Which wargame or strategy game would you like that AGEod develops in the middle term

[yoshino]

The 30 Years war.or Italy city nations confrict in Renaissance era.
It would be very fun and novel.

[hgilmer]

I know this might sound really crazy, but in a way it seems logical, too.

World War 1 with the Aegod game mechanic like in RoP and RuS. Rus is the logical step before WW1. It's perfect!

[Rafiki]

hgilmer, how much do you want AGEOD to cover WW1, actually?

- WW1: La Grande Guerre
- RUS (well, not overlapping, but at least an "immediate neighbor" to WW1)
- Pride of Nations

[Zap Brannigan]

I think the 30 Years War would be a great choice - it would suit the AGE engine and the experience of Pride of Nations, ROP and RUS would help when dealing with the multiple factions / unreliable allies for any grand campaign. There would also be scope for any number of scenarios due to the different phases of the war (mini-wars in reality). Downside would be the amount of research required to cover the period.

[Templer]

I know this might sound really crazy, but in a way it seems logical, too.

World War 1 with the Aegod game mechanic like in RoP and RuS. Rus is the logical step before WW1. It's perfect!

How would Athena deals with trench warfare of WW1.
I can´t see how that works.

[Andriko]

... Why not a Spanish Civil War game?

Seeing what you've done with ACW, and what you're introducing with RUS, I think it's a great choice. And next year it will be 75th anniversary of its beggining, either.

Both the spanish and English civil wars strike me as interesting options, especially with highly detailed maps.

How would Athena deals with trench warfare of WW1.
I can´t see how that works.

It deals with it very nicley in RuS in my opinion, and don't forget, they have been simulating trench style warfare in ACW as well.

[beuckelssen]

Ouch! I didn´t realize that it was a multiple choice poll, so I voted only for a roman game; thinking in a Pax Romana 2.

But I would also love to see some other game set in antiquity. Something like a "Chariots of War" but with the AGE engine and ideas of AGEOD it would be just awesome.

[Nikel]

Do you mean something like Hittites vs Ancient egyptians, Kadesh...? Sea peoples? I suppose AGEod will release many games before something like this, but who knows


Recently a bronze age game has been released. I do not like what I see in the screenshoots though

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Dreamspike_Studios/BRZ/BRZ_page.html

[Flop]

I voted for middle ages/renaissance. What I really want is a Wars of the Roses game.

[OneArmedMexican]

As far as I am concerned the two best AGEOD games were those which had railways. No I am not a railway enthousiast. But as far as AGE games are concerned, railways make them faster and a lot more exiting.

For that reason I would love to see more games in the late 19th or early 20th century.

WW I would be interesting, but my personal favourite would be the Mexican Revolution. It could make for a great game. And don't think that has anything to do with my user name.

[beuckelssen]

Do you mean something like Hittites vs Ancient egyptians, Kadesh...? Sea peoples? I suppose AGEod will release many games before something like this, but who knows


Recently a bronze age game has been released. I do not like what I see in the screenshoots though

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Dreamspike_Studios/BRZ/BRZ_page.html

Well, I also think that is not the most plausible posibility for the next game. But a dream is a dream...

Besides, If they make a huge and detailed map the game can have a lot of campaings. Even AGEOD can make some kind of DLCs adding new fully campaings with diferent empires but using the same map.

My favourit it would be a new RoP; but this time instead of Prussia it would be "The Rise of Persia". . Begining with the rebellion of Cyrus the Great over the median king Astyages and finalizing with the greco-persian wars.


About the bronze game, you´re right, those screenies are very "rude". But that is because our apreciation is conditioning by the beautiful ageod graphics.

[nats]

Well I voted for Napoleon becuase I am about to buy my first Ageod game and it was a toss up between Napoleon and the American Civil War but then I found out that Napoleon has some bugs and doesnt have a grand campaign and that pretty much decided it for me. Although I also dont quite like the look of the Napoloeon game's map as much as the more hand drawn look of the ACW game and the others.

So if they were to do a new Napoeon game they should put in a campaign and also use the similar hand drawn look of the other games which looks so nice. Old computer games used to have this kind of quality but you just dont find it very often these days - really glad to see at least someone is still producing really nice PC games. Especially after getting competely bored with the Total War games I feel that these Ageod games will be very refreshing. But they need more marketing they deserve to be more popular!!

Cant say I am all that interested in any other historical periods - perhaps the Zulu /Boer wars but I see thats their next game!!

[Leinsdorf]

Poll results are quite interesting and seem to confirm a preference of AGEod's fans for ancient and modern warfare.
Actually I think that two of the best AGEod's products are WIA and ROP, namely wargames taking place in 18. Century. It seems appropriate to insist on this line and I would like to suggest as extremely interesting further titles located in this age, focusing on quite fascinating campaigns, as: Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession, or Karl XII Northern Wars.
Any plans in AGEod on this topics?

[PhilThib]

Those subjects are indeed very interesting...but they lack sales potential...sorry to say that, but unless such a project is carried fully by a team of volunteers (with our help), they won't be developped by AGEOD because that would ultimately sink the company

[Nikel]

Those subjects are indeed very interesting...but they lack sales potential...sorry to say that, but unless such a project is carried fully by a team of volunteers (with our help), they won't be developped by AGEOD because that would ultimately sink the company

And the PW?


- Only if carried fully by a team of volunteers (with our help), as you say or

- Developed by AGEod itself, but who knows when?

[Narwhal]

Those subjects are indeed very interesting...but they lack sales potential...sorry to say that, but unless such a project is carried fully by a team of volunteers (with our help), they won't be developped by AGEOD because that would ultimately sink the company

By the way - how successful was RoP ? Was it successful enough that you might risk a "little known" subject again, or are you going back to NCP 2 as soon as PoN is out ?

[Leinsdorf]

Those subjects are indeed very interesting...but they lack sales potential...sorry to say that, but unless such a project is carried fully by a team of volunteers (with our help), they won't be developped by AGEOD because that would ultimately sink the company

That makes sense and I can understand sales potential problems for the firm.
But these campaigns could be packed in a single game (e.g. Wars in the Age of Reason) which could attract a somewhat larger audience. Alternatively they could be developed as complement or second release to ROP (e.g. like BOA2, a ROP 2, including the Silesian Wars 1740-45).
As to Marlborough in particular, I think that the British public would be greatly attracted by the title, and not only due to the well-known books on this commander written by the reputed historians Chandler and Correlli Barnett: Marlborough was even the ancestor of Winston Churchill.
Just a suggestion...

[PhilThib]

Well, excellent ideas indeedn but this is not as easy as it seems, because this means making a brand new game...new map, new graphics, new DB....all this costs a LOT of money...and, worst, TIME.

To do such an endeavor, we would need a full time separate team. This can be done with volunteers which we could support, but our own agenda and work capacity is full for the next 5 years.

[Franciscus]

... but our own agenda and work capacity is full for the next 5 years.

You said 5 years ?

I only wish I knew what delicacies you are preparing to throw at this unruly mob of players

[Pocus]

Indeed, I believe people don't perceive how much costly in time it is to 'just' make OOB, setups, find historical data. People believe it is a given, and for some, it is to the point that when they saw ROP, they said: "ok, it happens in Prussia, but what's new?".

[tyrex]

Indeed, I believe people don't perceive how much costly in time it is to 'just' make OOB, setups, find historical data. People believe it is a given, and for some, it is to the point that when they saw ROP, they said: "ok, it happens in Prussia, but what's new?".

For having done researches for another game (not an AgeOd one though) I can confirm it takes quite a long TIME to do all the preliminary researches. And the beta test to correct the mistakes in datas and value are also quite long.
I'm also working in computing at Grenoble (not too far from Meylan ) and I've got quite a hard time to check every bug I encountered.
So I'm not at all surprised of all the costs (both money and time) it could represent.

[Leinsdorf]

Well, excellent ideas indeedn but this is not as easy as it seems, because this means making a brand new game...new map, new graphics, new DB....all this costs a LOT of money...and, worst, TIME.

To do such an endeavor, we would need a full time separate team. This can be done with volunteers which we could support, but our own agenda and work capacity is full for the next 5 years.

I understand very well and for my part I prefer few accurately researched and designed games than a plethora of superficial and messed things delivered to the market.
I deem indeed already almost a miracle that you have published just a superb and unexpected game on Frederick the Great campaigns. So continue on this line and I'm quite satisfied with the outcome

[ham]

I'd like to hear about details of "Five-Year Plans".

Well, excellent ideas indeedn but this is not as easy as it seems, because this means making a brand new game...new map, new graphics, new DB....all this costs a LOT of money...and, worst, TIME.

To do such an endeavor, we would need a full time separate team. This can be done with volunteers which we could support, but our own agenda and work capacity is full for the next 5 years.

[PhilThib]

Well, it's so "secret".....kidding apart, you'll probably get some news revealed in the course of this year.

Next big thing is the PON release this spring

[Omnius]

Philippe,
Yep it does cost a lot to develop new games, especially recreating a whole new game system. I really like the AGEOD game system and hope it can be used to bring us games covering different ages like ancients. Yeah it definitely behooves AGEOD to try to develop games with star power attraction such as popular wars that gamers are more prone to buy.

While WW2 is most likely the most popular war to game I wonder just how many different WW2 games can the market bear before gamers get bored out of their minds? I like that AGEOD has brought us a few different eras of games like Frederick the Great, the Russian (un)Civil War and PON.

I'd like to see a game on the Roman era, definitely a lot of interesting campaigns that could be done in one game that ought to garner player interest. Same with Alexander the Great.

After PON what's next on the AGEOD drawing board?

[Pocus]

We know it but can't say

[tyrex]

I'd like to see a game on the Roman era, definitely a lot of interesting campaigns that could be done in one game that ought to garner player interest. Same with Alexander the Great.

I'm not sure the AGE engine could handle the Roman era. At least not without serious reworking on the battle module. Antic battle are really different from gunpowder era ones.
There was not really fire combat at that time. Ok they were skirmishers but their use in battle are very undocumented. No one is sure they have an impact at all. They're go only shock armies.
Ammunition supply are very difficult to represent as the skirmishers got plenty of "bullets" where the hastati got only two shots. javeliners always have also less shot than slingers for instance.
And what about cavalry? On gunpowder era that weapon wasn't send to attack first but just to break battle weary troops. In Antics battle they were send immediatly in the fray against the other cavalry to open a breach in ennemy flanks. It was never a reserve asset but a quite decisive weapon in the first time of the battle (and the very reason Rome loose so many battles as Roman cavalry was never good until mercenaries were recruited).
Also big problems in pursuit. The AGE engine will have some difficulties to re enact the great difference in casulties from the antics battles. The loser get nearly wipe up (or at least suffers considerable losses) when the winner losses were usually ten times less. Never see such difference in all the Age game unless great superiority in numbers. The looser's troop collapse and the deadly pursuit occuring then aren't really done in the games now on.
Elephants will be a problem. Powerful weapon against troops which never saw one they were indeed a very fragile weapon not really decisive (generally the side with elephants was the looser of the battle cf the Hydaspe).
And how to represent the powerful effect of macedonian phalanx nearly invincible taken frontally (even by legions)? and how to represent the tactical flexibility offers by the manipular system?

And so on. But I'll be happy if the AGE team could gave us a quite good game on the period however.

[PhilThib]

Well, with some thinking and tweaking of model values, something rather significantly close to a realistic antic battle could be achieved...

for instance, from the top of my mind:

* either if you set all fire values to 0 and combat starts at close range only
* or you consider the "fire" phases to be differents 'steps' of a man-to-man combat and the assault phase becomes the pursuit...

This might work

[Omnius]

tyrex,
While it would take some reworking of combat to model ancient battles I think it could be done within the existing AGE engine. Archers might have a range of 1 so we see some precontact firing and don't forget that the Romans and others had plenty of "artillery" pieces like the ballista that would have had a longer range though certainly poor aim. If the AGEOD crew could figure out how to model combat with 17th-19th century combat then I'm confident they could make ancient battles work too.

As for combat results I certainly see a lot of units die in large battles and the combat losses could be tweaked to be more bloody through leader attributes where some leaders like Hannibal were rather prolific at winning lopsided victories. Unit quality is modeled in the AGE engine and does a nice job of showing how large masses of poorly trained troops not faring so well in battle and those forces tend to lose large numbers in battle. Pursuit is handled already in AGEOD games mainly through the cavalry differential between attacker and defender so I don't see this as a problem either.

The area concept would work well with ancients, like the board games that SPI and now Strategy & Tactics Press are producing on ancient campaigns. Movement would work much as it does now in NCP or any other AGEOD game.

Philippe,
Thanks for showing how creative you can be with your awesome AGE game system! It is sad that ancient battles aren't more popular, there were many interesting campaigns and battles to model. It would be fun to see ancient campaigns done AGEOD style on the computer.

[tyrex]

Well, with some thinking and tweaking of model values, something rather significantly close to a realistic antic battle could be achieved...

for instance, from the top of my mind:

* either if you set all fire values to 0 and combat starts at close range only
* or you consider the "fire" phases to be differents 'steps' of a man-to-man combat and the assault phase becomes the pursuit...

This might work

Le souci c'est que les archers à cheval ou à pieds, tout comme les frondeurs devraient avoir des portées. De plus les troupes légères (les fameux skirmishers des jeux avec figurines) ne cherchaient jamais le corps à corps n'étant absolument pas équipés pour celà.
L'effet des tirs devraient plus être de la perte de cohésion qu'autre chose. A priori les pertes du aux tirs restaient tout de même très faible (sauf contre des cibles non protégées bien sur)
Faire passer l'assaut pour une poursuite ca ne fonctionnera pas. La poursuite n'était qu'un massacre sans nom de troupes en fuite ne se défendant pas. Elle devrait être une phase à part où le gagnant frappe sans riposte possible du perdant et en ajoutant des bonus aux troupes légères très efficaces dans ce genre de situation. Cela peut être ceci dit une phase d'assaut effectuée lorsque l'ennemi fuit le combat. Mais elle doit être à sens unique. Il faudrait aussi que les troupes les plus rapides du vaincu ne souffrent que peu de cette phase tandis que les lourds, eux, subiraient des pertes extremement lourde.
Etant tout à la fois historien militaire de formation avec une spécialisation sur les chocs système macédonien-système romain et fan des jeux AGE (je les ais tous), je sais que le moteur n'est pas vraiment conçu pour bien rendre les spécificités d'une bataille antique. Même en rusant cela me semble assez difficile de bien rendre une bataille antique. Je le sais car cela fait un bail que j'essaye de voir comment l'on pourrait bien rendre celà. Pour le moment je ne vois pas bien. Mais je serais ravi d'aider s'il le faut même si mes connaissances en code sont plus que limité