AGEOD, Matrix and Slitherine merged! - A message to the players

[beuckelssen]

Congrats and good luck.

In my opinion ACW2 mains a lot of sense since it would sell a lot. But personally I´m not interested in the conflict, so I´ll wait for the next AGEOD title.


I hope the new AGEOD launches maintain the actual price police. I would never pay the "outrageous" amount of money that Matrix ask for some new games.


Regards

[Blind Sniper]

I hope the new AGEOD launches maintain the actual price police. I would never pay the "outrageous" amount of money that Matrix ask for some new games.

Which games are you talking about?

[DanSez]

It seems like most of their current titles are $40+ with a dvd but then consider that console game new releases are clocking it at $59.95 locally. I don't mind paying for companies that make games I like to survive and produce/support new and current titles.
Still getting near the $40 mark crimps my 'impulse purchase' reflex.

[John S. Mosby]

Regarding AACW2, I can't either wait!!

By the way, I think it would be fantastic if we could buy it in boxed version... Hopefully! (Yes, I'm from the 80's. :neener

Also being from the 80s, I second the box version!
Or at the very least a dvd backup option with a small additional cost of course.

[Kensai]

May I ask something? Given the fewer factions (essentially two) and smaller scope, will you develop it with AGE v2 or v3 engine? I would really like to have a limited but substantial economic aspect in it going on, which means by definition v3 (PON's engine). With fewer factions to manage it could be much easier to nail perfectly and it will definitely help further develop the non-war aspects of the engine, benefiting all future AGEOD titles.

[Ethan]

Also being from the 80s, I second the box version!
Or at the very least a dvd backup option with a small additional cost of course.

¡¡Boxed version!! ompom: ompom: ¡¡Boxed version!! ompom: ompom:

[veji1]

I must say I am pretty happy. Matrix being a grognard game type of company always seemed more adapted thant the increasingly arcade oriented Paradox. Now my hope is that you can do a great AACW2; which I will buy, and NCP2 + Grand Siècle + Wars of Louis XIV etc on a brand new super duper Europe map that you are working on.

Keep up lads !

[FENRIS]

I must say I am pretty happy. Matrix being a grognard game type of company always seemed more adapted thant the increasingly arcade oriented Paradox. Now my hope is that you can do a great AACW2; which I will buy, and NCP2 + Grand Siècle + Wars of Louis XIV etc on a brand new super duper Europe map that you are working on.

Keep up lads !

Whaou ! NCP 2 + Grand Siècle + Wars of Louis XIV ! what a BIG project !

[Pocus]

May I ask something? Given the fewer factions (essentially two) and smaller scope, will you develop it with AGE v2 or v3 engine? I would really like to have a limited but substantial economic aspect in it going on, which means by definition v3 (PON's engine). With fewer factions to manage it could be much easier to nail perfectly and it will definitely help further develop the non-war aspects of the engine, benefiting all future AGEOD titles.

warning, nerdy explanations ahead!

For us V3 vs V2 is more about 'what is the graphical library we will use'. As such, we will use V2, as V3 (as in PON) has some problems that we don't believe are easily fixable. Hopefully, we will be able to update slightly the V2 graphic library though, for AACW2 (just slightly).

Now back to your question, gamelogic wise we have big game concepts that can be declined in variable levels: not existing, simple, advanced (sometime referred as complex). For example WIA or AJE supply system is what we call 'simple supply' whereas AACW and others games often rely on advanced supply.

Diplomacy is either non existing (WIA, you only have 2 possible loyalties, if you are not me, you are my enemy), simple (like in RUS, ROP, WIA, AJE) where you can have an indefinite number of loyalties plus a relationship rating. Relationship value directly correlates with your stance toward the other faction. If you have a relationship of 25 or more, you are ally, if between -24 and +24, you are neutral, and less than -24 is at war. And then you have advanced diplomacy, with treaties, like in PON. AACW2 will use simple diplomacy.

So is economy, we will stay at the simple level. Complex, as in PON, would mean merchandises and trade transactions, and we don't want that. But don't despair, this does not mean we will have the same system as in AACW1. The AACW2 economy will be very close to the AACW1 one, because focus is not on economy, but we will do things slightly differently, with structures to build to get additional war supplies (foundries, steelmills) or ammunitions (arsenals, etc.). In the end, the game will still revolve around the same resources, supply, ammo, WSU, money, but we are dropping the industrialization screen in favour of something with more substance and possibly (we hope) fun.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

[Blind Sniper]

Pocus, about supply system, how it will handle?

[DanSez]

Oh please do something about the random placement of built forces. Suggestion - militia forces pop up all over (in population centers) but regular army units either be designated to cities that produce war supply or actually build Marshalling Center(s) where official units can be ordered to assemble and train.

[FENRIS]

Oh please do something about the random placement of built forces. Suggestion - militia forces pop up all over (in population centers) but regular army units either be designated to cities that produce war supply or actually build Marshalling Center(s) where official units can be ordered to assemble and train.

Yes ! no more brigades appearing in small town and no one in the state capital (ex : in Winchester Virginia and no in Richmond)

[Baris]

How are the loyalties handled apart from 2 factions? I guess no green,peasant revolts as in RUS? Wealthy landowners exploiting slaves,locals with no cost?

[Pocus]

We will switch to the new system devised since ROP for production. It led to long debates but we will try to retain part of the nice look of the AACW1 build interface, while having drag&drop build.

Loyalties will use the system in place since some time now, i.e AACW2 will support more than 2 loyalties, contrary to AACW1. Indians for example will be their own faction in some instance, and a painful reminder of their presence to both CSA and USA.

Supply. We are still not too sure. It will be basically the advanced supply system of AACW1 which was improved over the years, but we are thinking of allowing a switch to something simpler, for new players. We will see how it turns out.

[Blind Sniper]

Supply. We are still not too sure. It will be basically the advanced supply system of AACW1 which was improved over the years, but we are thinking of allowing a switch to something simpler, for new players. We will see how it turns out.

Pocus, maybe just me but please...no!
The logistic is very important for a strategic game, you made a detailed combat system but a simple supply system, why?
I already found that keep the units in supply is not difficult. I really hope you are not thinking something similar to AJE (I don't like at all) but if so I hope you can enable both system

[Ethan]

Pocus, maybe just me but please...no!
The logistic is very important for a strategic game, you made a detailed combat system but a simple supply system, why?
I already found that keep the units in supply is not difficult. I really hope you are not thinking something similar to AJE (I don't like at all) but if so I hope you can enable both system

+1

[Spharv2]

Pocus, maybe just me but please...no!
The logistic is very important for a strategic game, you made a detailed combat system but a simple supply system, why?
I already found that keep the units in supply is not difficult. I really hope you are not thinking something similar to AJE (I don't like at all) but if so I hope you can enable both system

I think you read over this part too fast, "we are thinking of allowing a switch to something simpler, for new players." That would seem to indicate it as an option. I would definitely support that, since supply is probably the biggest part of the learning curve for new players. Get them sucked in by the fun marchy stuff, then let them hit themselves over the head with the supply problems later.

[Baris]

Contradictorily I always find simple supply system much harder than advanced one. It was pretty difficult in WIA to mass army in one place. Plus there was ammunition problems which is difficult to experience in advanced supply.
Railroads and simple supply, how can it work?

[DanSez]

Smple?
Make supply carts that are consumed, not replenished?
That have to be ordered to stock depots and army/corp field groups?

Don't know how far the redesign goes. It would be good to have something in place for the AI and Human opponents to react to when the supply line is threatened and that would be the effect of having to maintain a continual chain of supply carts (potential for lots of micro management - can this be automated/visualized on screen for the player to know and use?)

Sorry, just an excited bystander chirping on the rail here ...

[Blind Sniper]

Spharv2 I really hope you are right!
Anyhow when I was a newbie ACW player I found the most difficult concept to understand how the combat system works, the supply system wasn't so diffcult.
In the winter turns is emough to keep the units sheltered, in the summer turns but very large armies you can move almost everywhere, moreover I think is too easy keep the Union amphibious forces supplied in the enemy territories.
I would say that I would like to see the supply system more difficult instead.

Also it would be possible to build railroads?

[Ebbingford]

Also it would be possible to build railroads?

In AJE you can build roads, railroads shouldn't be any different.

[H Gilmer3]

Which games are you talking about?

I'm sure he means some of the monster games, but they are freaking huge games! WiTE and WiTP are huge monster games.

[H Gilmer3]

Can you make a WW1 game for 2014? America isn't that interesting.

I, too, would like an AGEOD engine type game for WW1. And I'll buy AACW2.

[Blind Sniper]

I'm sure he means some of the monster games, but they are freaking huge games! WiTE and WiTP are huge monster games.

If he is speaking about them, beh...they are worth every penny (maybe WitE a bit less), I played both and they are very detailed and complicated games.

[Baris]

I'm not sure about monster games. Whether they are complicated enough that player have enough tools to influence battle tactically. Or is it complex because there are so many units to move around. HPS series have good OOB, map, better tactical approach and price.



"Can you make a WW1 game for 2014? America isn't that interesting."

I, too, would like an AGEOD engine type game for WW1. And I'll buy AACW2.

Exactly.
There are some new good WW1 games out there but would be happy to see one in Age engine. It is French company after all.

[Pocus]

You'll be able to order the construction of a few extra sections of rail-roads yes, but only through historical options.

For supply, we are thinking of proposing a new system where supply only really matters in tense situations, like travelling in poor areas, being under siege. Basically, you can forget about supply except in these situations. This is again to help new players climb the hill (or is it a mountain) of the playing curve.

As for battle, what can help new players, for you? Remember, this won't change your way of playing as a veteran, these will be done through options.

[DanSez]

Better/clear method of moving and joining units on the move before advancing to another province.

One baffliing combat issue is how retreat paths are chosen. Could it be programmed if in retreat the unit would either - go back to the province advanced from, or if that is now lost, toward the closest formation of friendly forces?

Just adding the increased unit post battle screens from RUS and AJE will help everyone, beginners included.

To address one of the remaining issues from a beginner's point is combating Raiders.
Can you hard command it so that units will not enter territory with more than (lets say 80%) enemy loyalty without a leader?
(turn it on or off as an option?)


Wishing You All ---
Happy Holidays and great success in the New Year.

[richfed]

I will pre-order this the minute it is announced. I beg of you - make the Union AI more efficient at taking the Mississippi - or attempting to - from Memphis to New Orleans. It will make for a drastically more interesting solo game!! I know it is easier said than done.

[vaalen]

Better/clear method of moving and joining units on the move before advancing to another province.

One baffliing combat issue is how retreat paths are chosen. Could it be programmed if in retreat the unit would either - go back to the province advanced from, or if that is now lost, toward the closest formation of friendly forces?

Just adding the increased unit post battle screens from RUS and AJE will help everyone, beginners included.

To address one of the remaining issues from a beginner's point is combating Raiders.
Can you hard command it so that units will not enter territory with more than (lets say 80%) enemy loyalty without a leader?
(turn it on or off as an option?)


Wishing You All ---
Happy Holidays and great success in the New Year.

DanSez, that is a great idea as regards raiders. Trying to deal with the unhistorical, frequent, deep raids is the biggest game killer for newbies, and the option to do as you suggest should be there. And you could keep an option to allow frequent deep raids for those veterans who want them.