Dodge
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:42 am

The merits of Paradox, EU3 and other things that can be related and compared to them

Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:12 pm

[color="Blue"]This discussion has been split of from a different thread, since the discussion took on a life of it's own, unrelated to the thread's actual topic. - Rafiki[/color]
soundoff wrote:if I'm playing say Paradox Hearts of Iron (wash my mouth out for mentioning the name


Why?

In my experience Paradox as a company is fantastic and have produced some fantastically diverse and innovative games such as Victoria, Crusader Kings and especially Hearts of Iron 2, which are all great games.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:06 pm

deleted

User avatar
Chaplain Lovejoy
Brigadier General
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:20 am
Location: Fairfield, OH (near Cincinnati)

Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:25 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:None of which, I personally cared for.


Ditto.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:19 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:the game play turns ridiculously ahistoric, even though the scripting attempts to keep it in line. Thanks but no thanks, Paradox does not rank very highly with me at all

Interesting comment. While I admit I don't like Victoria or HoI series that much (I like the time-period of Vicky but not the absolutely horrible amount of micromanagament in it, while HoI series feel so inadequate compared to board-games such as EuroFront series), I do think Crusader Kings and EU-series have a very historical feeling and have historically plausible outcomes. If I would expect a game with a scope of 400 years to play out exactly as in history books, I would rather read a history book :)

While AACW has *initially* the same very historical feeling (I like that) and has *lots* of historical accuracy, there are very ahistorical strategies and tactics at use. Don't get me wrong, I like AACW as a *game*, but after six months in game time the game does not feel at all very historical. Several corps wide raiding forces from both sides holding cities faaar behind the front without any sort of consequenses for either side, all coastal forts blown up, massed artillery being the decissive factor in combats... Nope, sorry, not historically very plausible at all. *But* I still like AACW as a *game* :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:06 am

Jarkko wrote:... I do think Crusader Kings and EU-series have a very historical feeling and have historically plausible outcomes...

EU3's success or failure as a historically plausible and "realistic" simulation aside, what keeps me interested in EU3 is the subject matter. Also its scriptability (see Magna Mundi).

I am appalled, however, at all the EU3 game crashes, as reported by others and observed by myself. The last thing I want is to devote hours and hours to a game, then have it suddenly become unplayable after some random date due to CTDs. That would be so frustrating!

I am so pleased by AGEod's CTD zero-tolerance policy. It's a refreshing contrast with Paradox.

While AACW has *initially* the same very historical feeling (I like that) and has *lots* of historical accuracy, there are very ahistorical strategies and tactics at use. Don't get me wrong, I like AACW as a *game*, but after six months in game time the game does not feel at all very historical. Several corps wide raiding forces from both sides holding cities faaar behind the front without any sort of consequenses for either side, all coastal forts blown up, massed artillery being the decissive factor in combats... Nope, sorry, not historically very plausible at all. *But* I still like AACW as a *game* :)

I like war "games" less as competitions than as simulations, interactive history books, as it were.

One problem with playing against a human opponent is exactly the problem you describe: ahistorical strategies and tactics. If one player uses them, the other player is forced to do the same in order to remain competitive.

This is also true, but to a lesser extent, if you play against the AI.

If it gets too bad playing against the AI, my solution is to revert to a tried-and-true method of play that suited me well for most of my boardgaming days: solitaire play. If I play against myself (using AACW's PBEM facilities), I am in complete control of strategies and tactics on both sides, and I can avoid ahistorical S&T completely. Does that make the game dull, predictable? Not at all. We issue our orders (and if I'm playing hot-seat solitaire, for both sides), and the AI carries them out. Or not. Or in its own good or perverse fashion. So there's enough randomness there that the game remains full of surprises, even if it loses the surprises that come from FOW. But you can fake FOW by pretending you don't know.

I don't yet play AACW that way, but if I ever reach the point of total dismay playing against the AI, I will just play hot-seat solitaire as described. (I've done that with other games.)

(Sorry, won't play against a human opponent for the reasons described, but also others. But let's not get into that discussion.)

I know it might seem to strange to many war gamers, but winning or losing a war game means little to me personally. (Winning in a historical sense does.) What matters most is if I've had a fun and interesting time with it. Competitions in any form just aren't my thing.

Your Mileage May Vary.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:41 am

This is starting to get waaay off-topic, but I'll post one more...

berto wrote:I am appalled, however, at all the EU3 game crashes, as reported by others and observed by myself. The last thing I want is to devote hours and hours to a game, then have it suddenly become unplayable after some random date due to CTDs. That would be so frustrating!

After a couple patches EU3 never have crashed for me (except when testing new beta patches). And to be fair, those reporting crashes are practically without exception playing some MOD (such as Magna Mundi). Sure, that can be seen as a weakness of the engine, but personally I see that as a part of the mods (which is one of the very reason I try stay clear from mods).

I am so pleased by AGEod's CTD zero-tolerance policy. It's a refreshing contrast with Paradox.

The AACW demo (which runs 1.05b version) kept CTDing for me at the most oddest of times (changing options -> CTD; htting function buttons under turn-resolution -> CTD; staring at the screen and pondering what the heck are the different ships -> CTD); yet after having installed 1.11d to the full game I've had zero crashes. Reading WW1 sub-forum I think quite a few players are noticing crashes with the latest product. Thus I wouldn't be so entirely sure AGEOD games have any better "zero-CTD policy" (personally I believe *every* game developer hates it if their game crashes and are doing their best to fix the issues), but just like Paradox, the stability improves via patches. YMMV ;)



Just for the record, I play AACW most of the time solitaire; it is IMO the best way to familiarise with the game-system (an old habit I have learned from boardgames playing for the past ~25 years :blink: ). I try to play both sides to the best of my abilities. Yes, I do play vs the AI too (especially when I intend to write an AAR), but I then have to limit my options, because the AI is quite unable to cope with deep raids with massive forces that the game so (ahistorically) favours, something even I as a complete newbie to AACW have figured out already. I also have slowly started to venture into the world of PBeM games, and there the ahistoricality seems to bump by a quantum factor. Still, it doesn't make the game bad, but claiming the strategies available are historically plausiple is IMO not a very valid comment. The best way to play the game (if you intend to win, that is) is to practically be as ahistorical as you possibly can (and thus the AI is not able to cope).
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:59 am

Jarkko wrote:After a couple patches EU3 never have crashed for me (except when testing new beta patches). And to be fair, those reporting crashes are practically without exception playing some MOD (such as Magna Mundi). Sure, that can be seen as a weakness of the engine, but personally I see that as a part of the mods (which is one of the very reason I try stay clear from mods).

For me, EU3 Vanilla is unplayable. It's Magna Mundi or nothing. And, yes, MM crashes uncomfortably often.

Thus I wouldn't be so entirely sure AGEOD games have any better "zero-CTD policy" (personally I believe *every* game developer hates it if their game crashes and are doing their best to fix the issues), but just like Paradox, the stability improves via patches. YMMV ;)

AGEod patches its games more often. I've seen the AGEod devs give immediate and all possible attention to fixing CTDs. I don't see that kind of responsiveness from Paradox.

The best way to play the game (if you intend to win, that is) is to practically be as ahistorical as you possibly can (and thus the AI is not able to cope).

That's just it. I don't play to "win" if it means disregarding plausibility.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:20 am

Jarkko wrote:This is starting to get waaay off-topic, but I'll post one more...

[color="Blue"]No it's not (anymore, at least); feel free to continue the discussion :) [/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:59 am

2 points:

1) Paradox:

Ph. Thibaut's design influence is notable both for CK and EU. Any other Paradox project has imho showed the same problem, ie a real unability to design a game system producing plausible results ( without modding of course). That's not to say their games aren't interesting but they now don't imterest me. from the start, I knew their Roma opus would have World conquest problems, historical loopholes and would lack any real gameplay improvment.

2) AACW: I'm not so sure multi corps raiding to be so unhistorical. After all it was the Sherman ( and Hood 1864 campaign) oprational way in 1864 and 1865. A possible key of the Civil War is maybe both sidesignored for long this large raiding strategy which could have been implemented from 1862. The real Anaconda plan was based on a large Northern expedition to seize all the Mississippi river. Maybe Generals were too much przeoccupied with lines of supply in the first years...
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:47 pm

As CSA you can, without any consequenses, run troops to Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin during the first three months. Claiming this wouldn't have ended in an uproar all over USA and in Europe is not very well thought IMO. USA would have effectively become under an invasion, *not* invading the Confederates as many saw it. Local USA troops would have popped up in tens of thousands; volunteer regiments, partisans etc (not just a regiment or two as happens now). In Europe seeing the "slaver country" invading the USA would have at the very least seen European powers renounce CSA for good, and possibly even volunteer troops would have arrived to fight for the freedom of USA.

Conversely, USA can blow up every single coastal fortress by December 1861. The coastal forts are an absolute joke in the game. While in real life the forts were a real factor to be considered.



I like to iterate that I like the game. I do, a lot, *especially* the scenarios because the (re-worked) scenarios actually see strategies used in a historically plausible way :) But despite what it first appears like, the campaign is not very historical at all regarding the strategies the players have at use at the start.
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:21 am

Paradox makes great games but mabye it's time to try new engines instead of rehashing the old ones?

Anyway. I play Victoria and CK but I would still prefer turn based versions.

Btw. Anyone who talks about "plausible history" simply doesn't know what he is talking about. You can't analyse anything in hindsight with any kind of realism.

There are billions of factors to take into consideration, everything from some important person simply stumbling and breaking their head and the wind blowing the wrong direction some day. Very small details could have immense effect on future. No one knows anything until the events have played out.

So I call BS on anyone who say that some system or other would create a more "realistic historical outcome", there are none.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:56 am

marcusjm wrote:So I call BS on anyone who say that some system or other would create a more "realistic historical outcome", there are none.

You are of course free to do that. Altough as far as I can see nobody except you have called for realistic historical outcomes, so perhaps you have seriously misunderstood something.

Unlike you seem to believe, I have also not said the game-engine is bad. On the contrary, I have several times said the game is excellent. I like the campaign as a *game* (just like I like chess, but I do not claim chess is a historical simulation of ACW). The *scenarios* in the game are historically accurate by actually giving players the historical limits and possibilities. It is then up to the player(s) to form strategies on those tools. Personally I do like for this reason the scenarios a lot more, and I would love it if the campaign would also be based on historical options and not promote wildly ahistorical strategies.

What I have said, and will say again and again, is that I do not agree with some (many/most) people claiming the campaign is historically accurate (while for example Paradox games are not in their opinion). It is not, and I seriously doubt you (or anybody else) can reliably say the points I have provided above are "BS".

I quote Grays words above describing Paradox games: "the game play turns ridiculously ahistoric". That sentence describes *exactly* how the AACW *campaign* plays. It is ridiculous to claim CSA would have been able to run rampart in Northern states (before Manassas at the very least) without any consequenses, it is ridiculous that USA is able to blow up all coastal forts during the first months without a sweat.
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

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

Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:33 pm

Talking about Paradox... I have stopped buying their games when they adopted the "Release now the game... announce an expansion a week later" :non:
EUIII in its original release was a complete sandbox, with nothing related to history... one can say that "maybe" the setup "tried to emulate" the historical conditions of the era, but the game was not meant to be historical in any way. Sandbox, pure sandbox.
Then the following expansions changed the game... but they were NOT patches... you had to buy them 1 by 1 to get what should have been the full game.
The same was done with EU:Rome... one release, many expansions...

So, in the end, if you wait 2 years after the release, you can buy "HoI3: the ultimate pack" and save yourself more than $100 on releases and expansion packs... :bonk:
This also meant that their patch policy, what made Paradox so popular because you knew that "they will fix this sooner or later", changed drastically... for players disgrace. :(
Sorry, but that's not what I want from a company or a game.

Paradox decide to chose another road after they become "bigger"... good for them, I desire the best for them because I had the privilege to work with many of them during the development of many of their titles (HoI2, Victoria, etc).
But sadly, I will hardly be excited about their games anymore. :(
"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!

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:55 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:None of which, I personally cared for. Too much micromanagement for one thing and almost all of the game play turns ridiculously ahistoric, even though the scripting attempts to keep it in line. Thanks but no thanks,


Coming to this thread somewhat late but have to say that on balance I tend to side with Jarkko. ACW is a terrific game in PBEM mode at least....but then so is HoI in linked mode. Tell the truth though neither of them are historical in any way.

I recall many many threads ago one poster on these forums putting forward the view that the more historical you attempt to make a game the more ahistorical it actually becomes. I feel that ACW has certainly reached this point and gone beyond it. When someone as knowledgeable as Jabber says with some authority that using historical attrition its normally or usually impossible to last as the CSA much beyond the end of 63 then something has gone badly wrong. As a game the CSA should have a chance of winning not just because of a poor AI or a bad Union player otherwise it becomes a poor game.

I think in the drive for historical accuracy the fact that ACW is supposed to be a game and not an historical simulation is sometimes lost. I certainly think that ACW is on the cusp now and for one will not patch any further, if its just another 'historical' patch that puts more pressure on surviving as the CSA

Oh and as a postscript I've suddenly noticed that this thread was started as the result of a quote by me. Now that quote was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek.....Paradox/HoI/wash my mouth out. Simply because I was and am posting on an AGEod forum. :thumbsup:

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:09 pm

soundoff wrote:I recall many many threads ago one poster on these forums putting forward the view that the more historical you attempt to make a game the more ahistorical it actually becomes.

As a general rule? By necessity? No. :non:

It all depends on how things are implemented. Have some or even many games been as you describe? Perhaps. But that viewpoint is not necessarily true. Of course it would be possible to design and implement an ACW game where the South could survive into the spring of 1865 and even beyond, and in some meaningful, plausible ways "win" the game, and the simulated war. The devil is in the details.

But throw out the details, or distort them beyond recognition? In your quest for game competitiveness, or upping the fun factor, where do you draw the line?

As a game, it might be fun for some to have Confederate cavalary routinely raiding as far north as New England, or seeing the ANV assaulting and taking New York City, or having the Confederacy conquer all of the Union west of the Alleghanies . As for me, no thanks. Fantasy, fantasy.

I feel that ACW has certainly reached this point and gone beyond it. When someone as knowledgeable as Jabber says with some authority that using historical attrition its normally or usually impossible to last as the CSA much beyond the end of 63 then something has gone badly wrong.

Or maybe the attrition rules need to be "unbalanced" to model Southern forces' ability to withstand hardship much better than the Northern. So one could argue that the current balanced "historical" attrition rules are in fact ahistorical. It's just another detail. Change it!

As a game the CSA should have a chance of winning not just because of a poor AI or a bad Union player otherwise it becomes a poor game.

I think in the drive for historical accuracy the fact that ACW is supposed to be a game and not an historical simulation is sometimes lost. I certainly think that ACW is on the cusp now and for one will not patch any further, if its just another 'historical' patch that puts more pressure on surviving as the CSA

If game fun is most important to you, there are plenty other game genres, and plenty other "historical" beer-and-pretzel war games, to give you what you seek.

I remember the old Avalon Hill Gettysburg board game. Was it a balanced game? Probably. Fun as a game? Sure. But near the end of the game, one could routinely have just a few units chasing one another around the map, and it was entirely possible to win the game by totally annihilating your opponent--literally wiping them off the face of the map. (In fact, weren't those the actual victory conditions? I don't recall.) Was that fun? Yes, to a point. But even as a youth playing the game back in the 1960's, I could see the absurdity of it all, and I yearned for a more historical experience.

You truly can have it both ways. Historical plausibility and a good game. You just have to try harder.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Duckman
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:16 am

Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:30 pm

I ACTUALLY LOVE VICKY;REVOLUTIONS :) i think its an amazing game. so is CK :D eus Vult and EUIII:In Nomine. the trick with paradox games is simmply to get them at least a year after their release ;) but thats often the case with many other games (think medieval:kingdoms) :cool:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:41 pm

berto wrote:
If game fun is most important to you, there are plenty other game genres, and plenty other "historical" beer-and-pretzel war games, to give you what you seek.


If game fun is not the driving factor...what the heck are you doing Berto programming and playing 'games'? Because thats what ACW is and will always be...a game. :)

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:46 pm

soundoff wrote:If game fun is not the driving factor...what the heck are you doing Berto programming and playing 'games'? Because thats what ACW is and will always be...a game. :)

Why are game fun and historical play in logical opposition? Why can't you have the best of both worlds? :)
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:06 pm

berto wrote:Why are game fun and historical play in logical opposition? Why can't you have the best of both worlds? :)


They may not be..... trouble is the drive for historical play usual results in the only possiblility being an historical outcome and I dont know many gamers who want to play WWII games where the Axis are unable to win or ACW games where its impossible for the CSA to gain a victory or the new WWI game where the central powers must be defeated all in the name of historical accuracy.

And I fear thats whats happening or has already happened with ACW...unless you play against the AI ......or a very poor Union opponent (such as myself)....as the CSA you have diddly squat chance of winning. Mind you its historically accurate...after all the Union did win and the CSA did'nt have a real chance.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:47 pm

I am a grognard, I admit I can be a pain in the *ss when pushing my historical plausibility "agenda", no doubt about it. :p apy:

I have had more than one debate with European friends about why football (not American football, world football, "soccer" as Americans prefer to call it) is "broken" as a game because of the low scoring. I argue about how, as Americans used to our high scoring games, watching a couple dozen men (or women!) running around a grassy field for an hour and a half and maybe scoring a small handful of goals is boring. I argue about how, in low scoring games, cheating and poor game officiating is magnified out of proportion. My trump card is to point to games, World Cups even, being decided by shootouts. (Like the NBA championships being decided by a slam dunk contest.)

On my European friends' side, I am met with a passionate defense of their beloved sport. Broken? What, are you crazy? Football is the ultimate game! Look around, its worlwide popularity is proof of that. Don't you see the drama, the excitement, the finesse, the poetry in all of it? Oh, I have struck a nerve. :grr: Back off, back off!

Here in America, professional soccer, although slowly growing in popularity (largely due to our growing immigrant population), continues to struggle vis-a-vis our big-four professional sports (baseball, American football, basketball, hockey). One response has been indoor soccer, where the playing "field" (arena) is much smaller, and scoring is much higher. It works for some Americans. Not me, though. I'd "fix" football, soccer, in other ways. (Some would say that hockey's appeal to Americans really grew when they began condoning in-game fighting, actual fisticuffs, as a matter of routine. Whatever. :bonk: )

(Have I offended enough sports fans yet? ;) )

Are we Americans, or are the Europeans (and others around the world), "right" in our respective views of football? :confused:

What's the right or wrong of it? Let us Americans play our high-scoring games, and let the Europeans (and the rest) enjoy their "grognard" football. To each his own! Aren't diversity and choice great?! :thumbsup:

There are plenty of companies, plenty of war gaming companies, who produce fun, balanced beer-and-pretzel war and historical games.

There are other companies who lean more toward historical game play, even at the cost of greater complexity, greater micromanagement, and tighter historical constraints. AGEod is one such company.

In AGEod, we have one of those rare war gaming companies that tries to get it all "right". They leave nothing essential out. At game's core, they aim to be "historical". But also lots of "chrome", lovely leader portraits, and beautiful artwork. Good music, too. They try to have it all ways. I applaud them for that.

It would be a great disappointment to me personally if AGEod were to dilute its product, were to bend too far in appealing to the, admittedly, larger audience of pure gamers looking most of all to have a "good time" (in the sense that, for example, the Heath Ledger movie "A Knight's Tale" was, for some, a great movie despite all its anachronisms and its rock music soundtrack :tournepas ).

But if they did so, IMO they will have sold out, have become just another run-of-the-mill gaming company, a "noble failure".

If so, oh well, such is life. Thank heavens for the free marketplace and having alternatives! And thanks, too, for pre-game menu options and modding capabilities! :thumbsup:
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:01 pm

soundoff wrote:They may not be..... trouble is the drive for historical play usual results in the only possiblility being an historical outcome and I dont know many gamers who want to play WWII games where the Axis are unable to win or ACW games where its impossible for the CSA to gain a victory or the new WWI game where the central powers must be defeated all in the name of historical accuracy.

And I fear thats whats happening or has already happened with ACW...unless you play against the AI ......or a very poor Union opponent (such as myself)....as the CSA you have diddly squat chance of winning. Mind you its historically accurate...after all the Union did win and the CSA did'nt have a real chance.

I don't buy that. There are many different directions that historical plausibility, not historical mimicry, can take.

I am of the minority opinion that the ACW was a near-miss, that in a very real, actual sense, the South could have won. The Confederacy not voluntarily ending its cotton exports. Lee taking Longstreet's advice at Gettysburg and inflicting yet another crushing Union defeat. Grant gets cut in half by a "lucky" cannonball shot at Chatanooga (like what happened to poor Bishop Polk at Pine Mountain). Sherman's March to the Sea vetoed as being too risky. Sherman not taking Atlanta, Lee losing to McClellan in the 1864 presidential elections, a war-weary North caving in and agreeing to Southern independence and blessed peace. And so on and on.

There are many different ways the ACW could have ended, many different ways the South could have won, many different paths an AACW game could go down and still remain plausible. Also fun! :dada:
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:48 am

If scoring is all you care about then why bother playing the game, just roll some dice and you will get a score ;) .

Well it says something when people talk more about the advertising than the game in Super Bowl ;) . It's not just Europeans but the rest of the World plus an increasing number of American youth who find real football more interesting.

Billions watch and play real football, a handful(comparatively) of people play and watch American (hand)football.

Regarding "historical". What I talked about is called factoring, you cannot really expect any history to repeat itself even given the exact same pre conditions.

As for games, I am from Sweden so naturally I prefer games where Sweden takes an active role, not necessary but preferable. I am equally interested in Far East, maybe a Genghis Khan game? I bought AACW but I realised I really wanted something like Vainglory of Nations.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:58 am

marcusjm wrote:If scoring is all you care about then why bother playing the game, just roll some dice and you will get a score ;) .

In my wargames at least, I don't at all care about the "score".

It's not just Europeans but the rest of the World plus an increasing number of American youth who find real football more interesting.

I used to play high school football (soccer, not American football), so I understand and appreciate the nuances of the game.

Just as Americans are being educated about the glories of world football, so too I hope more gamers will be educated about the joys of fun, but still deep, complex, historically plausible war gaming.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:33 am

In sports as well as games it all comes down to personal taste not nationality. Everyone has a different taste and thank god we all have a free choice in the matter.

I have played wargames since the early 80.s, Avalon Hill, SPI, GDW has provided countless hours of fun for me.

If the days of boardgaming learned us anything, it was that there were many paths you could explore wars and history, there were incredibly complex systems and abstract games like Diplomacy. They were all fun in their own way.

We should all be happy that companies like Paradox, Matrix, AGOED and HPS provides a choice in this matter as well as sports. There is something for all tastes, no need to bash a specific system, just play the one you find fun.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:50 pm

berto wrote:There are other companies who lean more toward historical game play, even at the cost of greater complexity, greater micromanagement, and tighter historical constraints. AGEod is one such company.

Now you did hit the nerve. This is exactly what I am "compaining" about, and what gets overlooked. AACW has great historical set-up. The scenarios have historical goals and historical tools.

Yet the AACW campaign actively promotes horribly ahistorical strategies which would simply not have been possible to carry out back then. When I point that out in the otherwise excellent game, I am told I speak "BS" or are suggested to make my own mod of the game to please me :blink:



Note: I am not the only one who have mentioned the abhorrently "gamey" strategies are the way to win in the campaign, but as I am so damn blunt (never figured out the meanings for the words "tact" or "discrete") I get jumped like I am somehow spitting on the great work of AGEOD team (I do know there is no "freedom of speach" on a privately owned forum, which is why I am certain that if my words would be insulting I would be thrown out with the butt-neck technique faster than I can say "aaargh"). What is more hilarious, the same people then jump on the work of Paradox (I admit that my vision regarding Paradox is blurred; being a beta tester I see several new patches for their games *each week*, but I have learned the past days on this forum that is indeed not what the average gamer sees) using much harsher words to shoot down (the ahistorical) factors seen much more clearer in the AACW campaign for example :bonk:



In fact, I am starting to believe the zeal behind the attacks against my comments may in fact be based on that some key people would be crapping their pants if their favourite gamey strategy would suddenly be fixed. Not the first time I'd see that (I do remember for example when I used the "neighbour bonus" in a *very* gamey way in EU2; it was nerfed real good and then fixed to more reasonable levels for EU3, and it was apparent to me it was done as a personal attack on me :neener :) .



