Fellow grogs, let us try being positive and supportive!

[vaalen]

This is a plea to my fellow Grognards.

I am disturbed by the barrage of negative reaction to the new Napoleonic game. Please consider what if must feel like for the developers to be attacked like this before it is even clear what the game will be.

And PhilThib made it clear that the group designing the other game is nervous about being attacked in the forums once the game is announced.

I know we all have concerns, but do we have to be so negative?

I submit that we are much more likely to get great games sooner if we give the devs the benefit of the doubt, and encourage them when we see something we like, and make it a pleasure for them to read these forums. We can still ask for what we want, but we can do so without attacking and being negative. And when we know that a decision has been made, such as the decision to use Clausewitz, I suggest we accept it and move on, rather than complain about something that is not going to change.

I pledge to be positive about these new games, and to support Ageod. I ask you to consider doing the same.

[PhilThib]

Thanks vaalen

Being positive does not mean being fan-boys without opinions. We are extremely pleased that most of you shall express concerns and questions...this is rather constructive for us and help us take particular attention and care to the expectations of the players...we try to learn from our mistakes, and this is always better when it is done under conditions where you don't have the impression to be personally attacked...

I don't speak for myself here, because I have been making PC games the last 15 years almost and always seen that situation, so I am a bit better "armoured" against it than most

But that true it has sometimes very negative effect: the RUS team for instance has been under constant negative attacks, most of them not justified (the critics were maybe ok in their nature, but surely not in the way they were expressed, including personal attacks and insults behind the scene).. the result was that players who had endeavoured to make a nice game for the community were utterly disgusted and disappointed by (some members of) the said community...and lost a good part of their willingness to pursue the fight, in view of that athmosphere...the grumpy stuff I mentioned earlier...

I would not like that the same happens again with the other new team and their excellent project...or, this time, it will really be the end of ageod

[deguerra]

Agree entirely. Criticism that is presented in a rational and polite manner and expresses genuine and thoughtful opinions is usually not an issue.

But I've been a little bit surprised by the negativity over a game about which, at this stage, we really know rather little. If nothing else, let's reduce our whining a little bit until we have more concrete details to whine about.

I also frankly dislike the attitude of a few posters to paradox games, designers and players. I appreciate that they're not everyone's cup of tea. That's fine. I myself now porbalby prefer ageod titles to my previous loving relationship with paradox. But they are not bad games, they are designers that care and provide more after-release support than most and the players are by and large intelligent and historically-interested.

To be fair on you, my fellow ageoders, the paradoxites over on their forums display some of the same knee-jerk reactions in reverse. But this forum has always been fairly unique in it's civility and reasonableness so let's be the ones to take the first step.

And hate on those we can all agree on: console gamers

[Blind Sniper]

I know we all have concerns, but do we have to be so negative?

Yes I do, because we are speaking about a real time game and a company like Paradox, then if someone think that games like HOI are historical...then no need to talking anymore.

Also reading other forums lot of aged people (me too) think that Ageod has made a step back doing a real time game, moreover another Napoleonic.

I'm not a young guy, I have played a lot of games so far and I found that worst game are the real time ones, IMHO.

Of course if Ageod wants to do a game like that surely is for economic reasons and I really hope it will be a success, seriously

Edit: I think they made the best strategic ACW game so far, thefore I (we) need company like Ageod, make money how you prefer then create another good game

[deguerra]

Yes I do, because we are speaking about a real time game and a company like Paradox, then if someone think that games like HOI are historical...then no need to talking anymore.

I'm sorry, but this is what I mean. You take two facts we know (real time and related to paradox) and assume that this will be a negative. We know so little about the game at this stage. Do we have so little faith in the two phillipe's?

And yes, I appreciate paradox games do not have the same level of historic accuracy and detail as ageod games. That does not make them bad games, or paradox a bad company. But most importantly, this is still an ageod game.

Also reading other forums lot of aged people (me too) think that Ageod has made a step back doing a real time game, moreover another Napoleonic.

I'm not a young guy, I have played a lot of games so far and I found that worst game are the real time ones, IMHO.

