The Demo

[Generalisimo]

I really didn't mean to belittle your work or the challenges you face. From my (admittedly limited) knowledge about modding AGE games, it appeared to me that implementing the change I proposed should be possible with an acceptable amount of work. But I may be wrong.

I know... but usually, we tend to underestimate what we do not understand (I said WE, not you )... really, if this change could be done in 15-20 minutes... do you think we will not implement it?
Really, we agree on one thing... it IS needed... so, let's hope we can implement it soon...

You misunderstood me here. I am not talking about the projected output of a new factory (although that would be interesting, too). I am talking about the amount of ressources the new factory will need to stay operational (i.e. to avoid being shut down).

If I want to know how many ressources the factory will produce, I can simply place it and cancel the building process immediately if its output is too low for my taste.

No, I understood what you meant... I was just exposing an example of something that ALSO sounds "quite simple", but it isn't.
Why you cannot know in advance what a coal mine produces in the building screen?...

What you say, is more or less the same problem... the input cost depends on many factors that are inside the faction definition... to know the exact input cost we will have, we need to check them all and inform the player properly in advance.
Do a simple example, remove FOW and check the coal mines on GBR... then check the ones on RUS ...

In an ideal world... we would have all these three things implemented already... in the real world... we didn't had time yet ... priorities... too much priorities!

[OneArmedMexican]

No, I understood what you meant... I was just exposing an example of something that ALSO sounds "quite simple", but it isn't.
Why you cannot know in advance what a coal mine produces in the building screen?...

What you say, is more or less the same problem... the input cost depends on many factors that are inside the faction definition... to know the exact input cost we will have, we need to check them all and inform the player properly in advance.
Do a simple example, remove FOW and check the coal mines on GBR... then check the ones on RUS ...

Sorry, I was under the assumption that the raw materials a factory consumes are fixed and that only the output varies. Please don't take offense to my next sentence but that sounds like overkill. Why introduce more variables when you are already simulating technological, infrastructural and socio-economic differences by the productivity rate? Are you really saying that a British factory would need less coal, iron and wood to produce a unit of steel than a Japanese one?

And thanks for taking the time to answer. I know you get a lot of comments asking for changes. I don't expect them to happen now. Patching takes it's time.

[NefariousKoel]

Yeah, PON is my new girlfriend, best buddy, and my only duty.

I'm gonna start calling it "PrON" instead.

Kinda catchy, no?

[John Sedgwick]

I'm gonna start calling it "PrON" instead.

Heh, I was wondering when this would come up...
Catchy indeed

[Hohenlohe]

I'm gonna start calling it "PrON" instead.

Kinda catchy, no?

"PrON"...or "prone"...*mmmhh* really catchy...

Mike aka Hohenlohe

[Generalisimo]

Sorry, I was under the assumption that the raw materials a factory consumes are fixed and that only the output varies. Please don't take offense to my next sentence but that sounds like overkill. Why introduce more variables when you are already simulating technological, infrastructural and socio-economic differences by the productivity rate? Are you really saying that a British factory would need less coal, iron and wood to produce a unit of steel than a Japanese one?

Nope... all the structures have a "base value" defined on the Structures DB (check your GameData\Structures directory ).
But, a LOT of factors affect the final output (and input) of each structure.... a simple example, is to do what I told you before, compare the structures on different countries.

And thanks for taking the time to answer. I know you get a lot of comments asking for changes. I don't expect them to happen now. Patching takes it's time.

No problema.

[cato12]

why not have this info in a tooltip? then we wouldnt need to explore the contents of a game folder to find this out.

seems very counter intuitive.

[Generalisimo]

why not have this info in a tooltip? then we wouldnt need to explore the contents of a game folder to find this out.

seems very counter intuitive.

I am not really sure about what you are talking about...

You mean the base value of input/output for structures?... showing that in the tooltip will be counter intuitive
Really, the base value is useless for the player, because that value changes a lot from faction to faction and also region to region... again, check RUS starting coal mines (without railroads and all that) and compare them with GBR coal mines...

[Pocus]

Something can be done though, perhaps by using values which are 'best case scenario', but for your nation.

[cato12]

Nope... all the structures have a "base value" defined on the Structures DB (check your GameData\Structures directory ).
But, a LOT of factors affect the final output (and input) of each structure.... a simple example, is to do what I told you before, compare the structures on different countries.


No problema.

im confused by your answer to onearmedmexican so join the confused club.

he was asking if factories has different input requirements for different countries and you answered no and yes in the same answer, at least thats how it reads to me.

what i meant with my post was, why not have the actual input/output info in the tooltip after all factors have been taken into consideration or is that already the case?

im not to keen on having to dig through files out with the game to find info that really should be easily viewable in game.

[McNaughton]

Basically, it comes down to this...

So, the quick answer is quite simple... it is in the TODO list, but we didn't have time to implement it yet.
On contrary to what you think, it IS NOT simple.... if it was simple it would have been already done.

People may not like to see it, but the reality is, there is not time to implement everything (i.e., a tooltip that modifies the cost, output, input, etc., depending on the structure's nationality or location). There simply was not time to do this, and the countless other things that were higher upon priority.

The reality ends up being that the player will realize, that given his/her particular nation, the efficiency of their factory will be at a certain value (Russia at X, and Great Britain at X + Z), just because who you are, and the quality of that nation's level of efficiency. Next, if you put your factory in a highly populated, connected by rail road, flat terrain with easy access to other resources, then it will end up being better production than putting one off in an isolated corner with the bare minumum of requirements for operation.

I can understand as to the desire to have ledgers and exact expectations of if I invest $X I should be guaranteed production Y. However, should you have access to such accurate results?

I recall how Hearts of Iron 2 was heavily analyzed by some individuals who rated Infantry with attached artillery (or some other unit with some other attachment, cannot remember) as the only force they would ever build. This decision was based purely upon economic-force returns, looking totally purely at numbers and costs, which told them that only one unit was ever good to use.

There were tons of these discussions, about technologies, aircraft, ships, etc., and to me, just totally sucked the life out of the game. Everything was quantified to maximizing profit, to get ahead by squeezing everything you can out of every penny to get the best what you could buy.

Having things as somewhat of a mystery, by using your thinking and knowledge of terrain, your nation, the infrastructure, and the demographics, rather than having a tooltip to do the thinking for you (kind of like those who drive purely by GPS).

So, you do not really have to dig too much around to figure out which are your best options (not as much as you might think you have to ).

[Franciscus]

Basically, it comes down to this...
(...)
Having things as somewhat of a mystery, by using your thinking and knowledge of terrain, your nation, the infrastructure, and the demographics, rather than having a tooltip to do the thinking for you (kind of like those who drive purely by GPS).

So, you do not really have to dig too much around to figure out which are your best options (not as much as you might think you have to ).

I fully agree to your "approach" to gaming. But even in Ageod games there are some players that do go into "deep analysis mode" - I do not forget the (pointless to me) discussions on how to create a "perfect" division in AACW, for instance. But to each it's own.

I like the feeling I always had with AACW that I did not had to control and "understand" everything, that if I used common sense and a bit of historic knowledge, things would for the most part work nice.

But let me tell you, I am beginning to have an uneasy feeling with PoN. It's too early to be sure, but maybe PoN demands from the player to really "control" and "understand" everything ? .
I mean, I am realizing that I will play not only the part of the ruler+prime-minister of a nation (giving general orientations and major political decisions), nor even the part of the ministers of economics/finance, war, foreign affairs and colonization, but maybe I will have to play the part of the very "staff" of those ministeries. Do I really want to have to decide where and when to build each and every factory or tea plantation of my far-flung empire ?

Maybe an "advisor" system, or even the possibility of delegating some part of the game (for example, economics/industry) to the AI would have been a good thing, in terms of gameplay...
The way the game is looking to me now, I might end getting more fun from limited scenarios than from the GC.

(Nevertheless, I have already pre-ordered PoN ! :coeurs

Regards

[Queeg]

It's too early to be sure, but maybe PoN demands from the player to really "control" and "understand" everything ? .
I mean, I am realizing that I will play not only the part of the ruler+prime-minister of a nation (giving general orientations and major political decisions), nor even the part of the ministers of economics/finance, war, foreign affairs and colonization, but maybe I will have to play the part of the very "staff" of those ministeries. Do I really want to have to decide where and when to build each and every factory or tea plantation of my far-flung empire ?

Maybe an "advisor" system, or even the possibility of delegating some part of the game (for example, economics/industry) to the AI would have been a good thing, in terms of gameplay...

Be careful what you ask for. People complained that Victoria was too complex, so they made Victoria 2 so that many of the major decisions are automated. Victoria now is a game you watch as much as play.

[Franciscus]

Be careful what you ask for. People complained that Victoria was too complex, so they made Victoria 2 so that many of the major decisions are automated. Victoria now is a game you watch as much as play.

I never played Victoria 1 or 2. But I am not talking about major decisions...(those are definitely what I want to have to take )

[Fusilier]

Hi. I have been playing as GB and had noticed the large infantry regiment size (3200) as opposed to the cavalry regiment size. In the case of the british the names seem to be combined regiments. Can anyone explain the reason? Is it a method to reduce the number of infantry regiments for the construction of corps whilst remaining within the 18 element limit?

[McNaughton]

Hi. I have been playing as GB and had noticed the large infantry regiment size (3200) as opposed to the cavalry regiment size. In the case of the british the names seem to be combined regiments. Can anyone explain the reason? Is it a method to reduce the number of infantry regiments for the construction of corps whilst remaining within the 18 element limit?

The reason is, the infantry regiment for all nations is the 3200 man force, while for cavalry it is the 750 element. For Great Britain, however, they used regimental battalions (i.e., regiments were just for organization, all troops deployed as battalions). The system would not work if there was a variety of infantry units, as the frontage system would result in the unit with the most hits the victor (given all things equal). It works out okay with cavalry being smaller, due to their ability to 'escape' when things are tough, easier than infantry.

[caranorn]

The reason is, the infantry regiment for all nations is the 3200 man force, while for cavalry it is the 750 element. For Great Britain, however, they used regimental battalions (i.e., regiments were just for organization, all troops deployed as battalions). The system would not work if there was a variety of infantry units, as the frontage system would result in the unit with the most hits the victor (given all things equal). It works out okay with cavalry being smaller, due to their ability to 'escape' when things are tough, easier than infantry.

Essentially the PoN British Regiments are British Brigades (not Brigade Groups). The same issue certainly exists for US Regiments. US Regular Regiments for most of the 19th century at least were just 10 company units, so barely more than a thousand men if at full strength. During the ACW 3 battalion regiments were introduced, but they really operated a separate battalions and not a single one achieved anything near full strength, also the 3 battalion regiments were disbanded after that conflict, it's only later that the large US Regiments appeared (not sure when, but they were there by WWI.

I haven't yet come to a conclusion whether PoN represents military formations of the era realistically and whether some inbalances haven't been created. It will take some time with the actual game to see that and possibly suggest modifications at that time...

P.S.: As should already have become clear, one of my pet peeves is Orders of Battle (OB/OOB) and Tables of Organisation and Equipment (TOE). Note that for the PoN era I have little data except the ACW and WWI...

[Fusilier]

Thanks for the responses. Concerning what you have said MCnaughton, does that mean that if I were to modify the British units to have 4 elements of 800men, this would cause battles to become unbalanced?

[caranorn]

Thanks for the responses. Concerning what you have said MCnaughton, does that mean that if I were to modify the British units to have 4 elements of 800men, this would cause battles to become unbalanced?

Considering just historic concerns I'd say doing so makes no sense. Very few english style battalions ever operated separately. That is they almost always formed part of a 3-4 battalion brigade which is a very similar formation to the german style regiment. So I see no good historic argument for smaller british elements. Though I'd rename at start british units' elements (from the combined regimental battalion names seen now to throughnumbered brigades (a few named ones))...

One note from looking at game files. The British Army in WWI achieved division numbers into the 70's (RA (1-8 and 27-29), NA (9-26 and 30-41) and TA (42-75)). The game files on the other hand so far only seem to go to the 30's. But again, this is one aspect that will require looking into the actual game and a lot of playing PoN. So I won't make suggestions as to what could use modifications...

[Fusilier]

I can see what you mean, but you wouldn't be able to separate them out anyway. Most of the units already represent brigades, it was more for flavour than anything else - to be able to see what battalions the brigade contained (it seems to me that a regiment/battalion in the British army has a lot more character than a brigade).
However, as you say, probably worth waiting for the actual game to see would could be done and whether it is worthwhile.

[McNaughton]

Thanks for the responses. Concerning what you have said MCnaughton, does that mean that if I were to modify the British units to have 4 elements of 800men, this would cause battles to become unbalanced?

Long story short, yes, the British would be at a heavy disadvantage if they were given smaller regiments than the rest of the world.

[Gen.Montcalm]

I've played through all tutorials scenarios and was amazed by the game. This is like every other AGEOD games I love but with incredible economic, recruitement and province developement systems. When I saw that it was only 19,99$ on gamersgate it was such a shock and such joy that I pre-ordered it without even thinking.

Many thanks for the AGEOD team for making such awesome games.

I sense countless sleepless nights ahead of me.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[OneArmedMexican]

removed all my posts deliberately...

Since I had nothing to do with its development there's no need for me to contribute to PON positively or negatively or try to help anyone with confirmation of issues they might rightly or wrongly run into. I even removed the PON Demo from my computer. It's just not worth my time to continue to be crapped on.

You left out one of your post. You can be (justified or not) annoyed with me. But deleting posts supposed to help improve PoN? That is hurting the wrong people!

As for the rest, enable your PM for a day and I will explain to you why I reacted the way I did in private. No need to further derail this thread.

Also I would propose you continue the clean up you started and delete this post as well as your last and the one I quote here. They all don't help improve PoN which I asume is something we both want.