Next Game; "Vainglory of Nations": "Victoria" the AGEOD way!

[Martial-law]

Our project is still moving forward, although at a slow pace right now because of our second game we have to turn out next fall.

But there are still quite a few people, including myself, that are active on game design and content on this project, which we have called "Vainglory of Nations"...

Discussions with publishers are at a standstill, because they all act the same: no beta, no agreement (and no money). In other words, they want to make sure the game is almost finished before they can commit themselves. As a cosnequence, we are forced to self-financed the development ourselves and it takes longer than expected...

We currently have plans for a late 2007 or early 2008 release, that's the best we could do with our limited means...and provided Birth of America and its successor sell well leure:

Hi guys,



I just wished to share this information with you all that the next possible game from Phillipe is "Vainglory of Nations" which will cover the same time period as the game from Paradox, "Victoria" i.e. 1835 - 1935 (Paradox are about to release an expansion which would extend the time period to a full 100 years!) covers. So lets hope that we would be able to get this game in future and its my hope that "Vainglory of Nations" would prove to be a better game than "Victoria". I would request Phillipe to cover a 100 years time frame in this game and also including air power, tanks etc. I sincerely wish it to be a better game than "Victoria"! Long live "Vainglory of Nations"!

[oi_you_nutter]

good luck with the new project

one small bit of advice, imho, Victoria is just too damn complicated, lots of period flavour but there is too much micro-management. i wanted to like victoria.. but could never get into it. of all the Paradox games it is the one i liked the least.

as victoria is getting a revamp to extend it into the 1930's and link it to HOI2 Doomsday will it be a direct competitor to your project ?

[Aragos]

I suppose I'm of the opposite camp, in that I loved Victoria for the micromanagment

Best of luck to Philippe, and as always feel free to ask for help!

[Martial-law]

I suppose I'm of the opposite camp, in that I loved Victoria for the micromanagment

Best of luck to Philippe, and as always feel free to ask for help!

I love Victoria's micromanagement and depth. I like its population system represented by pie charts and everything. I wish an even better alternative to Victoria and I am confident Philippe would make it.

[Aragos]

I love Victoria's micromanagement and depth. I like its population system represented by pie charts and everything. I wish an even better alternative to Victoria and I am confident Philippe would make it.

Two words: Tactical combat.

Victoria lacked it. I wanted to lead my divisions around on a mini-battlefield, and use my ironclads in line formation

[oi_you_nutter]

i like the detail of Victoria, but hated the micromanagement, a small country is not too bad but trying to run the British Empire was too much.. too much info to manage... when you have an excess of commodities, you do not get penalised for the over productiion, i like one of the ideas from Crown of Glory... wastage.. you have a surplus.. the bigger the amount = the more you waste

tactical battles is a great idea, either choose to automaticaly fight or select to resolve manually...

[Tamas]

I am sorry, but tactical combat is an awful idea. Making a competent AI for it is impossible, so it would just ruin the game. If a game is designed to be strategic, it should be strategic.

[Pocus]

Exactly. Our emphasize is on strategy, not on tactic. We prefer to develop a very competent strategic AI, and not 2 poor ones. We don't want to see a game where the player can win by exploiting the tactical engine and winning against impossible odd, just because the AI is too dumb and is manipulated.

As you say, this is also a game design decision. Players manipulate units at a high level, even if said units are very detailed (made of 4 to 12 sub-elements, each with a score of statistic and custom graphics). They should not have to handle a world simulation at the battalion level, spending a good 2/3 of their time in a tac engine.

[Aragos]

Exactly. Our emphasize is on strategy, not on tactic. We prefer to develop a very competent strategic AI, and not 2 poor ones. We don't want to see a game where the player can win by exploiting the tactical engine and winning against impossible odd, just because the AI is too dumb and is manipulated.

As you say, this is also a game design decision. Players manipulate units at a high level, even if said units are very detailed (made of 4 to 12 sub-elements, each with a score of statistic and custom graphics). They should not have to handle a world simulation at the battalion level, spending a good 2/3 of their time in a tac engine.

Ok,ok, ok
I can live with a detailed higher level organization of units in lieu of leading my troops at Yorktown

[oi_you_nutter]

Exactly. Our emphasize is on strategy, not on tactic. We prefer to develop a very competent strategic AI, and not 2 poor ones. We don't want to see a game where the player can win by exploiting the tactical engine and winning against impossible odd, just because the AI is too dumb and is manipulated.

excellant point, i agree

<devils advocate>
but

gamers like to control, after we maneuver our forces at the strategic level, with carefully planning and coordination of our forces to force a battle we then hand over control to the game to fight the tactical battle, its a control and ownership issue. when we win we want the glory and when we lose we do not want the excuse that its the AI's fault.

</devils advocate>

one good AI is better than two poor

[Martial-law]

Hi Phillipe,


It has been a long time since your last information about "Vainglory of Nations". How's the project going ahead? Please give us some more information about this grand project. If possible some screenshots etc. I can't wait for this game really!!!

[PhilThib]

I'll be back to you on this in a few days (next week) with some good news I hope

[Martial-law]

I'll be back to you on this in a few days (next week) with some good news I hope

Hi Phillipe,


It seems progress is underway for "Vainglory of Nations". Also I wish to remind you of some good news you mentioned in your reply. I am still waiting anxiously for the good news. I look forward for a little information about this project.

[PhilThib]

We have almost secured the financing of the project, and the agreement is signed with our partners. Most of our human ressources will be devoted to the game development from October onwards, for 10-12 months

We still have at least 2 other ongoing projects, but one of them depends on the participation of an outside publisher to fund some content development: if the deal is made before end of the month, another game could be in the pipe for next Spring (surprise )... but the publisher is still wondering whether he can bring in the cash now or not...

If he can't, we won't do the game now and delay it till vainglory is finished leure:

[Martial-law]

Hi Phillipe,


Since October is now over would you inform us something about "Vainglory of Nations"? I am very desperate for this game and would be very excited if you show us a few screenshots of the game. Or any other pleasing news about it. Awaiting your good news.


Martial-law

[Pocus]

PhilThib is away for some days, so you will have to satisfy yourself with another Philippe

VGN has now a budget, its official, and the game will be our main project thru 2007. There is no screenshots to be seen for now, its too early, only some concept arts and design/tech documents are being done for now.

[Korrigan]

Actually, the fact that the future development of Vain Glory is already being financed is a great news, as budget is always the damocles sword pending over quality games.

[Donegal]

It will be pausable real time or turn based?

[Martial-law]

Thanks Korrigan and Pocus for the information. I am very thrilled to know that the game has a budget now and we would be having more information as well as screenshots throughout the next year. I sincerely wish and hope the game would be a great success! Please do provide us with more information frequently. Also Donegal as far as I think the game would be turn based not real time according to my previous talks with Philippe. May be Korrigan and Pocus could shed some light on this.

[Korrigan]

Vainglory will be based on a further development of the AGE engine (BoA, AACW). So expect a turn-based game (WEGO).

[Donegal]

Good

[Ashbery76]

I hope the game is nothing like Victoria from Paradox.I would like the game to actually be fun and not a dull micromanaging nightmare..The game was just so boring..

[Sol Invictus]

Agreed, seems that Vainglory will be what Vicky should have been.

[PhilThib]

We are deep in the re-design now and I can tell you we (YOU) are going after FUN here

[Anguille]

Please, make WWI one of the main scenarios...this is really a period that has been neglected in Strategy Games

[PhilThib]

It will be there !

[Sol Invictus]

Will this game be more geared toward multi-player, with a potential of around eight players taking on the role of one of the major powers of the time?

[PhilThib]

Exactly, that's one of the goals

Enjoy (this is of course temporary !!)

[Pocus]

the map won't look actually like the one shown, as you see the prototype presented tp publishers something like 1 year and a half ago Much have changed now, and the game will benefits tremendously from BOA and AACW.

[Ashbery76]

Single player should be the focus, as that is what the majority play..

Oh bigger picture Please.