Have Developers Abandoned WoN?

[Oxybeles]

As stated on Matrix Forums:

It appears that updates ended in 2016...

A formal announcement either way would be professional, would it not?

[PhilThib]

Hello

If by abandoned you mean there won't be any further development on the game engine and content, it's both yes and no like all other titles from Ageod.

We won't make engine additions or changes, barring yet-unseen blocking bugs fixes, as the team is now moving to another new engine. As for content, this remains in the hands of modders after the game release, unless it is announced that an official expansion or update is planned.

So in short words, no to further developments unless major issues, and yes to content development if and when a new expansion becomes official. Meanwhile, of course, fans development would be welcome and supported. This has been likewise since 2005 and you can't expect more from a 2-man team.

[Oxybeles]

Thank you for the clarification.

Is the new engine a complete revamping to better harness the capabilities of current hardware and software advancements since the now dated original engine?

[Pocus]

The new engine has no common roots at all with the old AGE engine indeed. It is a much improved version of the Battle Academy II engine, used for turn based, regions based games. It natively uses 3D and is very fast.

[Nikel]

But future Ageod games will be 2D or 3D?

Historical wargames?

[Captain_Orso]

I've heard that The-Real-World™ runs only in 3D, except for some notable exceptions, like Lord Admiral Nelson mode

Frame rates are generally very good, unless alcohol is involved

[Nikel]

They were serious questions!

[Captain_Orso]

Then back on subject, Ultimate General runs on a 3D engine. You don't have 6DOF; in fact you only have 2DOF, up-down, left-right. As long as units and terrain are readily recognizable, and the UI is easy to use, it should make no difference, whether 3D or 2D.

[Pocus]

That's difficult to not go 3D these days. For one, DirectX is only 3D, except if you go legacy.

But you should not be in foreign lands, rest assured.

[Nikel]

Well, we'll see in September then

[vaalen]

The new engine has no common roots at all with the old AGE engine indeed. It is a much improved version of the Battle Academy II engine, used for turn based, regions based games. It natively uses 3D and is very fast.

I hope the engine has been much improved from the Battle Academy 2 engine.

But I have faith in you and PhilThib.

[Pocus]

It is indeed difficult to see any remain of BA2 engine in the current engine, except perhaps in a few behind the scene file names.
For the rest, defintively different. Hopefully we can start giving you more details in late september.

[vaalen]

It is indeed difficult to see any remain of BA2 engine in the current engine, except perhaps in a few behind the scene file names.
For the rest, defintively different. Hopefully we can start giving you more details in late september.

Thanks for the answer, which reassures me.

But, I have to confess, I was thinking September first, not late September. Maybe someone could leak the subject matter?

Sorry for my impatience. You have only yourself to blame for making such stupendous games.

[Pocus]

I prefer to be prudent. Our communication officer is wary that if we start too soon giving you infos, this will slow down development a bit (communicating takes time and the team is still small).

veeveevee

[ETF]

Then back on subject, Ultimate General runs on a 3D engine. You don't have 6DOF; in fact you only have 2DOF, up-down, left-right. As long as units and terrain are readily recognizable, and the UI is easy to use, it should make no difference, whether 3D or 2D.

Ultimate General beautiful maps.....more of a clickfest than a realistic wargame IMHO. Love those maps

[Pocus]

Really, I thought it was serious business. I might be tempted for my Christmas vacation.

[Captain_Orso]

Ultimately it's an RTS... like Star Craft or Command-n-Conquer, but set in the American Civil War. But it can still be fun, especially if you forgive it's shortcomings, which begins with avoiding them. There are some good beginner's tutorials in the forum/steam community.

Don't expect realism

Supply is distributed by a single supply unit per corps. If that SU gets captured, that's it. Your units will have no way of replenishing any supply throughout the battle, unless you have a second corps on the field with a second SU.

There is no such thing as cohesion between sister brigades of a division or corps.

it doesn't matter how deep into the woods you are, you can always be seen.

Each unit has a highlighted circle around it, showing how far they can see, which can be blocked by hills and such. Some units see further than others though. EG a skirmisher sees further than a brigade. But the skirmisher is generally 'shaken-out' of the brigade (you get a 250 man skirmisher unit, and your bde is reduced by the same number).

So, you you have a brigade sitting on a hill, but it can see no enemy units. You press 'T' to shake-out the skirmishers from your brigade (they are literally sitting in the brigade's lap... okay, not literally, but practically) and suddenly you can see the enemy units in the forest across the way.

And although your artillery cannot see the enemy themselves, because your artillery are on the back slope of a hill, since your skirmishers can see the enemy, your artillery can now bombard the enemy units.

Line-of-Sight is not reciprocal. There are kind of outlook points, often on hills, but not always, from which you can see nearly the entire battlefield, or that section anyway. So if you have an artillery near one of these outlooks, they can bombard everything within range, but the targets of your artillery cannot see your bombarding artillery to fire back, although your artillery is in an open field, and the enemy's artillery is in a city.

The AI is very sloppy with the SU's, so generally you can capture at least 1 per battle, sometimes a whole slew of them.

The AI often sends lone brigades to try to capture a VP-Location, because the VP-Location is so far behind the lines, the AI assumes the human player will not think of this and not see them until it's too late. You can figure out what generally happens to these units, without ever having played the game. This is when you realize, you are not playing a CW battlefield simulation, but an RTS

Battle lines do not win the battle, mobile power wins. If you can put a 250 man skirmisher on to the flanks of a 2500 man brigades, you will generally break the brigade, allowing you to continue doing this with ever more units. The AI doesn't do much against this.

I'm not terribly good, but I can almost always win. Others are far better than I. There are YT videos where you can watch how the defender with fewer men sends out a few skirmishers and a middle sized cav and obliterates the entire half of the battlefield with almost only these small mobile units: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWoHJ8_GAw . Of course this can be fun , but it's not historical, nor realistic.