And that's perfectly fine. Rts-es aren't everyone's cup of tea. But I just think we should at least wait for the final product before we claim that this is a step backwards for ageod. Again, let's give them a bit of faith.

And let's not bash on a company like paradox that has a better track record than most developers and without whom ageod might no longer exist at all

[vaalen]

Yes I do, because we are speaking about a real time game and a company like Paradox, then if someone think that games like HOI are historical...then no need to talking anymore.

Also reading other forums lot of aged people (me too) think that Ageod has made a step back doing a real time game, moreover another Napoleonic.

I'm not a young guy, I have played a lot of games so far and I found that worst game are the real time ones, IMHO.

Of course if Ageod wants to do a game like that surely is for economic reasons and I really hope it will be a success, seriously

Edit: I think they made the best strategic ACW game so far, thefore I (we) need company like Ageod, make money how you prefer then create another good game

None of us have seen what kind of real time game this will be, because Ageod has never done one. Orders can be issued when the game is paused, and I expect that the time can be really slowed down, so there is ample time to react, even without pausing. You can play this type of game by leaving it paused, giving all your orders, just like in a turn based game, and unpausing at a slow speed. Then pause again whenever you want. While this is not the same as turn based, it is a far cry from the twitch and click at high speed requirements of most real time games.

You are absolutely right that Ageod made the best Strategic ACW game ever. I will go further and say it has been the best strategic game ever. And WIA, ROP, and RUS are great games, and PON will be one, if they are ever given the time to polish it some more. Does that not give them the right to be given the benefit of the doubt?

To me, it does. And I trust them to make a historically valid game that I will love, Clausewitz or not. According to Johan, the game will have about three thousand provinces in Europe alone, six hundred detailed historical leaders, many troop types. No other real time game I have ever heard of will have that.

I have no problem with anyone expressing concerns and opinions politely and reasonably. But I still ask that people refrain from being negative and attacking, especially with the new team.

[Respenus]

/rant

When I saw that NPC II was going to be released, I jumped in joy. Then I looked at the screenshots...A red mist descends. This isn't the NPC II that we, the fans, were hoping for. The Clausewitz engine, like all Paradox engines, isn't designed to be used for combat, but micromanagement. This is a disgrace to the franchise and an insult to AgeOD its team. The only good thing about this, is that from what I call tell, AgeOD isn't going to be implicated.

/end of rant

I will give this game the benefit of the doubt and base my future criticism on what is released, but the screenshots are foreboding a Paradox title, where a group of peasants can manage to take down a whole army of armoured knights, with little control over combat or those wonderful consequences that a choice of a leader has.

May Napoleon give me strength. Pour l'Empereur! Vive à jamais la France!

[Ilitarist]

Also reading other forums lot of aged people (me too) think that Ageod has made a step back doing a real time game, moreover another Napoleonic.

I'm not a young guy, I have played a lot of games so far and I found that worst game are the real time ones, IMHO.

It's a nature of a customer - to want the product he already tried, but better. Guys, let masters surprise you. Or do you think AGEOD is only capable of remaking one good game over and over?

[caranorn]

Like others I have to say that constructive criticism is not only good, but necessary to improve matters. The team working on the next Age based game need not worry either, if anything they've already received a lot of support on the forums as players have shown trust in this engine and are relieved that it will live on...

Concerning Paradox, many of us have played their games and have had issues with them, their staff, their forums and/or some other combinations. That has led to some deep distrust. I expect like me, most were very faithful Paradox followers at one time, until we were essentially pushed out by the growing mass of new players on their forums. For me another turning point with Paradox was when I realised after Hoi-II had come out that it was actually less moddable than Hoi-I, of course it also introduced some silliness in naval and air warfare that was unbearable (of course there were also a number of positive aspects to Hoi-II, but the negative was enough to turn me off)...

