AGEOD Forums

This thread is to collect the Wish List items that our community would like to see in a Napoleon's Campaigns II game.... apart from the obvious Grand Campaign 1805-1815 which would be the center of it

It does not mean the decision is taken or the project has even started. On the contrary, by checking the needs and the requests, we can be in a better position to assess feasibility, lead production time and target release... if any

Open fire !!

I would like to see some random but historically reasonable events that affect economic production or political disturbances. Nothing major that would hugely affect outcomes but something that throws a wrinkle into the Player's planning at times. Since RoP plans to have these I imagine this will not be a problem.

Also, of course, a more detailed and Player controlled tactical battle resolution. I am not asking for a full tactical engine at all, just that AGEOD continues with the path of giving the Player a bit more input into the actual battles. Something like at the start of a battle being able to choose from a list the overall grand tactical plan that you want to pursue; such as a fix front and outflank the left or bombard center and assault to split the enemy Line. Depending on your opponents selection, there would be a combat modifier that would benefit one side. It would add a little suspense and a guessing game before battle.

My personal wish is to finally see the early French revolutionary wars from 1792 until 1802. Maybe this would be more an idea for an expansion pack
NPC had nice scenarios, but some like The Peninsular War and Waterloo could use a rework or an improvement or three too. Feedback from original NPC players should give you enough ideas where or what needs to be improved
Napoleon in Egypt would be quite nice to play too.

To sum it up... my wish is to first concentrate on the grand campaign and polish it the best you can and THEN focus on the new/improved scenarios.

Carnium wrote:My personal wish is to finally see the early French revolutionary wars from 1792 until 1802. Maybe this would be more an idea for an expansion pack

GC first indeed...for the 1792-1800 period, it would be "Bonaparte's Campaigns" expansion pack indeed

Scenarios, scenarios, and more scenarios.

Wars of the First and Second Coalition, sure. Egyptian Campaign, check. Others...

Even what-if scenarios.

Expansion pack? I hope by that you don't mean a post-release additional purchase.

berto wrote:Scenarios, scenarios, and more scenarios.

Wars of the First and Second Coalition, sure. Egyptian Campaign, check. Others...

Even what-if scenarios.

Expansion pack? I hope by that you don't mean a post-release additional purchase.

I am sorry, but I fully disagree.
I do not need lots of scenarios. I have NCP for that. What we need are one or two full campaigns, in which the hard but essential part will be a full working multi-national and diplomatic AI.
And why not make expansion packs ?? "Everybody" does them, I buy them, why would I not buy expansions from AGEOD?? We have been spoiled by the permanent improvements made during 2 years to AACW, but this model can not be wise, financially, to AGEOD.
And yes, I would like some tactical layer in the battles, and juicy battle reports, and I am waiting for the announced improvements in these areas in VGN.

Franciscus wrote:I am sorry, but I fully disagree.

Why can't we have both?

I do not need lots of scenarios. I have NCP for that.

Some people who have looked closely at and worked on NCP's scenarios are of the opinion that they are deficient and need reworking in many ways.

The makeover that AACW has undergone in the last two years? It would be great to see that happening to NCP, too (NCP2).

What we need are one or two full campaigns, in which the hard but essential part will be a full working multi-national and diplomatic AI.

Grand campaigns and scenarios. As in the polished, second-generation BOA2:WIA. The best of both worlds?

Why not?

Of course, we can also ask for the moon...
But it is obvious that whatever the reason, AGEOD can not deliver it all. The deficient scenarios of NCP is an NCP problem that should have been corrected and the fact that it was/is not is just a reflex of AGEOD incapability of delivering it all. Let them concentrate on full campaigns and hope they deliver it. Then, aditional scenarios in expansions pack would be fine to me

Since there won´t be a tactical engine, a rock-paper-scissor pre battle mini game could be fun (i.e.: choose the general disposition and tactics of the army at the start of the battle based on what´s known about the enemy formation, terrain, weather, possible reinforcements, supply, etc.).

But I would limit it to represent the fact the commanders usually acted independently. Outside certain command and control limits no such option should be available to the human player...If you gave a corps to someone that decision should have consequences and no babysitting should be possible if detached.

Also, I would like to see not only military characters but also political ones, or maybe just a pool of characters with varied skills, an ancient game of this period by KOEI had this, some ppl were good administrators and some were good military leaders...

Finally, let me re draw the political boundaries according to military and political reality, create new countries, appoint kings, etc.

PhilThib wrote:This thread is to collect the Wish List items that our community would like to see in a Napoleon's Campaigns II game.... apart from the obvious Grand Campaign 1805-1815 which would be the center of it

It does not mean the decision is taken or the project has even started. On the contrary, by checking the needs and the requests, we can be in a better position to assess feasibility, lead production time and target release... if any

Open fire !!

May I ask instead of answer?


I mean, how you and your team think that this game should be?

A completely different game, new map, new units, NCP 1 scenarios not compatible,...

Or something like what was done with WIA and BOA, not a lot of experience with these games but I think they were very similar.


The two key features requested were always the production system and the full campaign. I would like that the regiment was the base unit. But will it be strictly a wargame or will you add other factors like economy to the production system? Diplomacy was considered essential to do NCP2. I suppose that we will have to see VGN working to understand how could be NCP 2. The battle report right now is nice and clean, but everybody wants something more detailed, but again this has been commented before for future games like VGN.


Regarding the full campaign, a 10 years campaign (1805-1815) is quite long, so I suppose that the turns will last 15 or 30 days. A revolutionary wars campaign perhaps could be difficult to fit in a global (european) map because they were centered in Italy and the french borders, except Egypt of course. The italian campaigns and the Egypt campaign probably would need specific maps?


Well this seems very complex to me. Fortunately my job is easier



NCP was (is) a great game IMHO, the pity is that the improvement was stopped too soon

If you apply the same eocnomic machine of AACW the game will be almost perfect

Nikel wrote:Regarding the full campaign, a 10 years campaign (1805-1815) is quite long, so I suppose that the turns will last 15 or 30 days.
(

I think we have the paradox here (no attack Nikel, just disgressing), having a full length campaign of 10 years playable without too much unhistorical behaviors (keeping the AI in the right direction is a/the real challenge) and at the same time keep the very accurate details we already have with NCP1.
I don't think that having long game turns is good with current Ageod's system because we'll waste many finely tuned tactical options if the player (or the AI) lose the hand during more than 15 days, so having weekly turns is a maximum (altough the current system is probably better with even shorter turns) if we want to take profit of all features but at the contrary, a grand campaign will last so long.

The challenge is to answer to the requests we have read : grand campaign and at the same time a deep tactical system, not mentioning an economical one and the whole stuff being playable.
Some drastic choices will have to be made.

Adlertag wrote:I think we have the paradox here (no attack Nikel, just disgressing), having a full length campaign of 10 years playable without too much unhistorical behaviors (keeping the AI in the right direction is a/the real challenge [my emphasis]) and at the same time keep the very accurate details we already have with NCP1.
I don't think that having long game turns is good with current Ageod's system because we'll waste many finely tuned tactical options if the player (or the AI) lose the hand during more than 15 days, so having weekly turns is a maximum (altough the current system is probably better with even shorter turns) if we want to take profit of all features but at the contrary, a grand campaign will last so long.

++1

10 years only? More like 15 years or more? Up to 20 years separated the Wars of the First and Second Coalition (when Napoleon first appeared on the scene) from Waterloo. (And will some players plead for the option to extend the game beyond an arbitrary 1815 cut-off point?)

with such a scale, 10+ years, we have to think in the scale, and 1 week turns are nor appropiate. Think in the great boardgame Empires in arms, where turns are 1 month long.... we have to think in a "strategic" level, not operational. Turns should be of 2 weeks or more, even in NC 1 week turns were not very good, as in 1 week armies of the era could march too many areas.

What would be the suggested scale in your opinon then ?

First of all I´m only talking in my opinion: One month maybe too much, as in EiA the game seems to focus only in creating superstacks and advancing to clash the enemy superstack. Using the same area scale of NC i think 15 days as AACW will be good enough trying to give the game a more "strategic" point of view but without losing the "corp scale".

Also i´m thinking in the lenght of the game, with a 1 week scale you will have 4x12x10= 480 turns!!! of my god . It´s pretty obvious that the time scale should be changed. Even with a 15 days scale, the number of turns seems to be enormous, 240... in comparison to the 110 AACW turns.

It´s a very difficult task, i know... but i only have one thing very clear, in a game that longs for at least 10 years, the game should be "strategic" and centered in diplomacy and economics.

Everything the community might suggest will only bring extra work for the devs, so I won't spare my tongue (fingers) in adding my suggestion.

