Page 1 of 1

War of the Roses

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:58 am
by rwenstrup
I've bought just about all of the games you've got... and love them all. I believe the game format is perfect for a game about the War of the Roses. With the great graphics and strategic play... I hope one day...

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 7:13 pm
by Jagger2013
Both War of the Roses and English Civil War would be great. I would suspect with only minor changes, the same map could be used for both.

And how about France and Italian theater for 100 years war, Italian wars and French wars of religion??

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:56 am
by Person of Interest
Yep we need a good Pike and Shot game.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:56 pm
by stockwellpete
The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:32 pm
by veji1
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:30 pm
by Khanti
stockwellpete wrote:(...)

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Agreed. Medieval times would be great subject. And I think it would be even greater because of contemporary political situation.

It's just a good theme after English Civil War or Succession Wars. Strangely Ageod did ancient and musket warfares and even rifle warfare (WW1), but no medieval period game was realized.

:dada:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 1:19 pm
by PhilThib
We considered Medieval games, but one case which we never settled satisfactorily was that leaders were at the same time fighter, and we could not find something that would allow say - Richard Lionheart - to be at the same time a leader and a combat unit...could be done though, just we never really had the time to consider in depth :pleure: :papy:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 5:14 pm
by ess1
veji1 wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.


Board game Kingmaker springs to mind.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 5:15 pm
by ess1
veji1 wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.


Board game Kingmaker springs to mind.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 7:50 pm
by Khanti
PhilThib wrote:We considered Medieval games, but one case which we never settled satisfactorily was that leaders were at the same time fighter, and we could not find something that would allow say - Richard Lionheart - to be at the same time a leader and a combat unit...could be done though, just we never really had the time to consider in depth :pleure: :papy:


I'm sure technically it would be possible to find good solution. I've mentioned medieval times, as it's very well known period with many places of interest. It could be based on different scenarios and there could be many of them [from different parts of Europe and different time - it's 1000 years after all].

So this game should sell well, if various people could find their point of interest in it.

Example: Thirteen Years' War (1454–66) between the Prussian Confederation, allied with the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland vs. the State of the Teutonic Order.
It was started with standard medieval levée en masse, but ended as a war of attrition. The winner was richer side, which could paid all mercenaries costs.

"The strategy was in the beginning of 15th century not only use of military forces but also to use diplomatic game in order to make Teutonic side weaker economically, so they could not pay the mercenaries they depended on. (...) The Lord General of Greater Poland raised new funds to hire more mercenaries to fight on the Polish side. However, Stibor decided to use those funds to pay mercenaries that defended the main stronghold of Teutonic Knights, Malbork (Marieburg), and in return asked them to leave the stronghold. In this way, the Polish side succeeded to overtake Malbork without force, in 1457."

[That's is how one capture unbeatable fortresses.]

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:44 am
by Khanti
Once again about medieval things.
I just realized Genghis Khan/Temujin would be also consider medieval general :dada:

I played once a Koei' game Genghis Khan http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Genghis_Khan_(series)
"The game takes the player inside the virtual life of either Genghis Khan or one of his archrivals. The player must arrange marriages, father children, appoint family members to governmental positions, and fight in order to conquer the Old World. Armies must be drafted and soldiers must be trained if the player is to rule the lands from England to Japan."

It was very entertaining and satisfying alone - without even the second part of conquering the whole world.

There were two ways to play. In the first [Mongol Conquest, 1175 AD], player assumed control of Lord Temujin and tried to unite Mongol tribes still keeping stable economy. The second was World Conquest [1206 AD], where the goal was to conquer every opposing country: Kamakura Shogunate, Khorezm Empire, Ghore Sultanate, Angevin Kingdom, Capetian Kingdom, Koryo Kingdom.
Even a few independent campaigns/scenarios gives much fun. You can choose from many: Western Xia Dynasty, Jin dynasty, Qara Khitai, Khwarazmian Empire, etc. My spellchecker does not recognize these names though ;)

Lot's of work but also lot's of fun.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:28 am
by PhilThib
I remember the Koei game, it was a lot of fun at the time :papy:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:44 pm
by Leibst
PhilThib wrote:I remember the Koei game, it was a lot of fun at the time :papy:


Yes, I played it with the four factions. :papy:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:23 pm
by czert2
PhilThib wrote:We considered Medieval games, but one case which we never settled satisfactorily was that leaders were at the same time fighter, and we could not find something that would allow say - Richard Lionheart - to be at the same time a leader and a combat unit...could be done though, just we never really had the time to consider in depth :pleure: :papy:


actualy, game from medival period/crusades will be extremly interesing. and when i thinked about unit to be leader and fighter about same time....hmm..how about giving leader some actual combat values, removing is support check, and giving him some combat death chance ?
but since leaders never fought lone in this period and allways did own personal escort (size and quality depending on wealth and nobility rank), make this bodyguards directly included in leader model, or have them separate unit "permaxided" to stand alone leader ?
and thats all ideas i have about this problem, others can come up with thier own.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:38 pm
by czert2
Khanti wrote:Once again about medieval things.
I just realized Genghis Khan/Temujin would be also consider medieval general :dada:

I played once a Koei' game Genghis Khan http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Genghis_Khan_(series)
"The game takes the player inside the virtual life of either Genghis Khan or one of his archrivals. The player must arrange marriages, father children, appoint family members to governmental positions, and fight in order to conquer the Old World. Armies must be drafted and soldiers must be trained if the player is to rule the lands from England to Japan."

It was very entertaining and satisfying alone - without even the second part of conquering the whole world.

There were two ways to play. In the first [Mongol Conquest, 1175 AD], player assumed control of Lord Temujin and tried to unite Mongol tribes still keeping stable economy. The second was World Conquest [1206 AD], where the goal was to conquer every opposing country: Kamakura Shogunate, Khorezm Empire, Ghore Sultanate, Angevin Kingdom, Capetian Kingdom, Koryo Kingdom.
Even a few independent campaigns/scenarios gives much fun. You can choose from many: Western Xia Dynasty, Jin dynasty, Qara Khitai, Khwarazmian Empire, etc. My spellchecker does not recognize these names though ;)

Lot's of work but also lot's of fun.


yes, having this it will be extremly nice to play, but i dont think that ageod engine will be able to sufficiently hande very important diplomacy part (mariages, birth of heirs ..etc)