Concerning so called realtime. For me it's almost entirely negative (I try not to be so negative over at Paradox). Only in some very rare cases can I see an advantage of realtime over Wego as we've known it so far with the Age engine. That is to cover the periods of low activity and therefore speed up those phases. But, if a game is to use another engine, or even if it's just an overhaul of an existing engine, one could look into alternative approaches (varying turn times) to achieve the same effect, without the negatives of realtime. To me realtime in a game usually means one or two (or occasionally both in succession) things, stress (as I have to pause/unpause all the time etc.) or boredom (as I just leave the game to run at full speed and still nothing happens). Believe me I have played most Paradox games, lately it's always the same (the last instance of Hoi I couldn't even pretend to enjoy it, I tried it out at a friend's and quit after an hour or so). I know other players like this, I don't. Add to that that realtime indeed makes no sense in a strategy game which is about thinking, planning, scheming, not quickly reacting to events that would never happen at this speed in reallife. No, it makes little sense to me...

But still, I have faith in the team. I'm disapointed in the apparent choice to go real time (iirc Johan stated Clausewitz could have been made turn based, whether Wego was possible I don't know). But I'm not in the know why this was done, at this point I could only speculate. I don't know either what else can be done in Clausewitz (other than what I've seen in existing games), so some areas might see improvements over Age. Whatever, I'm not in the know and therefore will assume the team knows what it's doing and will reserve my judgement till publication and initial patching...

[Respenus]

Well, I posted a rant several hours ago, but decided in the light of my longtime dedication to AgeOD and its products to pull it down. I agree with caranorn on the negative effects of pausable real-time in comparison to the classical Age engine, which in my opinion allowed for greater control and more surprises, bringing into the fore units and their commanders, rather than just winning by the sheer number of your units, which for the most part seems to be the case with all the Paradox games I have played.

Monsieur Thibaut, je n'ai qu'une chose à dire. Je comprends pourquoi vous avez dû vendre AgeOD à Paradox, mais on savait bien que malgré vos meilleurs vœux, vous n'auraient jamais la même indépendance. Je supporte AgeOD et j'ai acheté 4 copies de VGN pour cette raison. De plus, j'ai confiance à votre vision artistique, mais je vous supplie, ne permettez pas que NPC II devient le dernier et le plus mauvais jeu d'AgeOD, car vous méritez une fin plus glorieuse. Maintenant, vous restez le dernier espoir de joueurs sérieux des jeux stratégiques. Que Napoléon soit avec vous!

[PhilThib]

We are striving to use the best of both systems...that won't be always easy, but we shall do something players will like...or so we hope

[ERISS]

Concerning so called realtime. Only in some very rare cases can I see an advantage of realtime over Wego as we've known it so far with the Age engine. That is to cover the periods of low activity and therefore speed up those phases. But, if a game is to use another engine, or even if it's just an overhaul of an existing engine, one could look into alternative approaches (varying turn times) to achieve the same effect, without the negatives of realtime. To me realtime in a game usually means one or two (or occasionally both in succession) things, stress (as I have to pause/unpause all the time etc.) or boredom (as I just leave the game to run at full speed and still nothing happens). Add to that that realtime indeed makes no sense in a strategy game which is about thinking, planning, scheming, not quickly reacting to events that would never happen at this speed in reallife.

That's why I very much like the UFO:After games.
They are tactical games, but their system could be better applied by Ageod than in Paradox games?

SAS
UFO: Aftershock uses the Simultaneous Action System (or SAS for short) for controlling your squad in combat. The basic premise of the system is a simple one: you have to plan a string of actions – go here, take the gun, fire at the enemy – for all your soldiers and then press the Run button. Your squad executes your orders until one of the following happens:
- One or more soldiers complete all planned actions.
- Some planned action cannot be completed (e.g. the enemy hides and it is no longer possible to attack it).
- Something important happens (e.g. a new enemy is spotted, a soldier is attacked, etc.)
- You pause the game.
Whatever the cause, the game stops running and the soldier ‘responsible’ for it (i.e. the one who completed the plan, whose plan was interrupted, or who spotted the enemy) informs you. You can now review all your plans, amend them as needed and then run the game again.
See the Options Screen to modify actions when the game pauses.

http://www.ufo-aftershock.com/pages/features.html
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20106

[Nikel]

Disappointment is the right word for what has happened.


But our disappointment can not be in the same league, evidently, that the one PhilThib, Pocus, or the rest that were members of AGEod in the past feel...


To be absorbed by Paradox is not what they wanted, was the only way to survive. Probably Paradox allowed them to release ROP, PON and see what happened, no success? AGE is over.


But I wonder who is the owner of AGE engine? Paradox also bought it? From Pocus words it seems that somebody else from the next AGE game team is able to code, perhaps Lafrite.

[Philippe]

I pretty much agree with Caranorn.

I play Paradox games and enjoy them. I play Fallout too. That doesn't mean I want to see Paradox games become first person time shooters. Sometimes you drink Nuits St. George, sometimes you drink plonk, and sometimes you drink Coca Cola. Doesn't mean you want to mix them.

I'm sure Nap II will be a fun game at some level, and I really, really hope for Ageod's sake that it will be a commercial success. I'm assuming that the switch to real time is an attempt to attract more mainstream gamers to the hobby. And if it allows Ageod to continue and keep producing more serious games, then it can't be such a bad thing.

But as it happens I'm heavily involved in Napoleonics with two other game companies, and my heart sank when I heard that Nap II was going to be in real time. I had hoped that Nap II would do what Nap I failed to achieve, and I'm saddened to realize that no one will be producing a serious Napoleonic game at the strategic level.

A real time engine might work at the level of delivering a game if there weren't a lot of stacks to move around. But limiting the selection process of what you can try to move to the player's attention span is not a credible mechanism for simulating command and control. The one-second pause trick does not solve the fundamental problem: you can give orders to everybody during that one second, but that's not very realistic either unless you've built in an activation limit -- which you can do, but at that point, why bother because the people that want a twitch game will just complain.

But the real killer with real time is that it not only eliminates one-on-one pbem games, but it makes it impossible play yourself head-to-head using historically correct moves for each side to test whether or not the game is modeling the historical reality. That is a deadly blow to the credibility of the game as an historical simulation. The Ageod brand has a lot of credibility in that department that Paradox has lost.

I think one of the things people are getting upset about is the spectre of Ageod eventually losing that credibility. There's a reason they never put the Cadillac name on a Chevrolet, and it's the same reason that you'd never put the Rolls Royce name on a Fiat -- it cheapens the brand. I think one of the lessons to take away from this is that brands are an illusion, and you have to invest your loyalty in particular games and the particular designers that put them together. And in Ageod's case a lot depends on post-release development and the dynamics, level-headedness, and civility of the group of players who coallesce around a game that they've decided to continue to invest their time and energy in.

[Robert E. Lee]

While i prefer turn-based games (being a father of 2 does not give much time to play and be able to play a couple of turns, stop playing for a while and continue when you have again some time is a big advantage) i also enjoy Paradox games and lately Sengoku and soon CK2. So yes, i was disappointed and still hope a new Athena engine will be created once. I am looking forward to the new game (even though the subject has been so much used) but hope that you can tell them not to use Steam only. The solution for CK2 is better (even though i would have liked to be able to buy a physical copy).

Cheers

[nadia911]

If Paradox has destroyed the NCP II (and AGEOD), I have to be positive and show support? Support for what?

[vaalen]

I pretty much agree with Caranorn.

I play Paradox games and enjoy them. I play Fallout too. That doesn't mean I want to see Paradox games become first person time shooters. Sometimes you drink Nuits St. George, sometimes you drink plonk, and sometimes you drink Coca Cola. Doesn't mean you want to mix them.

I'm sure Nap II will be a fun game at some level, and I really, really hope for Ageod's sake that it will be a commercial success. I'm assuming that the switch to real time is an attempt to attract more mainstream gamers to the hobby. And if it allows Ageod to continue and keep producing more serious games, then it can't be such a bad thing.

But as it happens I'm heavily involved in Napoleonics with two other game companies, and my heart sank when I heard that Nap II was going to be in real time. I had hoped that Nap II would do what Nap I failed to achieve, and I'm saddened to realize that no one will be producing a serious Napoleonic game at the strategic level.

A real time engine might work at the level of delivering a game if there weren't a lot of stacks to move around. But limiting the selection process of what you can try to move to the player's attention span is not a credible mechanism for simulating command and control. The one-second pause trick does not solve the fundamental problem: you can give orders to everybody during that one second, but that's not very realistic either unless you've built in an activation limit -- which you can do, but at that point, why bother because the people that want a twitch game will just complain.