Anyway, peace and love to everyone. I'll stick to the AACW scenarios when I want to have a gaming experience based on historical options and historical goals, and when I want a whacky ahistorical game for fun I'll launch the AACW campaign (or EU3 campaign ;) ).
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Cat Lord
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: Lausanne, Suisse

Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:55 pm

berto wrote:I have had more than one debate with European friends about why football (not American football, world football, "soccer" as Americans prefer to call it) is "broken" as a game because of the low scoring. I argue about how, as Americans used to our high scoring games, watching a couple dozen men (or women!) running around a grassy field for an hour and a half and maybe scoring a small handful of goals is boring. I argue about how, in low scoring games, cheating and poor game officiating is magnified out of proportion. My trump card is to point to games, World Cups even, being decided by shootouts. (Like the NBA championships being decided by a slam dunk contest.)
On the other hand, when watching basketball, when you know the score is gonna be in the 80/100 by team, what's the point of being excite about someone scoring 2 or 3 points ? Only the most spetacular shot or slamdunk are interesting...

Cat

PS: BTW, that's why I don't like neither football/soccer nor basketball. Rugby fan through and through ! :cool: Every point counts, there are enough of them to not get frustrated, and not too many of them to be boring. :love:
[CENTER]
Image[/CENTER]

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:16 pm

Jarkko wrote:Now you did hit the nerve. This is exactly what I am "compaining" about, and what gets overlooked. AACW has great historical set-up. The scenarios have historical goals and historical tools.

Yet the AACW campaign actively promotes horribly ahistorical strategies which would simply not have been possible to carry out back then. When I point that out in the otherwise excellent game, I am told I speak "BS" or are suggested to make my own mod of the game to please me :blink:

For the record, I don't disagree with you. (And I don't think I personally have ever attacked you as speaking "BS", have I? :blink: ) The more complex the game, and the further you get from the starting point, the greater the likelihood of there being ahistorical strategies and gamey exploits. Which is one reason I don't play the all-theater, full-war, time-extended campaigns (I favor the scenarios), and if I ever do, will probably play them hot-seat solitaire in the manner previously described.

I think we two are on the same page here. :thumbsup:
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:22 pm

deleted

User avatar
Queeg
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:13 am

Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:33 pm

Paradox and AGEod games will always reside on my HD and I will play both. Both are good companies and make games in a genre that most developers have abandoned. But their games are very different.

Paradox. The main advantage of the Paradox games is that they tend to be grand strategy games that give the player a wide range of options. That, of course, means that individual games sometimes veer wildly off the historical path. That's fine with me. I know that going in and accept it as a trade off for the grand strategic flexibility the games allow.

My main complaint against the Paradox games, though, is that they sometimes seem more like work than fun. Much of that comes down to the game mechanics. It's a bit of an anticlimax to invest 50 years of research into a tech, when the sole pay-off is a pop-up that says "You have advanced to Government Tech Level 20. No Effect." or "You have advanced to Production Tech Level 25. Production efficiency increased by 0.02." It sometimes feels more like Accounting Universalis. As a result, I frequently start, but rarely finish, Paradox games. (There are better - more fun - ways to accomplish the same thing. In the Civ series, for example, you usually at least get a building or a wonder or some other tangible fruit for your efforts.)

The one exception is Crusader Kings. It is so unique, with its focus on personalities and dynasties, rather than simple conquest and nations, that it just seems to have a fun factor that the other Paradox games lack.

AGEod. I find the AGEod games more fun. They are tightly focused and offer great cause-and-effect feedback. If I make decision, the result is a tangible game-play outcome as opposed to a number on a spreadsheet.

That's partly due, of course, to the fact that the AGEod games thus far are war games that focus on a discrete period. They don't have quite the open-ended quality of the Paradox games, but he tighter focus means that AGEod games tend to play out a bit more historically and that the impact of player decisions is felt more directly and immediately.

The flip-side, of course, is that the AGEod games don't quite have the same grand strategy feel to them. They are not as open-ended and don't offer quite the same "create your own world" feeling. My hope is that VoN will change that.

The perfect game, in my view, would be a game with the open-ended fun of the Civ series but with a more realistic and historical flavor. The Paradox games strive toward that goal, but I think fall short on the fun factor. I think AGEod may be better positioned to achieve that goal because their games have less of a spreadsheet feel to them. Let's hope.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:25 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:I have not been able to find a post anywhere where anyone told you that you speak "BS", so I must politely ask where does this statement come from?


I probably misunderstood the statement in post #11 in this thread, as I somehow felt the "BS" comment in that was directed at me :wacko:
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

Return to “General discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests