existing AGE engine. Archers might have a range of 1 so we see some precontact firing and don't forget that the Romans and others had plenty of "artillery" pieces like the ballista that would have had a longer range though certainly poor aim. If the AGEOD crew could figure out how to model combat with 17th-19th century combat then I'm confident they could make ancient battles work too.

As for combat results I certainly see a lot of units die in large battles and the combat losses could be tweaked to be more bloody through leader attributes where some leaders like Hannibal were rather prolific at winning lopsided victories. Unit quality is modeled in the AGE engine and does a nice job of showing how large masses of poorly trained troops not faring so well in battle and those forces tend to lose large numbers in battle. Pursuit is handled already in AGEOD games mainly through the cavalry differential between attacker and defender so I don't see this as a problem either.

The area concept would work well with ancients, like the board games that SPI and now Strategy & Tactics Press are producing on ancient campaigns. Movement would work much as it does now in NCP or any other AGEOD game.

Philippe,
Thanks for showing how creative you can be with your awesome AGE game system! It is sad that ancient battles aren't more popular, there were many interesting campaigns and battles to model. It would be fun to see ancient campaigns done AGEOD style on the computer.

Nope the "artillery" wasn't so present. It was indeed quite rare but on sieges.
Archers with one range.... nope too. At least two to give the light and horse javelineers as early peltasts some room to act. Two should be for horse archers without composite. Make it three for slingers and usual bows and four for composite bow.

As for pursuit, antic battles, it's not the poor troops who suffered. They tend to be the first to flee. And, at that time, first to flee first to survive (sad to say). It was the guys who stay the longer (or wasn't fast enough on sprint) who suffered the most.
Sadly the AGE engine don't make differences between the different types of infantry (skirmishers like Rhodian slingers, light like scutarii, medium like gaesati or heavy like the triarii) The first two ones must be accounted for in pursuit as well as cavalry. In antic there's no notion of screening force trying to hold the pursuit. When an army broke it's everyone for himself. And cavalry was the first to head for the hill. So when the pursuit began they're was all remaining winner horsemen, skirmishers and light troopers against none. So the pursuit segment of the AGE is really inadequate there.

[tyrex]

Des moddeurs ont testé et il y a des pistes....quand ils auront avancé dessus, je serai ravi de vous proposer d'évaluer les choses...

Le moteur dispose d'une phase de poursuite, que l'on peut régler par de nombreux paramètres...à mon avis cela peut se 'modder'

Et ce sera avec plaisir que je vous aiderais. D'ailleurs s'ils ont besoin de conseils ou d'informations sur le déroulement des batailles antiques je me ferais un plaisir de leur apporter mes connaissances sur le sujet.

Pour la phase de poursuite je ne savais pas que l'on pouvait la parametrer. C'est une excellent nouvelle s'il en est.

[Omnius]

tyrex,
Yeah it is a pity that the first to flee were the first to survive and that meant the cowards survived while the heroes died.

You really need to expand your imagination as to how the AGE engine can be used to model ancient battles. Don't forget that in all of the AGEOD games there are so many different types of infantry, cavalry and artillery modeled that there certainly is room to model ancient troops as well. You also seem to think that all ancient battles ended up as slaughters which is wrong, not every ancient battle ended like Trebbia or Canae. Most ancient battles ended with one side losing morale and routing away.

Range is something that could and should be modified downwards in scale for ancient battles. That way archers and javelin throwers and the like could have a range of 1 for fire combat to give them the proper historic pop of softening up an attacker right before contact.

You really need to bone up on your knowledge of the Roman army as they used their "artillery" extensively in field battles and not just sieges. Every legion had it's own artillery component and they knew how to use them.

[Omnius]

In looking back at the ratings of the poll about which epoch of warfare we'd like to see in a future AGEOD game I was struck with the reality that the Roman era was the second most popular, behind NCP2 with the grand campaign. I think there is interest in being able to play ancient battles and campaigns, especially for the Roman era and Alexander wasn't too shabby either in popularity.

I think the Roman campaigns and campaigns of Alexander the Great do hold interest for gamers and once the ice is broken as far as getting a game of that era out I think then that customers will want more. Since the AGE game system focuses on the strategic picture I think it would be excellent for modeling ancient campaigns.

I thought that AGEOD took a chance with their PON game as that era hasn't been extensively modeled in games and I imagine it will be rather popular. I would rather see AGEOD stick to doing games other game companies aren't really doing or doing well. While WW2 is probably the most popular war to model every brother and his mother is doing that and just how many WW2 games can the market really bear?

[tyrex]

tyrex,
Yeah it is a pity that the first to flee were the first to survive and that meant the cowards survived while the heroes died.

You really need to expand your imagination as to how the AGE engine can be used to model ancient battles. Don't forget that in all of the AGEOD games there are so many different types of infantry, cavalry and artillery modeled that there certainly is room to model ancient troops as well. You also seem to think that all ancient battles ended up as slaughters which is wrong, not every ancient battle ended like Trebbia or Canae. Most ancient battles ended with one side losing morale and routing away.

I don't agree with your opinion. Every ancient battle but very few exeption ended in a bloody (for the looser) pursuit. As you said ancient battles ended with one side routing away. But then start the butchery of the pursuit. Not everyone was slaughter of course (Trebbia, Cannae but also Trasimene, Issus, Bagradas plain or Telamon were rare indeed but not uncommon). But, as far as we can know, the looser loss could easily amounted to 50-70% of his army (ratio quite unusual in the period covers by the AGE motor). On the other side the loss range for the winner was spanned between 10-30% (something more common to AGE motor).
Statelmate battle exists too. But they were, as it seems, very uncommon (Heraclea seems to be the best exemple).

Range is something that could and should be modified downwards in scale for ancient battles. That way archers and javelin throwers and the like could have a range of 1 for fire combat to give them the proper historic pop of softening up an attacker right before contact.

You can't give javelineers and archers the same range. Do so and you get roman manipule too deadly as they could match easily archers and horse archers (don't forget they got javelin with the pilum). No way then to reenact Carrhes. So it's definitively not the solution.

You really need to bone up on your knowledge of the Roman army as they used their "artillery" extensively in field battles and not just sieges. Every legion had it's own artillery component and they knew how to use them. :cool

Not the manipular legion used during the roman expansion. The "artillery" it had was mainly used to defend the camp and during siege. Never during battle as they were static. Sorry but I've degrees in military history on the period. And I can assure you the ancient sources (mostly Polybius, Livius and Plutarch) barely mentionned use of "artillery" during battle at that time (I've no name of battle in which they were used to gave you. But I'll be happy if you could send me some).
Never heard too of artillery been used during Caesar time... I've also read the "wars" commentary of the guy. And the only mention he gave us of artillery use where battle near fortifications (i.e. siege) as Alesia or Massilia.

So may be the Empire armies used them (I'm not familiar with Empire battles). But that's definitively not the case of the Republic ones.

[Omnius]

You can't give javelineers and archers the same range. Do so and you get roman manipule too deadly as they could match easily archers and horse archers (don't forget they got javelin with the pilum). No way then to reenact Carrhes. So it's definitively not the solution.

tyrex,
I didn't mean that archers and javelineers should have the same range necessarily because that would be dependent upon how range is measured. I agree it would be better to have archers with a longer range.

From what I've read about Roman battles they did more than protect the camp with their artillery, they used it in battle as a standard so I'm not that impressed by your claim of having degrees in this subject matter.

The fact remains that the AGE engine could do a nice job of modeling ancient campaigns and it's just a matter of establishing proper tweaks to the existing engine for more modern warfare to that of ancients. At the strategic level the game system will work and it would be nice to play ancient campaigns at this level. You seem to be too caught up in the minutae to see the big picture.

[tyrex]

From what I've read about Roman battles they did more than protect the camp with their artillery, they used it in battle as a standard so I'm not that impressed by your claim of having degrees in this subject matter.

Again give me name of those battles or the title of the books you've read as I've none now in my researches list for wars Rome fought against Great Greece, Macedonia, Illyria, Carthage and Gauls before Caesar . It may be a lack in my historic knowledge. So it could useful for me too to have those names or books to look back at the ancient sources with a new eyes.

[Narwhal]

From what I've read about Roman battles they did more than protect the camp with their artillery, they used it in battle as a standard so I'm not that impressed by your claim of having degrees in this subject matter.

I can be wrong, but I would too be very surprised if this was true, as it was very difficult to move artillery around until the middle of the medieval age, as you needed, for anything a bit large :

- Yokes, except if you attend to have your men push it until your arrive at the destination. No yokes during antiquity
- Roads, which the Romans did not have when they were on the offensive.
- Compact artillery (compared to the firepower). Canons are compact for its range / power compared to ballistas or catapult. Everything the Romans had was not.

Maybe they could move around and use on the field an handful of very small ballistas or other devices, but that is probably pretty much all. I can very well be wrong, though.

[marcusjm]

Most important is to continue "off the beaten path" and tackle subjects we have rarely seen.

What about Charlemagnes campaigns?

30 years wars is already a proven concept (EU 1/2/3) so it should be a no-brainer to do at some point.

[hgilmer]

It is a centrally located warring area. It has plenty of powers that could intervene or be part of the conflict. I don't think it would be so hard to model alliances using events scripts as are already used with decisions to be made like in ROP.

It's a European conflict which I think would appeal to our European friends with a lot of their countries involved. It was a back and forth conflict with a lot of battles, a lot of bravery, a lot of tragedy.

Man, it could be the centerpiece for Aegod. Make it more visually beautiful than anything before. Sweeping charges by knights. Long range death from bowmen. Tragedy and Triumph. Joan of Arc. The Black Prince. The Dauphin. Siege towers, Boiling oil, the Black Death, Knights with lances, the pageantry of the height of the Medieval Age and the Flower of the Knights.

Tragedy and Triumph: The Hundred Years' War by Aegod using the Athena engine set for 2014.

That's a winner.

[marcusjm]

For that period there is an easier task. Get the rights to do Kingmaker (right this time).

Best boardgame ever.

[caranorn]

For that period there is an easier task. Get the rights to do Kingmaker (right this time).

Best boardgame ever.

Kingmaker actually takes place after the HYW (that is it's the War of the Roses). I didn't find AH's computer version bad either, considering how long ago it was published...

[Franciscus]

Tragedy and Triumph: The Hundred Years' War by Aegod using the Athena engine set for 2014.

That's a winner.

Great idea !

[gchristie]

A very popular idea these days...not sure how to game it out...

"Topple the Middle Eastern Strong Man."

Who can keep the cohesion of their street forces up the longest?

Go Democracy it all it's messy forms!

[turenne08]

Marlborough's Campaigns and the map is already there from ROP.

[Leinsdorf]

Marlborough's Campaigns and the map is already there from ROP.

I agree completely with this proposal, which I advanced some days ago on another thread! It's a quite fascinating theme and will well complement ROP within an "Age of Reason warfare" series

[Baris]

A very popular idea these days...not sure how to game it out...

"Topple the Middle Eastern Strong Man."

Who can keep the cohesion of their street forces up the longest?

Go Democracy it all it's messy forms!

The man in the Nile first decided to stay.. But the elite committee of the conscript army said the last word, no democracy even in messy forms

[GlobalExplorer]

30 Years war
WW1 with AGE engine
WW2 Mediterranean and Africa
Vietnam

Other, specify: Spanish Civil War , Sengoku Jidai

[marcusjm]

Kingmaker actually takes place after the HYW (that is it's the War of the Roses). I didn't find AH's computer version bad either, considering how long ago it was published...

Still wasn't anyway near the boardgame quality.

I think AGEOD has shown us already how to do it properly with the Montjoie game, almost perfect boardgame conversion.

Although, maybe this type of game would fit XBLA better?

[Lewis Armistead]

"ACW, just in case it can be improved even more "
"WW2 Global" would be very popular, as usual. Can I pre-order?

[marcusjm]

I am actually surprised that AGEOD isn't at least looking at the IPAD/Android/Iphone market. Montjoie would be totally perfect for this format.

Smart phone users are starving for a strategy game of any complexity.

Imagine how many old AH boardgames would fit perfectly for Ipad?

[Czert]

I will love to se more "revolutionary" games (jup, i most falled in love with RUs from all ageod games) and times here ve go:

balkams turmoils - not only wars in balkan after end of WWI, but even in time before if (fisrt and second balkanese wars).

1848 - there revotionary years, which changed many things in europe

hussite wars - cant rmember any games in this time period, it will be interesing to play as small nation and fight (and win) against rest of europe .

[John Sedgwick]

I think a game centred on the revolutions of 1848 would be an excellent idea and tie in nicely as a sort of prequel to the timeframe of PoN (could even resonate with the title: AGEOD's Spring of Nations, 1848-50). I've been reading about this period recently and it's a fascinating, tumultuous time. I would love to play out the Hungarian revolution, the war in Italy, the Polish uprising, the Schleswig War, even the Sonderbund War in Switzerland - it just brims with scenario possibilities.

Other than that, I would love to see a game in the ancient timeframe, Thirty Years War, or the Korean War, in that order

[marcusjm]

How about the Chinese Civil War (ie Communists vs Nationalists). It could include the Japanese part as well.

Btw. I think AGEOD will have proven after PON that they are capable of making a great global WW2 game as well . I for one would like to see a turn based alternative with the depht AGEOD offers.

[TheDoctorKing]

I think one problem with a later period than the 1920s is that they are not ready to design a more intricate air combat module. I have pushed for a WWII grand strategic game but the prospects don't look good for right now.

[Narwhal]

WWII is out of question with the current engine, for two reasons :

- The "turn" duration of 15 days would be much too long in my opinion. It is already close to the limit for RUS.

- In WWII, it is not "columns" anymore, it is a "continuous" front. AGE cannot represent this for now.

[caranorn]

WWII is out of question with the current engine, for two reasons :

- The "turn" duration of 15 days would be much too long in my opinion. It is already close to the limit for RUS.

- In WWII, it is not "columns" anymore, it is a "continuous" front. AGE cannot represent this for now.

Turn duration could be anything really, essentially "15 days" is just text that you could replace by "1 second", "1 day" or "1 million light years". So not an argument...

Why should AGE not be able to represent a continous front? The ai might have trouble, but the engine itself shouldn't. Really, to see whether a WWI or WWII game is possible on this engine we'll have to wait for Vainglory of Nations which should be a big leap ahead. Any new game will also always mean inovation in the game engine, something will have to be modified to fit the theme, some will have to be added etc.

What I'm a bit sceptical about in a WWII game is the air war, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible, just a question of how to make it work...

[marcusjm]

It is all about scale. I am not saying this current AGEOD engine would fit but I am pretty sure Mr Thibaut could design a proper system.

Air model etc makes sense when you make operational games in my book. I think games like HOI got the scale wrong in this case. Grand Strategy to me, means you more or less roleplay Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler or Stalin. What did they care about the intricate details of airplane designs? They made sure they had the proper sub-ordinates to take care of that. For gameplay purposes there has to be more control but I think HOI3 wen't way too far with the "need to know" parts. I wan't to see the big picture rather than control every battalion like in Supreme Ruler(seriously, why do they insist on this?).

Am I the only person here who ever heard of this boardgame?

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2975/origins-of-world-war-ii

This is the scale I am talking about . Well maybe there could be some golden middle ground between what PON offers and that boardgame. As an aside, wouldn't that boardgame convert perfectly to IPad?

[Peeking Duck?]

I was really hoping for NCP2 but with all of the additional bits mentioned in this thread so far.

The reason: A long, long time ago I played KOEI's L'Empereur (as probably many of you did) and found it enthralling. There was one main thing about that game that kept me coming back over and over - the terrain on the tactical battles. Not the artwork obviously, but more the fact that each time I was repulsed from taking, say, Madrid, I would be wary of potential hazards next time I arrived with my army. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is the tactical map battles made it feel like you were really battling just outside whatever City/Town, rather than just generating a generic map as per one of the current Napoleonic strategic level games.

So here's another vote for NCP2 and a request to make the tactical maps true to life, or as close as possible