There are two options that I see from the time I have played NPC. The first one, which is in my opinion an easier option to include, is to divide Grand Campaigns into several distinct time zones, each one according to a Coalition against France. Now, they can be separate, so you start with historical borders, development, armies, or there might be a chance for the game to remember what you did previously and "linearly" interpret what developments might have been made in all states if there was no war. Now this I believe is something difficult to manage, so I guess only the separation of campaigns might be optional.

The other option is a different time scale system "in-game". During a declared war, turns are a week long, as they are in the original NPC game. While there is no war, the turns might be two weeks long, a month, or even more, with the time for construction and development reduced accordingly. How this might be done, I have no idea, so I'm just throwing it out there to the "dogs", in a manner of speaking.

We should also be aware that ROP is coming in the near future and we shall see what the AGEOD team will do with a Grand Campaign of 7 years. So, let us give them a big round of applause and let them do their magnificent work.

I thought the same as you in having 2 time scales like in Grand Siecle (boardgame), but the problem with this era is that there were wars every minute.

Phil, one question, will the game be designed for several players?

Adlertag wrote:I don't think that having long game turns is good with current Ageod's system because we'll waste many finely tuned tactical options if the player (or the AI) lose the hand during more than 15 days, so having weekly turns is a maximum (altough the current system is probably better with even shorter turns) if we want to take profit of all features but at the contrary, a grand campaign will last so long

Yes, I like a lot the "turn lasting a week" feature, but is not practical for a 10 years campaign. Anyway sure there would be some people happy with a more than 500 turns campaign But perhaps it is possible what Respenus suggested, let's see

Beren wrote:
Also i´m thinking in the lenght of the game, with a 1 week scale you will have 4x12x10= 480 turns!!! of my god . It´s pretty obvious that the time scale should be changed. Even with a 15 days scale, the number of turns seems to be enormous, 240... in comparison to the 110 AACW turns.

It´s a very difficult task, i know... but i only have one thing very clear, in a game that longs for at least 10 years, the game should be "strategic" and centered in diplomacy and economics.

Even more, as there are 52 weeks in a year, so 520 turns for 10 years.



But centered in diplomacy and economy? No, please, a wargame. The period is called the napoleonic wars, not the napoleonic diplomacy nor economy. They are just way to build an army and an excuse to conquer

Beren wrote:Phil, one question, will the game be designed for several players?

Managing two time scales in the same 'game' is not so easy... in addition, we would like the game to be multiplayer, which is adding trouble to this (e.g. imagine Austria is at peace but Russia played by same player is at war...or a player is at peace while all other fight....hell :bonk

Although MP will be there, IMHO the best option is 1 vs 1 (French Empire vs Current Coalition... led by the Brits)

I think the 15 day turn is the best of both worlds. While 260 turns is a long game. Total victory does not have to take 260 turns does it? But if it did? Wow, what a gaming experience that would be. I also think two campaigns, early and late would be the most efficient. If you could carry the ending situation of the first into the second? That would be incredible. But I know it would also be extremely difficult.

On another note. Id like to see some detail spent on the British blockade, and sea battles in general. Unit creation like AACW. A fluid diplomatic model to recreate the making and breaking of treaties. Accurate bonuses for elite units, and the importance of artillery modeled.

Nial

Nikel wrote:But centered in diplomacy and economy? No, please, a wargame.

++1

Hi!
To me it seems there could be two very different ways to do a NCP2

1 - Like a wargame: Using the current NCP game as a base and keeping a pure wargame approach. I would ask for…
- smaller map regions. Maybe x2 more than in the current NCP map for real operational feeling, scattering of corps, room to manoeuvre, better representation of the importance of road network…
- A somewhat shorter turn length (5 days/turn or even less).
- Two sides (Napoleon vs allies)
- A detailed/historical OOB, as in NCP, but tweaked so it worked better (more regular element sizes, realistic division caps…)
- Add some AACW/VGN features like unit production, economic/political decisions (but in a AACW style, tailored to their effect on the war effort).
- Limited diplomacy, to keep things historical. More like a sophisticated "Foreign Entry" system so you can attract powers and minors to your side, release vassals… Not a real “free” diplomacy system like in Paradox games so we don't end with France, England and Turkey allied and conquering Russia while Prussia and Austria fight each other.

With this setup, we would have problems with the full campaign, that seems to be number 1 on everybodys wish list. A 10 or 15 years long campaign will have nearly unmanageable turn number, boring “no war” periods, and would be difficult to keep historical.
A good alternative would be to do partial campaigns (like Revolutionary wars, war or the 1º coalition, second coalition, third coalition etc). Maybe 1 to 3 years long so they were longer than current NCP scenarios and you didn’t start with all the armies formed and deployed and could take strategically interesting decisions (where to mass the troops, who attack first, how to organize and build your army, which country attract to your coalition…)

2- Like a grand strategy game: Use the future VGN game as a base and port its system to the Napoleonic era, forgetting about NCP1 (a war game) and doing a grand strategy global game.
- Bigger regions, whole world playable.
- Longer turns (maybe 1 month)
- Several playable sides ( maybe 8 or 10 big powers like in VGN).
- A full camping game, form maybe 1798 to 1820 or so or even add the possibility to play the revolutionary period or why not, the second half of XVIII century.
- Full fledged diplomatic system, with historical base, but more flexibility (like a paradox game, but better)
- Fully fledged economic/political/social system, with goods production and commerce, colonialism…
- More generic military system, where you can build your armies/fleets nearly from scratch, adding technologies and doctrines development.

This second options losses part of the historical realism and flavour details of NCP and would probably have a much less historical game flow. Forget about recreating Austerlitz, the Russia Invasion and the peninsular war, as things probably will happen differently.
How good/interesting this type of game can be depends much of how good the future VGN system proves to be.
But for me Revolutionary/Napoleonic era is much more interesting than Victorian era so… why should it not work??

Both ways of doing NCP2 can be great, but I will go for one approach or the other.
Trying to stay in the middle and be everything for everybody can be impossible and probably would end with a game that won’t satisfy neither wargamers or grand strategy gamers.

Personally, I would be happy with both kind of game, as i love the Napoleonic era, but I’m more a wargamer than a grand strategy game, so option 1 would be my favourite.

Cheers!

Unfortnately, unless we find a HUGE budget, neither way is possible because it entails a lot of extra costs and lots of time..

NCP2 will really be a "2"... not a totally new game. Therefore the map will stay the same in particular, and all what was in NCP1 will stay. We shall just fix what is wrong, add a grand campaign and quite a large number of new 'strategic' features... this in itself is already a titan task

Of course your analysis is sound and in an ideal world it should be like this...but it won't be feasible.. unless you can give us 200,000 euros

Ouch!
Sorry, but i only have 190.000 euros to spare right now... would that do??

So, it seems the future NCP2 would be basically be an option 1 (wargame) type of game isn't??

When you say the map won't change... do you mean the graphics (which are great IMHO) or it's also a re-cutting of the areas (to add a bunch of new ones :coeurs out of the question?
I have always thought NCP woudl benefit a lot of some more room to manoeuvre.
I understand a 2x number of regions is out of the question but even a x1.2 or 1.3 region number increase especially on the most fought for areas (Central Europe, North Italy, Iberian Peninsula...) could be an improvement.

Cheers!

Send me the cash

Regarding the map, I agree we won't change the map graphics.

The worst part in the game dev process is map design and cutting. It took me over 200 hours. So adding 50% more regions is a nightmare, for many reasons:

* takes an awful lot of time
* not justified IMHO on a scale of 15 days per turn
* implies zillions of changes (all areas files, scenarios, etc...) ... and same amount of errors
* same map with more regions implies smaller regions: in some cases (a lot), sprites won't fit, so we have an ergonomy problem here
* last but not least, regions borders are hard-drawn in the map graphics, so changing regions en masse means re-doing the map graphics...

Ouch is not enough here

So my humble guess is that region changes / addition will be extremely limited to only the 10-15 key issues... the 'good' news is that we can more easily rename regions and/or move city sprites inside the map (I know there are a lot of remarks concerning Poland for example)

PhilThib wrote:NCP2 will really be a "2"... not a totally new game... and all what was in NCP1 will stay. We shall just fix what is wrong, add a grand campaign and quite a large number of new 'strategic' features...

Sounds good to me!

Ok, i see... didn't though about the region borders graphics and the like

By the way 15 days turns... is that planned for NCP2??
On NCP1 its 7 day turns. I woudl keep them even if it means a loooong grand campaign.
If not, forces will zoom around the map don't you think?? They move pretty fast already with 7 days turns.
In addition to the Grand Campaign (which promise to be hell to accomplish but probably its needed for marketing purposes) i woudl strongly suggest to do some intermediate campaigns (1 or 2 years "Coalition" campaigns).
Current NCP scenarios are too short (in most you start with all your forces ready for the kill) and you lost al the army production/organization and deploying part of the fun.

Regards

Yep, good points