AGEOD Forums

What might be the chances of a Pride of Nations 2 one day?

The project would take time, but volunteers are gathering to build something. Can't tell you the deadline now, but it is for sure not abandonned

That is fantastic news. You guys are great! Thank you.

Agreed! That's the best computer game news I've heard in a long time!

I am truly happy to hear that this greatest of games has not been abandoned, and hope it will receive the attention it deserves.

Very good news! A revision of Pride of Nations scope, in addition to all the improvements that have been made to Ageod's engine (especially its increased performance) would make a superb game. Keep us informed

I couldn't agree more!

PhilThib wrote:The project would take time, but volunteers are gathering to build something. Can't tell you the deadline now, but it is for sure not abandonned

Where do said volunteers sign up?

We can only hope. This is indeed monumental news! Fox and CNN should be ashamed, this is newsworthy!!

I agree, fantastic game!

Very good news!

My experience with PoN is very limited, but there is no doubt that the game has some very interesting mechanics that surpasses Victoria 2 on many levels.

Was afraid that you had given up on these larger games.

I think a Pride of Nations 2 with a new map like EAW, updated graphics and features would be a huge seller.

Field Marshal Hotzendorf wrote:I think a Pride of Nations 2 with a new map like EAW, updated graphics and features would be a huge seller.

I think the biggest issue would be the end-turn processing time. That is what kept me from enjoying a game in PoN as the 1850 grand campaign would become unplayable due to the long time between turns starting around 1860 when various wars started to happen.

It would also be nice to have some late game events like a simplified Great War and Russian Revolution.

For the grand campaign it should have monthly turns.

I would like to see weekly turns. I think too much control is lost with monthly or even two week turns.

I hope turns stay 1/2 monthly (it makes for a longer game and more maneuverability during wars). My wishes would be more generals (akin to CW2) and of course transition to the current army structure of army-corps-ind. stacks. I would also like to see more fleshing out of the economic game (which is by far superior to any recent addition which understandably simplifies economics due to its much shorter time-frame). I would like to see the need for more logical placement of industries based on raw materials and semi-finished product locations which affect pricing and thus a nation's ability to sell on the market (after all, some nations have natural advantages). Or a more Vicky 2 bonus/malus for production by building at or near input material locations (the infrastructure bonus/malus must be kept, but maybe add on a location bonus/malus for materials?). Definitely need to change the technology aspect with technology trees that allow more decision-making based on number and quality of education. Maybe have civic improvements cards including universities which increase (or prevent decreasing of literacy, which affects technology points). My understanding of how to affect literacy is not good, unfortunately. And for now, back to economics. I would love to see a national budget! The game does so well with forcing the player to make decisions on how to spend limited resources that no other game comes close to making the player feel they are really running a country. But if more reality can fit into the game, I'm for it. I also understand that some towns are backwaters and may not get any improvements during the course of the game and others are boom-towns that need additional industry, but shouldn't population increases reflect a need to find employment or create discontent among the citizens in that territory? Or does the game simulate internal immigration? If so, why can a city of size 4 have no industry and another city have multiple industries? I do understand somewhat the mechanic for cities doing their checks of expected urbanization versus actual urbanization, but maybe that needs to be tweeked? And does the population just appear/disappear depending on the increase/decrease in city size? Enough rambling for now. Just throwing out some thoughts.

Why weekly or bi-monthly turns? 1560 to 3120 turns for the grand campaign?

In PON you don't have 60 years of never ending war needing to micromanage armies. There are not enough regions for sub-strategic, aka operational warfare. If I want to play the American Civil War on an operational scale I'm gonna start CW2. Or the next Ageod games, hopefully dealing with 19th century conflicts.

And for peace time economics there's simply not enough to do in a weekly or bi-monthly turn frame. Two or three decisions and then clicking turn resolve and waiting some plus-three minutes for the next turn. This sounds NOT much fun.

Sorry guys. Repeating an white elephant concept like this won't sell many copies - again.

You can actually make a complete game of just decision-making, even during peace-time on a 2-week basis. Larger countries would require more micro-managing than smaller ones. There are a ton of problems affecting nations, even in peace-time that require allocating scarce resources with both positive and negative consequences (many of which are unintended, and therefore lend itself to gaming possibilities). If a birth rate is high in a rural area, this would cause endemic poverty in that area, therefore unrest. Or maybe flight to a nearby larger urban community, which would result in higher unemployment, causing unrest in that city, or urban renewal (building industry or services to keep up with the population). This one instance of high birth rate may cause political decisions to spawn (increasing taxes for government services, lowering taxes to increase private business, colonization of undeveloped areas, clamor for political reform/rights). Of course, I digress, but I would like to see more card opportunities germane to the time period and nations (a few more playable nations, btw: Spain, Brasil, Mexico, Persia?) The Ottoman's were a terrific addition (did a few years until the British and French kept sidelined in Crimean War, then became frustrated, but will pick up that game next when I finish the USA, which I just picked up my old game - now in October 1861, Richmond is encircled, just took Vicksburg and Atlanta and marching on New Orleans.

Yes, simplifying it like TEAW (which I love) would create more sales, but at what price? This is a gem of a game that begs for keeping its core alive while increasing realism gradually. The newest engine improvements are great and I for one have not been bothered by the processing time (even in its original form) because of the complexity of processing involved. I also love the idea of living through a time period with a nation and implementing choices, both during peace and war. And in traditional AGEOD fashion, not having to "game" the game and run roughshod over the entire world, which just lessens my fun (sorry Europa Universalis, Victoria 2 and Hearts of Iron IV (soon, I hope). Games like TEAW are great for just wargaming, but PON goes FAR BEYOND just wargaming, you are simulating a realistic nation through a tumultuous time period of war, technological advances, colonization, unparalleled governmental changes, among others). To expect this to be done in two seconds is unrealistic. I'm sure there is a compromise that the potential developers will grapple with (judging from what I've seen on this forum, there is no doubt that the developers have poured out their hearts and minds to improve this incredibly fascinating game). We who love this game can offer suggestions for improvements and let the developers do what they do best. I, for one, expect to be playing this game for many, many more years, even if no changes are added. But will also gobble up any new DLC's and let Steam take care of my updates (technologically, I can barely tie my shoelaces!).

wosung wrote:Why weekly or bi-monthly turns? 1560 to 3120 turns for the grand campaign?

In PON you don't have 60 years of never ending war needing to micromanage armies. There are not enough regions for sub-strategic, aka operational warfare. If I want to play the American Civil War on an operational scale I'm gonna start CW2. Or the next Ageod games, hopefully dealing with 19th century conflicts.

And for peace time economics there's simply not enough to do in a weekly or bi-monthly turn frame. Two or three decisions and then clicking turn resolve and waiting some plus-three minutes for the next turn. This sounds NOT much fun.

Sorry guys. Repeating an white elephant concept like this won't sell many copies - again.

I think Bi-Monthly would be ok. There would need to be a new and improved combat system I think so that wars last longer to scale with the turn changes. That was another problem in PoN1, wars were very short due to the 1 week per turn. Also there was the issue of Germany and Italy never forming in the 1850 campaign.

PLEASE make this! I would buy it five times if you made it!

I´d love to see that - but weekly turns should be for all AGEOD game standard in future - otherwise maneuvers like cutting off an army or reinforcing it, or doing a raid are rather depending on luck than skill - too much happening in two weeks...

steelwarrior77 wrote:I´d love to see that - but weekly turns should be for all AGEOD game standard in future - otherwise maneuvers like cutting off an army or reinforcing it, or doing a raid are rather depending on luck than skill - too much happening in two weeks...

3200 turns? Really?

Yep - maybe they are shorter also ;-D

I actually like the twice a month concept for this game. Weekly game turns would make the grand campaign almost impossible to finish. I do think that if the provinces were smaller, your desire to have a more tactical game could be achieved. This should be pretty easy if the developers got rid of the city and countryscapes (which actually I do enjoy, but don't really like the cap on big city industries) and went with the map style of TEAW/ACW2. Also, I don't think that wars of maneuver were as important as they are today with better abilities for reconnaissance. The luck that you are talking about is probably more accurate for the times. I also like the "luck" part of wargaming. The battles in the game really depend on army composition, numbers and taking advantage of terrain. In a game where tactics are involved, the human seems to have a much larger advantage against the AI (in particular, I'm thinking of Total War Series, where a human player with a small army can crush a huge AI by better movement of forces -- very unrealistic!).

I agree - but then we really need a much bigger Europe map ;-D

Egg Bub wrote:3200 turns? Really?

I see nothing wrong with 3200 turns or more personally. I love these games and the only time I don't like them is when they end, so why not have as many turns as possible. You can always quit at any point if you want.

Why not daily turns then?

-C

Good idea - but really 7 day turns should be standard for all AGEOD games except AJE - there maybe 2 week turns ;-D

I like 7 day turns as well.

Give me something to do each turn and I won't mind how many there are. But as it stands there are too many turns where you just click 'end turn'.