Premature suggestion :-)

[RobC04]

I know that the game isn't even officially out yet, but here it goes.

I think it would be great if the first DLC / expansion would add a grand campaign with an earlier starting date. I really prefer games where you start smaller. By the time the game starts, Britain has land all over the world. To me it would be much more interesting to be the one to build up the countries instead of taking over after they have expanded so much. I think it would be great to start the game before the European powers started colonizing.

I'm not really sure how early the game would need to start since my knowledge of history is pretty poor (1500s ?). Even starting 100 years earlier then the current date would be an improvement I think.

[Respenus]

That would mean a completely new game with a ton of new research, with a lot of the advancements thrown away due to the differences on the level of the economy. Plus, would in their right mind would play such a long game. 70 years is too much already and Philippe has already mentioned that they intend to make shorten campaigns, not bigger. You can always try the EU series if you wish to go so far back. I recommend For the Glory, a modified EUII game, with, at least for me, a much bigger "fun" factor than EUIII.

[Hohenlohe]

I know that the game isn't even officially out yet, but here it goes.

I think it would be great if the first DLC / expansion would add a grand campaign with an earlier starting date. I really prefer games where you start smaller. By the time the game starts, Britain has land all over the world. To me it would be much more interesting to be the one to build up the countries instead of taking over after they have expanded so much. I think it would be great to start the game before the European powers started colonizing.

I'm not really sure how early the game would need to start since my knowledge of history is pretty poor (1500s ?). Even starting 100 years earlier then the current date would be an improvement I think.

Dear Rob, Respensus is right. Such a project would be a completely different game. Even the historical research would become a such tremendous effort that it would simply to much for the small developer team, even Paradox must do much more than you believe to make that happen.

But you could eventually think in a more simplified way. Just went back 10 years ingame and you will get a slightly different game or go 10 years forth.

For that you can do either a totally new alternative GC or you can do some different smaller campaigns or scenarios.
If you are anyhow interested not only in suggesting some new improvements but also help modding the game you can do so voluntarily. Nobody will prevent you doing so...

greetings

Hohenlohe aka Mike

[RobC04]

Perhaps you guys are right. I don't know where the bulk of the work lies when making a game like Pride of Nations (the engine or the historical research). Maybe some of the smaller campaigns would be more my speed, but in general I like managing a country long term.

I own Birth of a Nation 2 and American Civil War and just haven't been able to get into them even though 'on paper' they look like excellent games. I read the manual and got excited to play, but BOA 2 just didn't do it for me. Managing a large army and # of regions right off the bat makes it hard for me to get into. I rather start with a small number of regions and build it up from there. Easier to get my head around.

Maybe even though the idea of the AGE engine based games look really good to me, perhaps they just aren't for me even though they seem like very good games. I've been really excited about Pride of Nations ever since I started reading about it.

[marcusjm]

Well if you manage to create such a mod I am willing to try it .

[hgilmer]

If you wanted to start before Great Britain or other countries were big, you might have to go back to 1600.

[sapper32]

Perhaps you guys are right. I don't know where the bulk of the work lies when making a game like Pride of Nations (the engine or the historical research). Maybe some of the smaller campaigns would be more my speed, but in general I like managing a country long term.

I own Birth of a Nation 2 and American Civil War and just haven't been able to get into them even though 'on paper' they look like excellent games. I read the manual and got excited to play, but BOA 2 just didn't do it for me. Managing a large army and # of regions right off the bat makes it hard for me to get into. I rather start with a small number of regions and build it up from there. Easier to get my head around.

Maybe even though the idea of the AGE engine based games look really good to me, perhaps they just aren't for me even though they seem like very good games. I've been really excited about Pride of Nations ever since I started reading about it.

I started to feel the same way about AGEOD games that you do and couldnt get into BOA II but i kept trying and have now gotten used to the system and gameplay and realy enjoying my time spent playing its well worth the effort to learn the game,I owned BOA first but gave up then when i upgraded my PC i bought BOA II and also own AACW but only on the tutorial at the moment keep at it it's a whole new aspect of wargaming for me

[Respenus]

I do understand where you are coming from Rob, since I found myself confounded with a similar problem, in both AgeOD games and in other grand strategy series. Sometimes, it just becomes too overwhelming, from the amount of units (which only become more difficult the more you advance in the timelime), from the size of the territory. Since Vainglory is being set on the largest level ever seen in an AgeOD game, with complexity to rival any other Paradox game (yes, I went there), I can see the doubting prospect you have in front of yourself.

If you would allow me to offer one small piece of advice, it would go like this. Take your time. AgeOD games aren't meant to be played quickly, or without, well, strategy. I find it easier to spend 5 or 10 minutes just running across the screen, finding all the units, understand what is being offered to me by a particular scenario and then planning my turns. Even restarting the same scenario, one or two times, is a very acceptable tactics. No need to fear losing the war, you can always go back.

So, next time you have difficulty, just remember. Take your take, take a good look and most importantly, contrary to some other series, you do not need to micromanage your entire territory, merely the front lines (in most cases). In the end, with VoN and other similar games, you must control a large empire, which takes a lot of time. So better to invest it in the very beginning, than to lose yourself at the end. You'll find the experience very, very rewarding and is one of the reasons why I enjoy coming back to all the different titles this magnificent game company has to offer.

[RobC04]

Thanks for the advice. They are games I really want to like. I am sort of compulsive too in my need to feel like I understand everything and not overlook something. I'm sure that doesn't help my case .

Strategy games have always been my favorite from when I first saw Civilization in the early 1990s. Granted the Civ series is more straight foward then the typical AgeOD or Paradox game, but I have played some more complex ones. I find the Europa Universalis games pretty easy to understand. Hearts of Iron a little more difficult then EU.

Perhaps I just need to take my time with BOA II, ACW, and now Pride of Nations and figure out a more organized way to approach them. One of my problems too is that I have a backlog of games I got on sale and I bounce from one to the other. Not very good for the more complex games, but it works for simple ones like Bronze and Guardians of Graxia.