New patches / questionable game balance changes

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Maqver]

Trouble is Andrew given that the early Union commanders have such poor stats hitting them again by forcing them to fight with probably a huge penalty because the commanders are inactive creates a very big double whammy for the Union player and lets be honest its why most elect to stay put and defend. Its not so much that folks only want to win its more that they are adverse to committing suicide

Yes.

The problem with the Threaten Richmond in '62 imperative is the assumptions on which it rests.

It assumes that the reason the Union player doesn't attack is because he wants to build a war machine....and not, given the unactivatable generals he has, the ahistorically large armies he faces, etc that he is making a well reasoned decision.

But the biggest assumption is that the South's player is playing defense and is not ahistotically invading and being aggressive with forces as large as your own. With large southern armies at Washington's doorstep, reaching into Maryland, West Virginia and, say, taking Fort Monroe....would there have been a historical call to march on Richmond? No there wouldn't. There might have been calls for Lincoln's head but no one would have considered conquering Richmond at that point. Sending an force to threaten Richmond when your own territory and capitol are at serious risk would not have happened...yet with the new imperative it will not take these things into account that could be occuring a year into the war. Things by that point could have little relation to what happened historically.

It will effect gameplay in other ways as well...the southern player will know it is coming and will be planning for it from the beginning. They will be even more aggressive and taking Fort Monroe will just about seal that deal. And a 20 morale hit to the Union (more when they lose the force that tries to fulfill it) could mean a lot of called games.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Maqver]

Wow.

I hope you don't consider any of the discussion around this as a borderline flame war. People have been voicing pro's and cons in a reasonable manner I thought.

In a game changing decision like this it is always better to have discussion and transparency even if contentious. The points of view, playstyle, etc of a few may not match the rest. They may have built in assumptions that aren't always accurate.

[Franciscus]

(...) The transparency experiment has been a total failure and that grandiose idea is history.

Well, you know what you are doing. But I think that you are probably over-reacting and dramatizing a bit all this. How can you call the ongoing development of AACW (and other AGEOD games) a total failure ?? The arguing and bickering in forums is healthy and normal and you should not regard it as attacks against you! On the contrary, it is a pity that there are so few (comparatively) forum dwellers. Maybe one of the reasons of the semi-failure of NCP is it's small interested and participative forum community, and what may still rescue WW1 from failure is the devs involvement with the community and, precisely, their transparency towards them.
The feeling of personal and daily involvement of the game developers (specially Pocus) is one of the factors that so much endears AGEOD to me.
I hope it does not go away...

Regards.

[Nial]

The reason that NCP does not have the following that AACW has is simple. It is the same reason that after two years we are still debating/ tinkering/ testing/ arguing/ fuming/ patching/ and loving AACW. The grand campaign. I have been here a long time, and through out that time I have seen many modders come and go. From exceptional and truly gifted people all the way down to not so gifted private tinkerers (is that a word? *laugh*) like me. There have been things I have not agreed with, not many, but some. And things I have loved to death. But one thing has remained consistent through out my time here. The dedication of many of the old guard that have given so much of their time and effort to make this game what it is today. Theirs is a labor of love, with no pay and very little recognition.

Not everyone will like every change. But rest assured, all changes are AGEod approved or they wouldn't be allowed in the vanilla game. I must have read it dozens of times from Pocus himself. And I'm inclined to believe him.

Cheers
Nial

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Also, again, with the risk of becoming obnoxious, let me ask for a further "historical" change that should be considered: So many things have been changed and the AI has got so much improvements, why not try to finnaly relocate the spawning places of the generals pools as per history, as has been done already in several mods ? It bothers me to have "all" the generals appear in Richmond and Washington, but sometimes I feel that I am the only one...

I'd be a +1 on this one.

I'd never ever considered it before as its never been a real issue but in one of my current games, playing as the CSA, I deemed it prudent to relocate my capital in late 62. Virginia is over-run with Union troops. Slowly Robert E is beginning to take some of it back but I do have to smile everytime a new commander appears that was/scheduled to materialise in Richmond which is the majority of them as they keep popping up as near to Richmond as possible but thats now deep in what is currently enemy territory.

Apologies in advance for posting well off thread.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

You need to give up eating to respond quicker which for me would be a tough challenge also.

I thought you didn't remember the VP situation quite right, but as I was at work I wasn't sure if something had changed in the latest RC and I simply had failed to notice that (remember I wasn't around before 1.11e, so that I didn't and don't know how the game was before that) and I did feel hungry. So I thought how to express myself while eating, then checked the RC thread to bolster my confidence, then took a deep breath and intended to start typing, only to see I was too late

[Clovis]

The reason that NCP does not have the following that AACW has is simple. It is the same reason that after two years we are still debating/ tinkering/ testing/ arguing/ fuming/ patching/ and loving AACW.

Cheers
Nial

No. In fact NCP has less communauty follow up because it's less played. The size of modding efforts are always proportional to the players one.

The day NCP will get a Great Campaign, it will become a very modded one.

[Clovis]

I don't regard it as an attack against me at all. I just remember a great Leader MOD and its' potential in fixing a lot of leader inaccuracies was in the end, blocked, because of negative borderline flamewar remarks before it ever had a chance of being introduced into the game. I'm not referring to the normal disagreement type discussions. I'm referring to the way the very first post in this thread got started, followed by the troll in the 2nd post. This is almost a perfect repeat of the Leader MOD thread and it's progression.

Even if the Leader MOD had been slightly flawed, these flaws could have been tweaked out over time. Instead it never had a chance to be tried by the great majority of players who actually wanted it included. This is not going to happen again. There are literally hundreds of hours that go into the rework/enhancement of each and every patch, including historical research, data file reworking, and play testing. Past beta team members and current beta team members are volunteers trying to do a job for AGEod. To have them help by investing their time and energy into these new developments, only to risk having the work blocked from inclusion is my main concern. Don't say it won't happen, because in regards to the Leader MOD, it did happen.

edit> Don't misinterpret this... Everyone will see the new work and have a chance for discussion, but the discussion will take place after the work has been placed in a workable public beta patch, where it can stand on its own with players actually able to try it before bashing it.

I've long time ago simply integrated the leader mod in SVF. But indeed, I haven't to sell my mod so I can discard trollism manifestation.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Nial]

No. In fact NCP has less communauty follow up because it's less played. The size of modding efforts are always proportional to the players one.

The day NCP will get a Great Campaign, it will become a very modded one.

*big smile* You may be right. I may be crazy.

I have played it alot, not so much anymore because there is not much more it can give me that I haven't allready done. So the GC is to me the natural progression from it's current form. But as always that is just my sort of humble opinion.

Nial

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

PhilThib has on quite a few occasions said that there is every hope that AGEOD one day will do a NCP2 and that having a full grand campaign in it will have to be pretty high up on the list of priorities for it. The upcoming VGN should break a lot of the ground that needs to be covered before a NCP2 becomes a feasable project, in more ways than one

[Clovis]

PhilThib has on quite a few occasions said that there is every hope that AGEOD one day will do a NCP2 and that having a full grand campaign in it will have to be pretty high up on the list of priorities for it. The upcoming VGN should break a lot of the ground that needs to be covered before a NCP2 becomes a feasable project, in more ways than one

I know...and I hope too.

The AGE engine is a sort of crossover between strategic and operational scales. It has an operational level but needs too to have a strategic layer. So no surprise the most praised AGEOD were BOA, WIA, AACW which include strategical choices. On the contrary, NCP is mostly made of pure operational scenarios, to a scale a little too big to be really interesting on the operational level itself. The 1815 campaign is the most obvious case but it could be said the same for the 1806 one.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

I did not necessarily want to rehash this, but after rereading this, and originally causing the discussion in the first place by letting the cat out of the bag so to speak, I thought to explain more the new 1862 event rationale.

Historically, during 1862, the Union war resolve increased due to the increased fighting that took place which increased the resolve to continue to prosecute the war. Game-wise this is reflected in what I previously referred to as 21 freebie National Morale point increases during 1862. We could have opted to just remove those 21 freebie NM points instead of requiring an advance on Richmond thus requiring the USA player to earn those NM points somewhere else instead such as winning battles, or taking specific objectives, etc. Now considering the limitations of the game engine to fine-tune things to such an extent, it was far easier to leave the 21 freebie NM point increases in the event structure and instead give the USA player a rather broad area in Virginia to make a move into to somewhat justify keeping those same freebie NM event points. Historically, even if the capital was moved or left elsewhere, Richmond would have remained the "prime" objective in the "east".

As to your references to an exploit taking an undefended Cairo, had that been reported directly to me earlier, it would have already been addressed. It now has been addressed. No details. Also, your feedback did in fact point out a deficiency that will be a topic for rework/discussion, and that's the whole idea of ahistoric deep cavalry raids and/or CSA invasions of the northern states especially in 1861/1862, when Jefferson Davis was attempting to curry foreign intervention. I disagree on southern NM taking a hit but instead FI taking the hit. Don't scoff at the idea. When FI is negative, the CSA foreign subsidies stop. This amounts to $50 every 4 months throughout the entire game for the CSA. Ah, you are going to say, what diff does that make... Well under the current ridiculous game rule capabilties to print money, it doesn't, but now that I have Clovis on the team and a damn good data researcher, (comte...) along with several new playtesters, that feature will be getting some serious attention very soon (for both sides).

As for balance, the only thing that matters to me is if the game is challenging within historical constraints for both sides out to 1865/1866. If the union cannot manage to "suppress" the Southern bid for independence by then, the South should be declared the winner. Eventually, we'll be reworking the endgame events to more closely reflect these conditions, but we can't do everything at once and are opting for the more immediate effects of historical gameplay adjustments followed hopefully by improved AI behavior enhancements.

If these changes come about WONDERFUL, truely WONDERFUL

It also clarifies much. One observation I would make Gray is that it demonstrates the whole problem of 'drip feeding' proposed changes into the forum. If players are not presented with an overview of the whole its hardly surprising that we construct our own picture from the crumbs at hand and that the result is somewhat jaundiced.

All power to the teams elbow for what its worth and I'll await the total revised package with eager anticipation.

[AndrewKurtz]

If these changes come about WONDERFUL, truely WONDERFUL

+1

[denisonh]

I did not necessarily want to rehash this, but after rereading this, and originally causing the discussion in the first place by letting the cat out of the bag so to speak, I thought to explain more the new 1862 event rationale.

Historically, during 1862, the Union war resolve increased due to the increased fighting that took place which increased the resolve to continue to prosecute the war. Game-wise this is reflected in what I previously referred to as 21 freebie National Morale point increases during 1862. We could have opted to just remove those 21 freebie NM points instead of requiring an advance on Richmond thus requiring the USA player to earn those NM points somewhere else instead such as winning battles, or taking specific objectives, etc. Now considering the limitations of the game engine to fine-tune things to such an extent, it was far easier to leave the 21 freebie NM point increases in the event structure and instead give the USA player a rather broad area in Virginia to make a move into to somewhat justify keeping those same freebie NM event points. Historically, even if the capital was moved or left elsewhere, Richmond would have remained the "prime" objective in the "east".

As to your references to an exploit taking an undefended Cairo, had that been reported directly to me earlier, it would have already been addressed. It now has been addressed. No details. Also, your feedback did in fact point out a deficiency that will be a topic for rework/discussion, and that's the whole idea of ahistoric deep cavalry raids and/or CSA invasions of the northern states especially in 1861/1862, when Jefferson Davis was attempting to curry foreign intervention. I disagree on southern NM taking a hit but instead FI taking the hit. Don't scoff at the idea. When FI is negative, the CSA foreign subsidies stop. This amounts to $50 every 4 months throughout the entire game for the CSA. Ah, you are going to say, what diff does that make... Well under the current ridiculous game rule capabilties to print money, it doesn't, but now that I have Clovis on the team and a damn good data researcher, (comte...) along with several new playtesters, that feature will be getting some serious attention very soon (for both sides).

As for balance, the only thing that matters to me is if the game is challenging within historical constraints for both sides out to 1865/1866. If the union cannot manage to "suppress" the Southern bid for independence by then, the South should be declared the winner. Eventually, we'll be reworking the endgame events to more closely reflect these conditions, but we can't do everything at once and are opting for the more immediate effects of historical gameplay adjustments followed hopefully by improved AI behavior enhancements.

+!. Thanks Gray. Appreciate your efforts.

[pasternakski]

The trolling post above this one illustrates precisely why it is impossible to have any sort of reasonable group consensus. There will always be a small group of discontented individuals that make it impossible to work in that format.

I guess anyone who has an idea that contrasts with your conception of how it is and how it ought to be is a "discontented individual," then. I apologize for being a dissenter to your "reasonable group consensus." All I wanted was for you to tell me what was a patch intended to fix a bug or design shortcoming, and differentiate that from what was an "improvement" to the original design, while making it possible for me to adopt the former without necessarily having to accept the latter.

Why you are so belligerently defensive about this is a mystery to me. I have always been a good, cash customer and supporter of AGEod games, but, somehow, I have been cast by you (and elsewhere) as the biggest @$$hole since Ramses II persecuted the Hebrews.

I would like to go back to the point where I felt comfortable with being a positive contributor to the discussion here, but your express attitude toward me has made that an impossibility. Can we somehow make peace? I love AGEod and its games, and I would like to contribute to their success and development without feeling that every time I post in their forums, I am at risk of being subjected to the derision and dismissal of someone who, if not an actual member of the AGEod organization, uses the quasi-official position announced in his forum header to deliver insults - and worse - every time I try to make a topical comment.

Your thoughts?

[Rafiki]

All I wanted was for you to tell me what was a patch intended to fix a bug or design shortcoming, and differentiate that from what was an "improvement" to the original design, while making it possible for me to adopt the former without necessarily having to accept the latter.

This is something that has been covered on several occasions, both in this thread and in threads like it in the past.

If there were resources for it, I'm sure every player would like to have updates and patches custom-made for them. As it is, there aren't. For those who want to opt out of some of the changes, it is possible, through some minor changes in some files, to disable/remove a number of the changes made. Gray Lensman has detailed some of them in this thread (IIRC); if there are others that one wants to diable/remove, I'm sure details can be provided for them to.

(...) someone who, if not an actual member of the AGEod organization, uses the quasi-official position announced in his forum header

*sigh*

For the record, and so there is no doubt. Gray Lensman is a part of the AGEOD organization and his is responsible for coordinating data updates and fixes and is also the main person when it comes to providing the devteam with information needed to address problems and possible improvements in the AACW/AGE game engine. I don't know how much clearer you need this to be stated?

I do applaud an effort to sort out what unfortunately has become a fairly hostile tone between the two of you, though I think that PMs might be a better way of doing it rather than here "in public". However, I do personally think that you'll need to move beyond the things I address above if there is to be any reasonable chance of that happening

[pasternakski]

If there were resources for it, I'm sure every player would like to have updates and patches custome-made for them.

I have never asked for anything of the kind, Rafiki.

For the record, and so there is no doubt. Gray Lensman is a part of the AGEOD organization

This has never been stated before. In an exchange on another Web site's forums, GL denied that he was a "part of the AGEOD organization" as a defense to my objection to his referring in public to AGEod forum records to describe my on-line activities on your site. How about let's stop beating up on a customer? All I want to do is make nice here. I just want to have some fun and contribute to the common goal. I don't want to have to sue you people.

his is responsible for coordinating data updates and fixes and is also the main person when it comes to providing the devteam with information needed to address problems and possible improvements in the AACW/AGE game engine. I don't know how much clearer you need this to be stated?

Clear as mud. I don't care about all that poorly worded crap. I want to buy AGEod games and enjoy them with the excellent support AGEod provides (including GL's terrific work, which I think is admirable).

I do applaud an effort to sort out what unfortunately has become a fairly hostile tone between the two of you, though I think that PMs might be a better way of doing it rather than here "in public".

When have I been "fairly hostile"? Maybe someone might want to consider his own tendency to be belligerently defensive when confronted with contrasting viewpoints. Maybe you might consider not rushing to the defense of someone who has not actually been attacked in an effort to make an innocent person look culpable when no offense has ever been intended.

However, I do personally think that you'll need to move beyond the things I address above if there is to be any reasonable chance of that happening

*sigh* Another implicit criticism of someone who has never meant ill to anyone on these forums. I don't intend to move anywhere. I just wish that you people would stop being so negatively judgmental of me and my motives here.

[Rafiki]

I have never asked for anything of the kind, Rafiki.

Well, you did ask for it to be possible to utilize what you consider to be patches intended to fix a bug or design shortcoming, leaving out what you consider to be "improvements" to the original design.

I say "what you consider" since the exact breaking point between these two things is a subjective matter where opinions differ.

When have I been "fairly hostile"?

I didn't say that you have been fairly hostile, I said that the tone between you has become fairly hostile. Important distinction there, one that I intended to make at least.

Though you'll have to grant me that calling my posts "poorly worded crap" and to start talking about suing AGEOD hardly lifts the discussion, right?

*sigh* Another implicit criticism of someone who has never meant ill to anyone on these forums. I don't intend to move anywhere. I just wish that you people would stop being so negatively judgmental of me and my motives here.

It seems to me that the discussion has become pretty dead-locked and that you seem to overlook or disregard many of the things that Pocus, Gray Lensman, myself or others say to address the concerns you have. There are of course two sides to things, and I hope we can get things sorted out

[pasternakski]

Okay. Sorry I tried to be a customer. I promise never to buy any AGEod products again. Bye. I hope you don't mind if I take my wallet with me.

[Carnium]

Okay. Sorry I tried to be a customer. I promise never to buy any AGEod products again. Bye. I hope you don't mind if I take my wallet with me.

Now that is a really mature answer from your side....
You will be back as you always were....the show must go on

[Rafiki]

I'm very sorry you see it that way. My goal here has been to try to see if there is any way to address the concerns you have voiced, but within the boundaries of what he need to keep in mind when looking at the big picture. You have been, are and always will be welcome to participate in such a dialogue

In any case, it is your choice and you choice alone where you want to spend your money. Goes without saying, actually. We will, however, continue to do our best to convice you that it is worthwhile to purchase our games, by the qualities of what is in the games themselves

[Nial]

The phrase "Can't we just agree to disagree and move on?" comes to mind.

Or maybe, "Bring on the drama queen" Oops. Thats my smart aleck side showing through.

Nial