AGEOD Forums

An excellent Philippe Thibaut & Philippe Malacher (Pocus) interview by Sean Drummy (Wargamer.com).

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/AGEOD/default.asp

One will be related to recent human history, the other shall be more on the SciFi side of the force…

A SCIFI 4X game sounds great.I would be very interested to hear some design ideas on that game.Empire of the fading suns type politics and lore, mixed with SEV ship design would rock.Ground battles have never been convincing in 4X games I'm sure AGEOD could get that right.

Not at all interested in a Sci-Fi or modern game. I prefer to game in the past, as I find it much more interesting.

I'm really looking forward to BOA Gold now after reading that review

Sol Invictus wrote:Not at all interested in a Sci-Fi or modern game. I prefer to game in the past, as I find it much more interesting.

It really depends on setting and game design. 4X in space is currently dominated by GalCiv2, and it would be hard to best that one.

On the other hand, operational/tactical wargames with sci-fi background have become somewhat scarce. It's been a while since classics like Rules of Engagement or the Breach series. A not botched version of what SSI intended with Star General (space combat mixed with ground combat) would also be very welcome.

Modern also depends on the scenario. A modern version of Shadow President/Cyber Judas: YES, PLEASE! (I am still hoping for Geopolitical Simulator to be released in English, but comments on the developers forums are not very encouraging about the quality of the game.) Another WW2 game to add tot he gazillions already available: PLEASE NO!

Galciv2 is really more like CIV in space,it lacks any sort of military depth in ship design and the ground battles are a joke.MOO2 is still the best in my view followed by SpaceEmpires5 and the Sword the stars expansion.

Ashbery76 wrote:Galciv2 is really more like CIV in space,it lacks any sort of military depth in ship design and the ground battles are a joke.MOO2 is still the best in my view followed by SpaceEmpires5 and the Sword the stars expansion.

I think that GalCiv2 does have a lot more depth than MoO2 (outside the war), not least because of its splendid AI - and I prefer SE4 over 5. Ship design is simpler in GalCiv2, granted, but I always considered that a plus, not a minus. I can not comment on Sword of the Stars. MoO2 was too easy once you had figured out that all you needed to win was a telepathic/cybernetic race and research destroyers with boarding shuttles.

Different folks, different strokes, as they say. I am a rather peaceful player in 4X games, so I don't mind if the military part is not fleshed out so much.

Are you not bored all by the kind of 'rat-race' that one has to do, to grab a maximum of stars before the others players? Where is the thrill of moving into last frontier of humanity there?

An example among others of things which are simply seen again and again in current sci-fi game. Explore like crazy, Expand like a cricket swarm, yawn...

Pocus wrote:Are you not bored all by the kind of 'rat-race' that one has to do, to grab a maximum of stars before the others players? Where is the thrill of moving into last frontier of humanity there?

An example among others of things which are simply seen again and again in current sci-fi game. Explore like crazy, Expand like a cricket swarm, yawn...

That's how most of the 4X games work atm - and I agree that it's repetitive. To have races with different environmental requirements (methane vs. oxygen atmosphere, high vs. low gravity) is a bit of a cop out.

Which is why I said I wouldn't mind a decent space wargame for a change (as opposed to 4X) or a different scenario. The older ones among the forumites might remember Millenium 2.1 and its sequel Deuteros on Amiga .....

I remember Millenium, was it not the game where you addicted your generals with some immortality drug (in case you wonder why I'm chatting and not working, this is because I'm currently uploading the game master to the e-boutique ).

A game with great atmosphere was Emperor of the Fading Suns, alas, it was released in late beta status and so had many problems (bugs and very poor AI). The background was great, although the micro-managing was intense. The dual environment (battles in space and in large planets was a great feature too).

Pocus wrote:I remember Millenium, was it not the game where you addicted your generals with some immortality drug

Ah, that was Imperium.
Millenium had you start with a small moon colony - you then built some small ships to mine asteroids, built some basic defenses against Martians and tried to reclaim Earth. Deuteros starts similarly to Millenium, only you have to colonize the solar system while rising up against aliens who developed from humans on another planet. Both games are rather heavy on resource management (you need certain materials for certain items/drives/ships etc.) and try to give themselves a rather realistic feel (e.g. Deuteros has a rather confusing time dilation for interstellar near-lightspeed travel which menas you will play in several time lines once you epxlore beyond the solar system).

A game with great atmosphere was Emperor of the Fading Suns, alas, it was released in late beta status and so had many problems (bugs and very poor AI). The background was great, although the micro-managing was intense. The dual environment (battles in space and in large planets was a great feature too).

I never had a chance to try that one, unfortunately.

(in case you wonder why I'm chatting and not working, this is because I'm currently uploading the game master to the e-boutique ).

Teaser!

I think exploring in Sci-Fi or fantasy is much more interesting than exploring in a historical context. How can you really have exploration be a realistic focus when you already know what is unknown? There's just no way to make that aspect of the game work well. For Sci-Fi, exploration can play the key role the designer intends for it.

Having said that, I am not much into Sci-Fi games. Good wargames should be simulations of well documented time periods and mechanics from the real world. As such the behavior of the game/engine can be compared to historical results and operational analysis to verify validity of the games behavior and strategies. The end result of a good implementation is a system which is comprehensive and has closure. A Sci-Fi game could easily be full of holes, exploits, and lacking strategic depth without a real world complex system to serve as the template for its dynamics.

Thus, I prefer wargames.

MarkShot wrote:I think exploring in Sci-Fi or fantasy is much more interesting than exploring in a historical context. How can you really have exploration be a realistic focus when you already know what is unknown? There's just no way to make that aspect of the game work well. For Sci-Fi, exploration can play the key role the designer intends for it.

Perhaps making exploration the main focus of the game, like Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, or to the Starflight games.

Another thing that really bugs me about 4X games is the "godhood" of the player who has the authority to determine all decisions in the nation/race - no matter if you are a representative democracy with a free market or a socialist dictatorship with planned economy; the difference is often only in the boni your side receives from this. (Which is one of the reasons I look forward to Vainglory of Nations.)

That's why the SimCity games are such fun for me - you set the parameters and infrastructure of your cities and then have to see what comes of them - do you get heavy industry or biotech? Middle class citizens or working poor? Small shops or shopping malls and office towers?

Pocus wrote:A game with great atmosphere was Emperor of the Fading Suns, alas, it was released in late beta status and so had many problems (bugs and very poor AI).

Emperor of the Fading Suns remains one of my "holy grails" of strategy gaming - I've been tinkering with a design for such a game for years (but then again, I tinker with lots of designs, all the time... ). So many things that the game did right - just a pity with all its problems.

Imperium (not of Rome ) is another game with some very nice concepts. Very tight focus... works well.

Pocus wrote:Are you not bored all by the kind of 'rat-race' that one has to do, to grab a maximum of stars before the others players? Where is the thrill of moving into last frontier of humanity there?

An example among others of things which are simply seen again and again in current sci-fi game. Explore like crazy, Expand like a cricket swarm, yawn...

Indeed you are right, this part of 4x games is definitely boring. But after that phase, GalCiv2 is distinctly good, mainly because the AI is definitely GREAT and more than a few times has completely surprised me. One of the few games that I really felt great at being thrashed

But, more to the point, namely the future of AGEOD. I will definitely follow with great interest all your future products (where can I pre-order them ??: ). But, I must say that a strategy game in the future is not my pet. The last 3 to 5 thousand years of western military history (and maybe also Japan, China, India...) are an almost infinite source of good strategy games; and I am not talking only about less explored bits (Turkish invasions of Europe, Frederick the Great, wars in Italy during the renaissance, just to name a few), but why not revisit the greek, roman, medieval periods, through the excelent AGE engine ? (Byzantium...).

Now, if you indulge me, for me the holy grail is a good historical strategy game coupled with a good tactical game. I know that this is almost anathema to some of you guys. One of the objections is the time scope that a great campaign in such a game would require. But it can be done !. The Total War series, although with flaws, can be tremendously fun, and for me the reason is precisely this mix of strategy and tactic. Imagine this done right. And it could be done for instance in short scenarios, as the ones that we will get in NCP. Other objection is the simplistic tactical battles. But they can also be done right - just check Take Command 2nd Manassas. And of course the battles could allways be resolved "automatically".
One of the real problems, in my view, is that it would be difficult to translate all the calculations that go, say, in the resolution of a battle in AACW to a tactical level AI, and the designers of good strategy level games are not necessarily good at designing on the tactical level... (shameless way to try to tease Pocus )

Now I will return to my little hole in the ground.

PHT: I can’t tell you right now, because we are not (yet) in such a configuration. We would love to get a budget for at least two grandiose projects the concept of which we have been already working on. One will be related to recent human history, the other shall be more on the SciFi side of the force…

Hope, it's WW2.

And before all pre-20th-century-fans scream out loud:

1. According to many polls WW2 still is the most popular setting.
2. How many deep, global, turn-based WW2 strategy PC-games do exist? None! How many are in pipeline? Only World in Flames!

Regards

Problem with global WW2, anything deeper than GWAW and you will have AI problems.

I am really glad to hear that you like EFS Pocus. I agree 100% with what you wrote. Have you ever contacted them and asked if you could license a sequel? Imagine EFS with good AI and some modding capabilities? It would say goodbye to all other Sci Fi strat games. The Merchant Prince games also has alot more potential. Holistic Games had stellar game designs, they just sucked at implementing them (Noble Armada was another one).

Galciv2 is a spreadsheet gamers dream come true. It's great if you are into spreadsheets but for someone like me who loves Space Opera, it doesn't do anything. However, I have some hopes for Sins of the Solar Empires, a game published by Stardock.

MOO1(not 2) is still the undisputed king of 4x space strat. Maybe the promised Stars Supernova could have competed?

Other than this I am looking most forward to Vainglory of Nations. I am even more hopeful after having played Victoria yesterday. The EU computer engine just doesnt emulate "Pax Britannica" well. Even when I beta tested EU1/2, I felt that the games would have been even better as turn based (ie like the superb boardgame). Unfortunately I was in the minority. The deep diplomatic aspects were totally lost in the realtime clickfest.

Anyway, enough rambling. Bring on those Vainglory pictures please .

Marcus