Please be more precise on what you liked so much in Imperialism.
Sol Invictus wrote:Well, I usually want it all, in all things. So my preference would be both single campaigns covering specific times/wars at bi-weekly turns and a Grand Campaign using monthly turns.
Diplomacy is so very hard to simulate in a game. For whatever reason, some games persist on forcing the player to 'bargain' with an AI, which is the most not fun module I can think of in a game (aside from cleaning pollution in Civ II ). Then there is this whole linear modifier based on your relationship, ala Hearts of Iron/EU (i.g. +200 points for giving technology).
I would rather diplomacy be handled according to a 'mission'-based system. Let's say I want a commercial treaty with China for the exclusive rights to trade in Kwantung. Rather than bring up an interface screen with dials, slides, etc. where I can pointlessly negotiate with an AI, why not say:
Negotiate / China / Sole Commercial Rights / Kwangtung / Diplomat Charles Gordon
Max 30k / Lump sum or annual debit / Stance Friendly / Secondary Stance Aggressive / Escort Small Naval + No land detachment / Letter from Queen + gifts 2k / Mission length 2 years
Every single one of the choices you select in assigning this diplomatic mission would modify the mission results. For example, your diplomat returns 6 months later with a hard proposal from the Chinese: Accept if 60k over 5 years for Sole Commercial Rights. Here you can be presented with a real strategic choice if you are aware that the French are negotiating similiar rights in the same province. You could accept, and really put yourself in and hope you make the return, you could reject and leave the province to the French, or you could modify the mission and send back a counteroffer that includes: aggressive / threat of military intervention / escort: large naval + batallion detachment.
Either case, diplomatic missions would carry the weight of immediate consequences, the dilemma resulting from timing, personality and character. For example if this mission goes bad, you have a fleet immediately on hand to occupy the province and enforce your demands. In the meantime, events elsewhere in the world could be affected or influenced by these commitments. Real diplomacy is not just bringing up a scroll dialogue, cancelling an alliance and risking a -100 modifier with everyone else, and attacking a neighboring country without very serious consequences to your interests elsewhere and everywhere. Bond prices drop, interest rates rise, internal stability is thrown into the wager, all international trade is disrupted by war fears, and countries begin to fret very loudly over the security of their traditional interests (i.e. Britain and Flanders; Britain and the Bosphorus; Britain and Afghanistan). And you should know that a country is principally concerned about the security of Belgium... not guess from a -200 diplomacy modifier. etc. etc. Boggit is right. You should not need to know an "alliance" will bring another country into the fight. You should know that Britain has always fretted about the security of the Low Countries, and that they just might honor that 80 year old treaty you thought did not matter anymore.
Anyway... I could ramble on and on. Rambling is precisely what I'm doing. I guess what I am saying is that diplomacy does not have to be boring. It can have real character, real personalities. Only your Nixon could go to China. Only your Gordon could lead Khartoum. Only your Lawrence could unite the Arabians.
Pocus wrote:This is not completely decided, as we must also decide what will be the number of days per turn. A Grand Campaign at 15 days a turn means 1680 turns, and at one month a turn, 840. What we do want for sure are focused campaigns, lasting from 1 to 10 years or so. The GC is a daunting project, but if enough people are interested, you can express yourself (and tell us what is the time scale you would prefer too).
Korrigan wrote:Some Wargamer Folks have been calling for a War of the Worlds campaign, with martians landing in Britain...
Now such a mod would ROCK.
It's been a long time since any fantastic (non RTS) strategy game has been developed. I remember games such as Wind masters (Atari ST): A serious and complex game with a fantastic subject...
I'm sure the AGE engine could do with a Steam punk mod, even though this would have to be a community project. So far, only an handfull of people has tried to take advantage of the fantastic modding abilities of the AGE engine.
Specific units for each major nations ( with differents stats ), not the same generic tank I , II , III for each nations with only the sprite differing like in HoI...
* Tech: the key here is what happened historically, i.e. no (or very limited) state funding. The game is not Civ or Vicky. Techs will 'happen', but the key stuff for player will be to select areas of 'interest' for the state and, more important, the implement tech findings into really useful stuff... for example, one day you hear about a guy inventing 'smokeless poweder'...your job will be to 'upgrade' your military with that tech...
kafka wrote:turn length? Hm... what about making it optional so as to please both sides? Personally I would prefer more frequent turns for a grand campaign, say weekly or bi-weekly turns.
Different sprites are not that important but different stats for nation specific units are
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests