ydejin
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:17 am

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:40 pm

I would definitely like a grand campaign. I would not go so far as WallysWorld. I will almost certainly buy it with or without, but I do agree that the grand campaign is certainly a plus.

I would prefer more turns over less. Weekly or bi-weekly turns is definitely better than monthly in my opinion.

User avatar
Sol Invictus
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am
Location: Kentucky

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:37 am

Well, I usually want it all, in all things. :fleb: So my preference would be both single campaigns covering specific times/wars at bi-weekly turns and a Grand Campaign using monthly turns.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:38 am

grand campaign with bi monthly turns...just my .02

User avatar
Hidde
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:16 am
Location: Sweden

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:27 am

I have a (bad?) habit of checking most or all of the aspects of my imperium every turn. A lot of turns therefore meens a loong playtime.
Bi-monthly turns, si'll vous plait.

User avatar
Queeg
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:13 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:32 am

Pocus wrote:
Please be more precise on what you liked so much in Imperialism.


It's been awhile, so I'm going by memory:

1. Trade. I liked how you were trading with another specific country, not just some abstracted invisible market. And trades had diplomatic consequences.

2. Pops. I liked how the games (particularly Imp II) handled Pops. First, you had to choose between soldiers and civilian workforce. If you converted a Pop to a military unit, you lost a civilian worker. Second, workers increased in productivity as they moved up in class (Apprentice vs. Journeyman, etc.) and the number of workers in each class depended upon the availability of specific goods to meet their particular demands. More high-level workers meant more productivity (and more Pops available for the military) but you had to build the right goods to satisfy each class. Unlike Victoria, where the process is abstracted to the point of invisibility, the number and balance of the required goods was very plain and actually quite simple in Imp (just hard to achieve).

3. Transport/Infrastructure. I also liked the way Imperialism used the transportation network as an abstraction of industrialization. Mining resources, for example, made sense only if you could transport them. I forget the precise details at the moment, but I remember that the system made sense and added to the strategic choices without requiring undue micromanagement.

4. Balance. The various resources, goods, Pop classes, etc. were actually quite few. But the relationships between them were well-conceived and very tightly balanced. Rather than requiring, for example, that you needed ten different resources to recruit a certain Pop, you needed only two, but they were hard to find and usually required that you sacrifice something else. The difficulty was not knowing what you needed, or even finding it, but rather in making the trade-offs in not pursuing development in some other area. The game balance was really extraordinary in that regard. You never seemed to have enough to do everything you wanted, and pursuing a strategy in one area invariably required making sacrifices somewhere else.

At its heart, Imperialism was a fairly simple game. You didn't have to juggle long lists of resources, etc. But every decision impacted multiple issues and required strategic trade-offs. The game, to me, was a model of elegant complexity. Much like BOA.

ydejin
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:17 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:41 am

Sol Invictus wrote:Well, I usually want it all, in all things. :fleb: So my preference would be both single campaigns covering specific times/wars at bi-weekly turns and a Grand Campaign using monthly turns.


If AGEOD could come up with a design mixing both, that might work. Running a 1680 turn game might be a bit much. At the same time though, for specific scenarios and for wartime military movements, I definitely prefer more frequent turns -- monthly or bimonthly turn periods are too long.

With bimonthly turns the Franco Prussian War would only last 5 turns; the Anglo-Zulu War would be 3-4 turns; the entire World War I would be completed in only 19 turns. I personally do not find 3-5 turn games very satisfying. I would say the minimum number of turns for me for any given scenario would be around 20, and for something as large as WW I, I would want a lot more than that.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:51 am

Another Marvingardns contribution:

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.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Image

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:25 am

Some Wargamer Folks have been calling for a War of the Worlds campaign, with martians landing in Britain...

Now such a mod would ROCK. :nuts:

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. :sourcil:
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

User avatar
saintsup
Captain
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 7:22 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:29 am

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).


I understand your point and it could be a fine game but if you go for (relativly) short campaigns, there is really no point to have a very developped simulation model for economy and above all technology. What you included in AACW (AFAIK) could be enough.

Better diplomacy system is always interesting though ...

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25433
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:30 am

[quote="ydejin"]If AGEOD could come up with a design mixing both, that might work. Running a 1680 turn game might be a bit much. At the same time though, for specific scenarios and for wartime military movements, I definitely prefer more frequent turns -- monthly or bimonthly turn periods are too long.

With bimonthly turns the Franco Prussian War would only last 5 turns]

the shorter scenarios would be at 15 days a turn, so WW I = 100+ turns.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

ydejin
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:17 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:35 am

Pocus wrote:the shorter scenarios would be at 15 days a turn, so WW I = 100+ turns.


Excellent. 100+ turns for WWI sounds good.

User avatar
Anguille
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: PETIBONVM

Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:14 am

I want:

A grand campaign
Specific scenarios as planned
One month or less per turn (best would be one week per turn)

User avatar
Adlertag
Posts: 2423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: Lyon(France)

Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:49 am

Concepts I would like to see :

First of all : a customizable shortcut bar with things evolving turn after turn , like the one in EU III , a very good tool to oversee your "empire".

Badboy and belligerance concept ( something approaching , not the same as HoI or EU )

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...

Governments and policies

Commercial blocus

Siege warfare....
La mort est un mur, mourir est une brèche.

User avatar
Ashbery76
Sergeant
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: Rugby.England.

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:17 pm

1500+ turns for a campaign is far to much for a grand strategy game.I would the game to be playable for people in employment like myself.

Frost716
Private
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:03 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:33 pm

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. :nuts:

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. :sourcil:


I'm totally with you on this...I love history but it would be nice to see more serious strategy games using fantastic themes. I don't mean using Orks, and dwarfs and all that I mean as you mentioned a War of the Worlds type game. I have fond memories of playing Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds years back, it wasn't super deep but held my attention and was deeper then most RTS games. It was based around the vainglory time period with the British having to fend off the aliens with less advanced equipment. Would love to see that with this engine.

kafka
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:42 am

Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:14 pm

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.

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...


Different sprites are not that important but different stats for nation specific units are

User avatar
Primasprit
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Germany

Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:11 pm

PhilThib wrote:[...]
* 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...

I would also like to boost my technological advance by stealing technology or enticement of engineers...

User avatar
Primasprit
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Germany

Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:15 pm

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. :nuts:

Where can I preorder? :nuts:

User avatar
Adlertag
Posts: 2423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:35 pm
Location: Lyon(France)

Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:40 am

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


It's exactly what I said above :sourcil:
La mort est un mur, mourir est une brèche.

Rexor
Sergeant
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm
Location: The great, great Garden State

Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:33 pm

I am totally pumped about this game. You guys have definitely become the game designers to watch.

As for my input: trade routes are a must, not just CoT. I want to be able to send my cruisers hunting for merchant vessels, not just other warships. And--i believe somebody already mentioned this, it's a good idea--coaling stations! These were fundamental to maritime strategies during the period. No overseas stations or allies willing to let you put in to port? No coal, no range, go home.

As for turn lengths--anything over a month per turn is unrealistic and disappointing. The actual game can take me all year to play, for all I care. I don't want to play another Civ or MTotalWar.

BTW, having a blast getting my butt kicked by the British in BoA... :sourcil:

User avatar
Hell Patrol
Lieutenant
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Location: California

Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:38 am

:coeurs: Sounds awesome guys! Our little "baby developer"...Oh how fast you're growing up :innocent: .

User avatar
Dunhill_BKK
Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:55 pm

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:56 am

Hi all,

I am glad to hear about AGEOD's project, it sounds like a great game.

One thing I'd hope you continue is attention to detail with regards to the look and "feel" of your games. I'm talking about how the "pieces" and maps look. You've done an excellent job in BOA, and I think you've paid as much attention to these details from what I can see with the American Civil War game coming up.

I believe this is what sets BOA apart from other games. Many have gone the route of 3D and animations, which is fine at some levels, but I think there is something to be said for the manner in which BOA's pieces replicate a boardgame feel, without the inherent dangers of exposure to the boardgame's natural enemy - cats.

Cheers and keep up the great work.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:19 am

Dunhill_BKK wrote:Hi all,
the boardgame's natural enemy - cats.


Cats AND sisters
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

User avatar
GoldSpear
Private
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee
Contact: WLM

Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:26 pm

I am anxious for this game. I have research and purchased too many strategy games to find them too complex (economics/culture) or lacking somewhat. Also I should say that after combing over internet I can't find a Victorian era other than "Empire under the Sun" (refer to complexity note). More than 100+ turns per game please in VainGlory.
btw Thank you Korrigan for your help.
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees . . . (Last words of Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson)

User avatar
GoldSpear
Private
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee
Contact: WLM

Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:54 pm

...and on further thinking I should say that a little diplomacy and more espionage is good.
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees . . . (Last words of Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson)

User avatar
Ashbery76
Sergeant
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: Rugby.England.

Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:42 pm

So this game is now full steam ahead.One word of advice,try to make the main campaign more playable than AACW's,which takes forever with all the micromanaging involved with sorting out regiments into divisions,corps,etc.I would like the game to be corps scale.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25433
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:57 pm

VGN will be at the corps size yes, for most units that is. You don't really want to manipulate British columns in India numbering 150.000 Scots and English soldiers? :)
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

VainGlory?

Wed May 09, 2007 7:50 pm

I am interested in a playable game during that time period. I have Vikky and leave it on my hard drive, yet I must say it is almost unplayablly complex for a person not of the economic persuasion. I love HOI, etc. and am a big fan of Civ games. I have never tried Imperialism. Will it play on XP? Tag :cwboy:

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Wed May 09, 2007 9:11 pm

XP for sure, that's where we currently develop the game...and I am sure you'll find it hundred more times more playable tahn Vicky :niark:

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Wed May 09, 2007 10:34 pm

Vicky 1.0 or Vicky as of latest V:R patch...? ;)
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

Return to “Pride of Nations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests