Page 1 of 21

Vainglory of Nations

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:48 pm
by PhilThib
[CENTER][color="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="6"]VAINGLORY OF NATIONS[/size][/color][/CENTER]


Vainglory of Nations is AGEOD's next major title (not before 2008) and has been already in development for some time. You shall find here below some of the game features and description.

What we would like from you here is a list of 'Like' and 'Don't Like' features and what you would expect to get in a game on the Victorian era (or would hate to have :siffle: ).



[CENTER]Historically accurate but simple and fun Turn-Based grand Strategy game in the Victorian Age.
PC Single player & multiplayer (up to 8) over LAN or Internet[/CENTER]


Vainglory of Nations is a historical strategy game, with a simultaneous turn-based engine, that sets the players at the head of the Great Powers of the world between 1850 and 1920. Eight nations are playable, either solo or multiplayer: USA, Great-Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The game has the following set of Unique Selling Points below:

VAINGLORY OF NATIONS is a new unique concept from the original designer of EUROPA UNIVERSALIS, PAX ROMANA, GREAT INVASIONS, and the team of BIRTH OF AMERICA and AMERICAN CIVIL WAR where players are Victorian statesmen trying to find the best way ahead for their nations in the midst of uncontrolled capitalistic expansion, commercial and technological changes, colonial and social conflicts and behind the doors great powers diplomatic negotiations.

Rough prototype of Interface - Ageod 2005[/CENTER]

[CENTER][color="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="5"]KEY FEATURES[/size][/color][/CENTER]


* The most original diplomatic system ever created for a grand strategy game :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs:

* The largest worldmap ever, with unequalled look, animation and detail levels :coeurs: :coeurs:

* Final challenge concept :coeurs: :coeurs:

* Variable Objectives concept :coeurs: :coeurs:

* « Underlying Systems » concept: :coeurs: :coeurs:

* A world economy with realistic components,

* Differentiation of the State-Player / Private Business,

* Autonomous and independent initiative taken by the game engine,

* Account rendering upon game end.

* Strong historicity and realism

* Victorian Atmosphere


* Own personality and agenda different for each country

* A revolutionary approach to the building of armies and fleets :coeurs:

* A better AI with brand new mechanisms :coeurs: :coeurs:

* A multiplayer component that performs well within a new, simultaneous turn-based adaptive game engine :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs:

[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"] :coeurs: to :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs: characteristic that is unique and never used before in that type of game.[/size][/color]

Philippe ThibautAGEOD

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:07 pm
by Lafrite
Alléchant :fleurs:

Ma période préférée :nuts:

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:40 pm
by WallysWorld
Woo! Woo!

Looking very much forward to it. :niark:

Definitely turn-based
Same style of interface like BoA and AACW has
Simple political component (elections, political parties, revolutions, etc...) :coeurs:
Simple, but working world economy
Research system/tree regarding industrial, military and maybe social improvements

An overly complex economy (Think Vicky)
An overly complex political system (Again think Vicky)

If you can and wish to expand upon, what are the "<<Underlying Systems>>" you refer to?

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:03 pm
by Pocus
We also want people to say what they would like to see (very short list, keep focused) and what they don't want to see (no roster having 7851 populations elements to handle?)

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:11 pm
by saintsup
Pocus wrote:(no roster having 7851 populations elements to handle?)

I've really no idea what you're refering to ;)

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:39 pm
by Hidde
You guys are now definiatly my favourite developers, big time! :coeurs:
Me too are curious about "underlying concepts"??
Don't have time right now for any likes or don't likes. I'll see if anything comes to mind later.
By the way; I don't get any big pictures when I click on the small ones.

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:53 pm
by Pocus
this is on purpose, they are not that nice to see, the prototype was started in 2004, when the engine, AGE, was still in infancy.

By the way you have all to understand that we are developping VGN based on AGE (Adaptive Game Engine), the code base which led to BOA and ACW (it was first done for VGN some years ago), so we are not building things from scratch: this has to be turn based, you play on regions, with drag&drop, and the basics rules are still there. For a good vision of the changes, you can see how BOA morphed into ACW!

Underlying concepts: We would like to have several mechanisms which create the semblance of a living world, or at least a dynamic world with things happening without the intervention of the player or the AI of a country. Things are to be defined more precisely, this part can eat much much time and hours. Spontaneous crisis between 2 nations (even friendly), businessmen building industries, thus competing with state economy, or generating tensions with a friendly country, merchants asking for a military expedition by your state to protect their interest, etc. We would like to stray from the god games where you have an handle on anything, the tricky part is that it should not be frustrating to the player either!

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:11 pm
by arsan

Play with Spain!! :grr: :niark:
And... you could also add the Ottomans...
Playing with declining nations is also fun!!! :nuts:


Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:58 pm
by Sol Invictus
All of this sounds excellent. I especially like not having complete control over our nations. I agree with Walley, stay away from the Vicky economic model. I would like to see some random events thrown in, such as Stock Market Crash, Urban Revolt, and Political Assasination; stuff like that. Can't wait for this baby to be released.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:32 am
by Frost716
I wish I could see the small pictures as those are a couple of problems I have with the other games. The Battle Report and Unit details. Battles really need to be given more detail and no more of the hearts/points thing..give me numbers so I don't have to figure it out myself with pen and paper.

Also is the map close to how it's going to look?...because I really like it, reminds me more of EU. At first I liked the boardgame look with what looked like game pieces representing units but I would rather have what you are showing now with standing men/weapons etc. with little animations like EU. The current way with BOA and ACW is to sterile and lifeless.

Must have chances for Zulu War, Boer War, Indian Mutiny, etc...

Would agree as some others have said...I like lot's of detail and things to do but on a little lesser scale then Vicky was. That was just to much work, don't forget the fun part.

The building of Armies and Fleets is enjoyable...a little more detail with this would be nice.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:54 am
by Anguille
Ok...first idea short (have to go to a meeting)

- German and Italian reunification with the wars implied

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:29 am
by Primasprit
An ambitious project. :)
Vicky is my most favorite game I never play. So I am very curious about your game design. :cwboy:

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:14 am
by PhilThib
Once the game moves forward a bit more (i.e after AACW release), we shall give some extra details.

But we want to hear players' wishes first, to see if we missed stuff or if there are useless features.

Currently, there are 4 main fields where we would like to get more input:

* Diplomacy: we plan to have a rather original system that will work well to represent the 'spirit' of the Victorian era. One sure thing: no bribing of nations a la Paradox :sourcil:

* 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...

* Pop management: as said above, we want to keep it downright simple. There shall be a few pop classes (Aristocracy, Business, Middle, Lower, Peasantry, 'Slaves'), each providing the nation some assets: business opportunities, military cadre, recruits, money.
We would like to limit their management to matters such as loyalty (social and political), efficiency, emigration, may be ethnics and religious factors for some key cases (AH for instance).

* World Trade: not too many ressources, or a few for 'chrome', probably around 10-15 different ones. Maritime trade will be utmost import. We plan to have some kind of 'Trade Zones' or COT a la EU, but more realistic, and to avoid micromanagement there. Key points such as protectionism, free trade, taxes and tarrifs, commercial concessions are to be in it.

... more later :coeurs:

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:24 am
by ydejin
I'd like to see some distinction between the different naval units, including the moves from sailing ships to coal; wooden ships to ironclads; armored cruisers to dreadnaughts and battlecruisers. Possible inclusion of submarines might be nice as well. Also the importance of estabilishing coaling stations for naval power projection.

It might be nice to see the beginnings of aviation as well -- observation balloons for starts, followed by dirigibles for both scouting and bombing, and fighter and bomber aircraft.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:29 pm
by wosung
This project really sounds interesting!!

Things I would like to see:

A simple but realistic world market
(supply and demand, protective tariffs, political influences: In war no chance to acquire infinite supplies by virtual trade with a virtual "world market").

Realistic logistics: port capacities for supplying of military forces. Supply capacities for railways. Realistic readness rates.

A flexible but historically plausible diplomacy (Coalitions, inter-european colonial wars, colonial deals, international interventions like the Boxer war, Conferences like Berlin Congo-Conference).

A flexible organization of forces (OOB), based on IRL military units: divisions with distinctive subunits, personell strength and weapons, accessable in something like a windows folders tree.

Well organized infos (graphs, statistics)

Historically plausible data on numbers of playing pieces (no 1k British Empire Divisions or ships of the line)

Realistic naval ranges

Oh, well

and bring this baby on to WW2, or make WW2 your next project :siffle:


BTW, it should read "Landwehr" instead of "Landwher".

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:45 pm
by PhilThib
wosung wrote:Historically plausible data on numbers of playing pieces (no 1k British Empire Divisions or ships of the line)

Realistic naval ranges

This is the most of the obvious for us :niark: Each nation will have a force pool (not like in EU2 where I killed over 2 millions Englishmen in 400 years :sourcil: )...

wosung wrote:Oh, well

and bring this baby on to WW2, or make WW2 your next project :siffle:

Are you playing with a mind-reading ability too ? :indien:

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:51 pm
by wosung
NOW concentrate on the icon :nuts:

YOU are getting VERY tired and begin to dream about WW2 while starting to program...


Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:45 pm
by PhilThib
Good try...but missed...I am the designer, not the programmer :niark:

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:39 pm
by Chris0827
How about the Confederate States of America as a playable nation? Mexico and China could be interesting as well. As for the next game I'd like to see either the Napoleonic Wars or Ancient Rome/Greece (500BC-500AD). I'm not convinced the engine can model World War II yet but I'm sure it can handle my suggestions.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:19 pm
by Jamey
First of all, this is awesome news! :niark:

Secondly, what I would like to see: Well, two of all my all time favorite history books are "Dreadnaught" and "Castles of Steel", so if you can make the whole empire-building, naval arms race, strategic naval war thing possible, that would be great! In other words, give me an interactive version of these two books so I can play Britain and get to make all the same tough decisions she had to make!

One last thing, please, please, please make it accessible and not overly complicated! I am eagerly anticipating your Civil War game, because I bought Forge of Freedom and, even though I read the manual, whenever I fire up FOF, I am overwhelmed by the interface/complexity and my eyes start to glaze over.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:37 pm
by frank7350
wow. :)

i LOVE the concept of not playing god with your country, but instead taking the innovations developed by private business and applying them properly.

as for each nation having its own me, this is a biggie. i know thats its been tried before, and games like civ, etc, have differing levels of aggression, but rarely do they seem to hit the target. instead you have multiple nations, but all are relatively interchangeable. they never truly seem to have their own national identity, and plan for action... which imo causes diplomacy to be a bit....vanilla.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:31 pm
by Korrigan
Here is a nice contribution from Marvingardns in The Wargamer forum:

Well more than anything else is that I would beg from a game from this era is that nations are not so homogenous. Relationships between countries depend on where their national interests overlap or conflict, and those "national interests" are often a function of culture as well as security.

For example, relations with Great Britain would have to take into consideration their leadership in opposition to slavery, their paranoia over India's security, suspicion of rival naval power. Prussias and Austria's concerns overlap in the dominance of the North German Confederation, and in preserving the conservative order with Russia... and the latter preservation should be accomplished in context of mutual domination of ethnic minorities in Eastern Europe, who should not be ignored in internal stability. There is the ever-present Balkan question, and Russia's incessant insecurity at the borders and the cusp of her perrenial expansionism in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Manchuria and, of course, the Bosphorus.

There are minimal dynastic considerations... which can afford to be simplified and focused on immediate royal family members (monarch and crown-princes) and the dozen major European dynasties. There are numerous other minor frictions... i.e. legality of slavery, protection of Christians in non-Christian states, etc. The primary diplomatic mechanism should be represented... the international conference. Here, all participant's interests would be laid at the table for resolution. The presence of influential leaders or prospective commercial interests in certain regions would lead to conflicts and new challenges on the international scene (i.e. Cecil Rhodes and Africa, Gordon and Sudan).

Oh for heaven's sake I could go on and on and on and on. The problem I see is actually creating this level of "simulation." It is something I have a hard time seeing AgeoD accomplishing, despite all of that EU experience on the resume. Birth of America and most likely the upcoming ACW games are just too good at what they do. To turn around and begin simulating the international system of the 19th and early 20th century seems like at least a 90 degree shift in focus.

But what made BoA so great is the chess match, the dilemmic strategic choices forced upon the player in war. The fact is, dilemmic strategic choices are forced upon the international player in peace, and probably more so since those choices embrace a diversity of other considerations (commercial [think Open Door], moral [think Gladstone] and dynastic [think Carlism]). The problem is that games don't simulate the delicate international order, the Tournament of Shadows, the Congress of Berlin, the Monroe Doctrine, etc. etc. Games are played as simulations of war, and peace only as a prelude and prepatory phase to war. Only Civilization IV has successfully eliminated the incentives to war in its gameplay. Could AgeoD do the same? Would AgeoD do the same?

I found another thread in the Octopus Overlord forum:
Here the people seem more anxious to get an heir to Imperialism than to Vicky.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:43 pm
by Frost716
[quote="Korrigan"]Here is a nice contribution from Marvingardns in The Wargamer forum: eyes started to glaze over reading that...almost went into convulsions... :bonk: ...let's not have another Vicky, how about actually making this one accessable and ...oh I don't to play maybe?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:25 am
by Queeg
Korrigan wrote:
Here the people seem more anxious to get an heir to Imperialism than to Vicky.

I'm a big fan of Victoria, but I definitely suggest VON go more the route of Imperialism. In fact, I've always thought that a close study of Imperialism I and II should be required for anyone trying to develop an historical strategy game. Until BOA came along, I always considered the Imperialism games to be the models of design elegance - complex interactions nicely abstracted, with a very tight interface. BOA has essentially the same strengths.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:09 pm
by Syagrius
This one is going to be just great. Very interesting time period :king:

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:52 pm
by Pocus
I don't know how you will call the route we are taking, Philippe and I, but you will definitively get a world market where people buying your stuff are in real need of it, because their population want it, or their industry. And not a generic market where you can sell millions of luxuries to secrets corps buying all that you produce.

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

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:41 pm
by Syagrius
Does a grand campain 1850-1920 will be available to play for each country or just seperate campaigns??

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:00 pm
by Pocus
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).

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:58 pm
by WallysWorld
Well for myself, I would only be interested in a long or grand campaign covering the entire period. If VoN is only delivered with smaller focused campaigns, I hate to say but I would not buy it. I would much rather take a nation through 70-100 years than through just 5-15 years.

As to the scale of a grand campaign, either bi-monthly or monthly turns would be adequate. Obviously if one starts a grand campaign, they would have to realize a big and long commitment to finish it.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:20 pm
by Korrigan
WallysWorld wrote:I hate to say but I would not buy it.

Don't try to appeal to our feelings... :innocent: