NCP syndrome

[Pocus]

quite right!

[soundoff]

Perhaps it is a bit premature to say it but...


Is RoP already suffering from NCP syndrome?

The game has just been released so I would expect more posts in the forum, bugs, historical comments, any small AAR...

But the subforum looks more like the polish wastelands of RoP map.

What happens?


What to expect? NCP fate? An early abandonment of the game by the developers. The only hope is Lodilefty, perhaps will he suppport the game as WIA?

I don't know about this final paragraph but given the apparent nosedive of posts on this forum during the last few days (and its not the holiday season yet) I do begin to suspect that Nikel might be right.

Shame if he is

[squarian]

soundoff -

My opponent (Bertram) and I have had to abandon our pbem out of sheer frustration with the game as of 1.02. I agree it's troubling to see such a quiet forum for a new game, but having given it a good run and found it sadly lacking, I have to say I'm not terribly surprised. It sounds like a good deal of work has gone into the next patch, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. But in the meantime, I've put it on the shelf - and I'd guess others are doing the same.

[lycortas]

Squarian, what problems are you having?

I am involved in a Pbem game and it seems to working fine except for the replacement system not giving close to enough replacements.

I am working on a mod which will fix remaining errors in the models directory, add money and manpower to both sides and make the replacement options give slightly more replacements.

I have modded (slightly) a few of the attack and defense strengths of units.
Fixed some events and i am fixing the Polish/Russian supply problem.

Michael

[squarian]

Squarian, what problems are you having?

Hi lycortas -

I and Bertram have posted a series of threads here with notes on our game and problems we've encountered - they're mostly still on the first page. More design issues than program glitches.

the replacement system not giving close to enough replacements.

Yep - I'm still not sure if this is by intention or not. The belligerent armies certainly degenerated over the course of the war, but not nearly as much as I'm seeing. My heavy cav is basically used up by the end of 1757 - the shattered cadres spend the rest of the war well behind the lines, waiting for the single element of replacements we seem to get every so often.

I am working on a mod which will fix remaining errors in the models directory, add money and manpower to both sides and make the replacement options give slightly more replacements.

Sounds like some good ideas - thanks! I'll keep an eye open for it once you've finished it.

[soundoff]

My opponent (Bertram) and I have had to abandon our pbem out of sheer frustration with the game as of 1.02. I agree it's troubling to see such a quiet forum for a new game, but having given it a good run and found it sadly lacking, I have to say I'm not terribly surprised. It sounds like a good deal of work has gone into the next patch, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. But in the meantime, I've put it on the shelf - and I'd guess others are doing the same.

Squarian,

That is sad indeed. I thought both Bertram and your insights into difficulties with the game really were of tremendous value in helping the developers to move forward.

At a personal level I deliberately put off buying this AGEod offering after playing the demo. For two reasons. Firstly I had grown dissatisfied with the way MTSG operated in ACW and was uneasy about the Phils porting the same concept into RoP. My second reason for adopting a 'wait and see' was that I became a convinced that Runyan was right (again in ACW) that paths of retreat needed a complete overhaul. They are so critical there is a very good argument for them to be player specified, at least with divisions and above.

Given the impressive work of the Phils in developing their games I'll keep watching and hoping.

[Pocus]

Retreat path will get de facto a sound overall in NCP and AACW when the beta patch will be out, as they have been heavily fine tuned and improved in ROP (more parameters taken into consideration and several bugs fixed!).

MTSG: I guess you feel it is happening too often? If you are playing alone or with a buddy, there is but a simple variable to tweak... MTSG is working like that because we took into consideration that it would help much the AI. Sure, if you only want realism, then it is not realist that a corps have say 50% chance of arriving 4 hours after a battle in region A when in region B ... this is obvious. But this is a game mechanism to alleviate the fact that the game is running in WEGO with you (or your opponent) without input possibility during 14 days. In history, march and counter march in essence stalled the east front for several years... Without MTSG, Lee has no chance doing that.

[soundoff]

Retreat path will get de facto a sound overall in NCP and AACW when the beta patch will be out, as they have been heavily fine tuned and improved in ROP (more parameters taken into consideration and several bugs fixed!).

MTSG: I guess you feel it is happening too often? If you are playing alone or with a buddy, there is but a simple variable to tweak... MTSG is working like that because we took into consideration that it would help much the AI. Sure, if you only want realism, then it is not realist that a corps have say 50% chance of arriving 4 hours after a battle in region A when in region B ... this is obvious. But this is a game mechanism to alleviate the fact that the game is running in WEGO with you (or your opponent) without input possibility during 14 days. In history, march and counter march in essence stalled the east front for several years... Without MTSG, Lee has no chance doing that.

I knew that you would be working on the retreat path, excellent

As for MTSG I do recognise that in trying to help the AI, given that most players operate at a solo level, there has to be a trade off.

Yes my objections are to do with the reality of the feature. Mind you I think my objections could be mitigated to a large extent if (assuming there will be an NCP2 and an ACW2 at some stage) turns were say of 3 days rather than 14 days duration. That would make it much more sensible.

I do have other objections though with MTSG, two of which you may have already addressed. Firstly it was the ability for Corps to MTSG more than once in the same turn. Secondly the ability of Corps that were besieged to MTSG and ignore the force besieging them.

Other concerns that I've always had about MTSG is forces that do so automatically return to their start position. This can lead to situations where a force in region B joins a battle in region A when say region A is 9 days march from region B using normal movement. Then the force moves back to region A which theoretically another 9 days. In such scenarios a command does an 18 day turn in a 14 day move.

My final objection is rather similar to MTSG more than once in the same turn. Its where a force in region B MTSG for a battle in region A that takes place say on day 1. That battle ends on day1. The force that MTSG then pops automatically back to region B to be able to fight another battle against another enemy force that arrives in region B on day 2. Not only that but the force it marched to the assistance of in region A can now return the favour and join the battle in region B.

How you overcome these difficulties for such as me I do not know. Perhaps its impossible given the need to provide assistance for the AI. Its not a gamebreaker but its not a feature of AGEod games that I like.

[Pocus]

With MTSG we had to favor the gameplay and not realism, I'm the first to admit that. Now there are some rationals that can be done, that allow viewing the rule with less: 'oh my this corps can't do that!!!'

We had to allow a corps to MTSG more than once per turn, because otherwise you have the exploit of sending a weak force in a fake attack in order to trigger all the MTSG of the enemy, so to have your hands free for the real attack (without the enemy able to get help from MTSG).

If we wanted to stick to more realism, then we should have added new buttons where you could specify when you want to MTSG. i.e don't MTSG if already 2x stronger than the enemy... But the whole system is rather grognardish, for a game which is already tough enough, rules wise (plus add more buttons to an already cramped interface). Start like that and AACW interface looks alike the interior of a Boeing (or Aurora meets Dwarf Fortress if you know your classics ).

The part about siege: A besieged force can't help with MTSG. I just checked the code. You must have been confused. The rule is not very historical, but not to the point of allowing that

About the corps location, you assume they are in the center of the region. This can be wrong. The helping corps (in region B) can be just nearby region A, perhaps one day away... This don't explain that it can joins in 4 hours in any case, true. As said before, the whole rule must be considered as the imperfect tool that allow reproducing the whole march/counter-march operations of the ACW, in cramped areas. There are abstractions and this mechanism is what allows a bit of dynamism in turns unfolding during 14 days without your input.

I still believe that despite its shortcomings, it is much better to have it that to not have it, but you can mod it out if you want to try playing without.

[soundoff]

<snip>

If we wanted to stick to more realism, then we should have added new buttons where you could specify when you want to MTSG. i.e don't MTSG if already 2x stronger than the enemy... But the whole system is rather grognardish, for a game which is already tough enough, rules wise (plus add more buttons to an already cramped interface). Start like that and AACW interface looks alike the interior of a Boeing (or Aurora meets Dwarf Fortress if you know your classics ).

Oh yes please I'd even pay a sizable premium to have the ability to specify under what conditions MTSG should be 'attempted' IMHO three would suffice - odds less than even, odds greater than even and never.

[Pocus]

never can already be done, you just have to have your corps in evasive order...

[soundoff]

never can already be done, you just have to have your corps in evasive order...

Trouble with that is if the Corp with evasive order were attacked it probably would not attempt to defend its position.

On further thought if it is possible to provide choices on whether or not to MTSG then why not have dual system. The same as now for the AI but for the human player to have to choose how his army and associated Corps will operate in respect of MTSG. If it also included, for the human player only, no return to original region it really would make the gamer think hard on his/her strategy whilst not detracting from the ability of the AI (in reality it will probably make the AI harder to defeat).

Ah well I can dream

[hgilmer]

Hi to all. I'm a new forum member. I just bought Rise of Prussia. I bought it off of the Ageod website and I have no problem with digital downloaded games. I actually wish they would all be like that. Boxed games turn me away because I don't want to wait weeks for a game.

I have played one scenario so far since I just downloaded it about 5 hours ago and played through the tutorials. I had previously played through the tutorial on the demo and decided I wanted the game. I find it to be very polished. I can not discuss the AI since the Saxony scenario was easy to play and I read that it was a pretty easy fight in reality.

I was a little surprised there weren't many AAR's. I may have to try doing that in against the AI mode. I usually do not play PBEMs but I have been thinking to get more into PBEMs. I tend to shy away from PBEMs because let's face it, if you aren't used to human opponents you will get trounced.

I own AACW. I haven't played it much because there were other titles on the ACW that I liked more at the time. Now, I'm thinking I truly missed out on something. But, then I saw RoP and thought that will be more active, so maybe I'll play it instead.

As for this being a niche game, come on! Frederick the Great! How can anyone not want a game about him?

[PhilThib]

Thanks for the comments....and welcome to the community

[Charles]

I'm reviving this old thread to post some comments.

I just discovered and bought RoP a few weeks ago as my first AGEOD game. I have always had a weak spot for 18th century warfare, especially the seven year's war in Europe, so this was a natural buy for me.

I have played a few games v. AI (103b5) and now have an ongoing PBEM game (102). So far, I find really captures the feel of 18th century warfare. You realize how important supply lines, cohesion, leadership, fortifications are.

Yes, you can play the game as WW2 blitzkrieg if you want to windup with a shadow of an army, but to last seven long years, especially as Prussian, you have to think as a 18th century general, when outmaneuvering your opponent out of a position can be as satisfying as winning a battle and where every battle can be an expensive gamble not to be entered into rashly.

As to why the game is not more popular, that is not hard to figure out. 18th century warfare is very much a niche subject and this game does not feature the USA, lessening its appeal in America. However, this does not distract from the qualities of the game.

My only peeve is with the PBEM system, it works fine and my current game is a blast, but the obvious security flaws that can be exploited by the Host player really lessen its appeal for me.

[squarian]

Hi Charles - hope we can play a game one of these days, because like you I've always had an interest in this pre-Napoleonic period.

What is clear now is that ROP has a loyal following - the message board hasn't had (probably never will have) the volume of participation of more popular periods, but since this thread began the ROP section has developed a body of regulars who are collectively exploring and offering suggestions for improving the game.

The design is not perfect but it is a convincingly accurate reflection of the 7YW - faithful enough, as you mentioned, to punish anachronistic blitzkrieg strategies. Enough players have arrived to provide a stable group of PBEM opponents, which is key for stress-testing the design and revealing rough spots. The next official patch will iron out many of the most glaring post-release problems and bring the game up to the "plug-and-play" level, and that in turn will attract new players.

[Pocus]

The turns can be passworded (and compressed), this is as far as we can go without using a distant server to host the games.