But the real killer with real time is that it not only eliminates one-on-one pbem games, but it makes it impossible play yourself head-to-head using historically correct moves for each side to test whether or not the game is modeling the historical reality. That is a deadly blow to the credibility of the game as an historical simulation. The Ageod brand has a lot of credibility in that department that Paradox has lost.

I think one of the things people are getting upset about is the spectre of Ageod eventually losing that credibility. There's a reason they never put the Cadillac name on a Chevrolet, and it's the same reason that you'd never put the Rolls Royce name on a Fiat -- it cheapens the brand. I think one of the lessons to take away from this is that brands are an illusion, and you have to invest your loyalty in particular games and the particular designers that put them together. And in Ageod's case a lot depends on post-release development and the dynamics, level-headedness, and civility of the group of players who coallesce around a game that they've decided to continue to invest their time and energy in.

Folks, have some faith!

All you have seen is what Paradox can do with the Clausewitz system. None of us have seen what AGEOD can do with that system.

Give them a chance before you condemn.

Johan said that the system did not require a particular movement or combat system, but was mainly concerned with system and graphics usage. I am certain the Phils will come up with something that nobody has done before, and will make a great game.

And nobody is paying attention to the fact that a pausable real time game can be set to run at a very slow speed, which reduces the chance of things happening at once. There are also things you can do to simulate command control, such as having troops under a bad commander move very slowly if they fail an internal check. Or even move in the wrong direction. If this has occurred to me, and my design ability compared to the Phils is like comparing a tomahawk to a nuclear bomb, they will come up with something much better.

And they are not designing it for the twitch crowd. Trust me on this.

I understand your concerns, I share many of them, but I am willing to trust the Phils on this. I submit, based on what they have done in the past, that all of us who know them should at least consider doing the same.

[vaalen]

If Paradox has destroyed the NCP II (and AGEOD), I have to be positive and show support? Support for what?

Did you know that Paradox is planning a game using the Ageod system that is planned to be available before NCP 2?

How about support for that?

And what if they have to do NCP 2 in order to be able to do the Ageod series game?

Can you support that?

[vaalen]

I apologize for perhaps making too many comments, but I am passionate about the survival of Ageod. And I have one more point to make.

Has anybody considered that perhaps the reason that Clausewitz was chosen for NCP 2 is because of the endless, bitter complaints about how slow PON was?

That perhaps a campaign game covering the whole of the world at once, with over three thousand provinces in Europe might also have long processing times between turns?

And perhaps Clausewitz was chosen to solve this problem?

I am just guessing, but I suspect this is true.

[Robert E. Lee]

Has anybody considered that perhaps the reason that Clausewitz was chosen for NCP 2 is because of the endless, bitter complaints about how slow PON was?

As far as i understand it, the problem with PON is that AGEOD did not have the workforce to improve the engine or make a newer one. This is the point where i do not understand why Paradox is not ready to give some of it's workforce in order to have 2 different engines running for Paradox, one turn-based and one real-time.

I do wish as much as you do that our beloved AGEOD team continues working on great games no matter what engine they are using.

[nadia911]

Did you know that Paradox is planning a game using the Ageod system that is planned to be available before NCP 2?

How about support for that?

And what if they have to do NCP 2 in order to be able to do the Ageod series game?

Can you support that?

The team AGEOD is working on Paradox for Paradox, the next AGEOD game is being developed by external modders, without external modders AGEOD would have died.
Anyway, a game about the 30 yrs. war or Roman times I do not care, I like one NCP II turn based.

When AACW II is converted to the format Paradox will hear a complaint?

[vaalen]

The team AGEOD is working on Paradox for Paradox, the next AGEOD game is being developed by external modders, without external modders AGEOD would have died.
Anyway, a game about the 30 yrs. war or Roman times I do not care, I like one NCP II turn based.

When AACW II is converted to the format Paradox will hear a complaint?

nadia 911, I also love the Ageod engine, and I also prefer turn based. And I am very grateful to the modders who are developing the next AGEOD game.

But I am willing to give them a chance and see what they can come up with. I have read various comments and this game will have a huge amount of historical detail, unlike any other Paradox game. All I am asking is that we give them the benefit of the doubt while they are developing the game.

[8thTnCav]

Regardless of what some may think, it is possible to make a serious historical simulation in real time. Here's a screenshot of one called Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge.
[ATTACH]17114[/ATTACH]

So it's not like it can't be done. It has been done before.
AGEOD is not cheapening the brand, they're innovating and responding to limitations they encountered pushing the envelope with one engine. They've switched engines. Sometimes you need a plane, sometimes you need a rocket. Whatever gets you where you need to be.

We've seen what they can do already; we know they're good at what they do. Vaalen is right. As those who appreciate what they do, we all ought to be passionate about their survival and continued success.

[nadia911]

Soon, AACW II "the shooter" : Bonk:

[Ilitarist]

Soon, AACW II "the shooter" : Bonk:

Please, stop this stupid elitism. Turn-based gaming is not by default more "intelligent" than realtime. And, by the way, Clauzewitz is not exactly realtime.

Change of gameplay style can give you new unique genre. Maybe you've managed to master AGEOD games and think they're someway most elite and hardcore games and any significant change will destroy your preffered game style and therefore game itself.

First, Paradox games aren't any less complex than any AGEOD games.

Second, AGEOD games aren't most hardcore, intellectual, complex or difficult games.

Third, AGE is not a sacred cow. This engine is dated and hasn't any significant advantages.

Good game is fun game. Complexity and challenge are tools for producing fun. Not playign shooters or RTS is not telling anything good about you, except maybe you can't make fast decisions.

[lodilefty]

Please keep this civil.

Opinions are OK, flames are not!

[nadia911]

Please, stop this stupid elitism. Turn-based gaming is not by default more "intelligent" than realtime. And, by the way, Clauzewitz is not exactly realtime.

Change of gameplay style can give you new unique genre. Maybe you've managed to master AGEOD games and think they're someway most elite and hardcore games and any significant change will destroy your preffered game style and therefore game itself.

First, Paradox games aren't any less complex than any AGEOD games.

Second, AGEOD games aren't most hardcore, intellectual, complex or difficult games.

Third, AGE is not a sacred cow. This engine is dated and hasn't any significant advantages.

Good game is fun game. Complexity and challenge are tools for producing fun. Not playign shooters or RTS is not telling anything good about you, except maybe you can't make fast decisions.

Clauzewitz is not real time?????

What exactly is it????


First: you think Paradox games are as complex as AGEOD games????

Second: depends of the player IQ...

Third: Of course, do not change then


"Good game is fun game. Complexity and challenge are tools for producing fun"

Paradox games is out of complexity and challenge, so boring no?

[Philippe]

A lack of equanimity and civility is what stunted Nap I's development in the first place. What makes any of these games blossom is the cooperative dynamic of the group of people who are willing to invest time and energy into getting it right. Engaging in invective is a surefire way of making sure those groups never form. Poisoning the atmosphere can kill a lot more than the cohesion of the group of people willing to contribute to the evolution of a particular game. This is supposed to be a discussion among adults, so let's keep it that way.

[veji1]

Agreed,

Nadia911, you have made your point and expressed your disapointment, like other players albeit in a more direct way. The Phils get the point, they know that a great part of the community wished for a NCP2 that would have gotten the best out of AACW, ROP and WIA. It was not to happen and I am sure that the decision was not a joyful one for them.

Now that you have made your point, either you and all the other players move on to actual questions on and interest for what NCP2 will be, or for the other AGE engine game, or we just drop it.

No point on beating a dead horse, wouldn't you agree?

Peace.

[vaalen]

A lack of equanimity and civility is what stunted Nap I's development in the first place. What makes any of these games blossom is the cooperative dynamic of the group of people who are willing to invest time and energy into getting it right. Engaging in invective is a surefire way of making sure those groups never form. Poisoning the atmosphere can kill a lot more than the cohesion of the group of people willing to contribute to the evolution of a particular game. This is supposed to be a discussion among adults, so let's keep it that way.

Well said, Philippe. I could not agree more.