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

[PhilThib]

Remember our team is small...so more projects mean more independant (and serious) volunteer teams

[TheDoctorKing]

I'm serious about the Wars in Afghanistan thing.

It will need a better air war module, though since it's very likely that only one side will have air units so air-to-air combat won't be an issue. Some units could have an air-transportable characteristic which would allow them to "redeploy" freely, using the existing redeployment model. I'd like to see a separation between loyalty and motivation/combativeness, as I was talking about in the improve AACW thread.

I'd also be happy to participate in a "Wars of independence in the Americas" expanding the BOA to cover the whole hemisphere and the period 1776-1825.

Seriously, though, for sales, what's wrong with AACW2? Wasn't AACW your best-selling title?

[Kev_uk]

Seriously, though, for sales, what's wrong with AACW2? Wasn't AACW your best-selling title?

I really now suggest an Ageod-engine game with North Africa. I think, because it is so localised, that could pull in a lot of wargamers sales. Really. Or even France 1940 because your game engine is so different and tactical battle resolution so individual that, just maybe, this could work well. Obviously with updates to the engine, such as air combat etc.

RT Smith, one of the Total War Developers, designed games during the '80s on the ZX Spectrum, Desert Rats was one title, that I think you could bring into a modern PC environment with your engine.

I suppose though its up to Paradox Sweden now

[Halberdier]

The best selling is WW2, but there are a LOT of games too. ¿How many about CW?, and CW is a good selling too . AGEOD no need micro-management or diplomatics, neither 3D, as Total war. It is perfect with the simpliest strategical conditions, but it need improve the screen of the battles: to see the battlefield. My proposal: add a tactical screen with a random map.

Logistical conditions (strategical screen):
isometric map


Battle conditions (tactical screen)
Up to down map (random)

I'd also be happy to participate in a "Wars of independence in the Americas" expanding the BOA to cover the whole hemisphere and the period 1776-1825.

I happy too to participate in a project of WIA 1776-1830 to cover whole hemisphere. TheDoctorKing here you have a MOD for free Open General (clone PG) it is an idea about
https://sites.google.com/site/hispanicgeneral/

[OneArmedMexican]

Being different is a good thing, but it does not make sales...the real issue is not what would like to do, it is what we MUST do in order not to become bankrupt...and unfortunately for us, players are buying WWII and not 30YW...that's a sad fact

Taking a purely economical look at things: I would say ACW II is probably the most promising project:

1) The forum is still very active after years, the original seems to have sold better than any other AGE game.

2) Huge parts of the work are already done (OOB, graphics, events, scripts, ...). No need to develop new concepts like a functioning air module or ways to represent WW II tactics (cauldrons, breakthrough, ...).

3) The conflict is well known (in America) and extremely popular (= sells great), while there are few games on the market covering it.

It might bore you (and some of your fans), but it certainly would be cost efficient to develop while promising great sales.

Thirty Years would be so much more fun, though.

So here is hoping you can afford to take another risk rather than develop ACW II.

The one thing I would hate is another PoN type game. The military side of the game was the weakest in any AGE game while the economy wasn't that engaging, either. Diplomacy is just annoying. The last campaign I tried was Japan, I read a book during turn resolutions (which usually took longer than giving new orders). Unfortunately the book quickly became a lot more interesting than PoN. While I don't regret buying it (support AGEOD and all), I wouldn't buy another AGE game that attempts such a huge scope. It is not where the engine excells.

[charlesonmission]

It would be interesting to know the sales of each game? I'm guessing that isn't public info though.

Charles

[caranorn]

Taking a purely economical look at things: I would say ACW II is probably the most promising project:

1) The forum is still very active after years, the original seems to have sold better than any other AGE game.

2) Huge parts of the work are already done (OOB, graphics, events, scripts, ...). No need to develop new concepts like a functioning air module or ways to represent WW II tactics (cauldrons, breakthrough, ...).

3) The conflict is well known (in America) and extremely popular (= sells great), while there are few games on the market covering it.

It might bore you (and some of your fans), but it certainly would be cost efficient to develop while promising great sales.

Thirty Years would be so much more fun, though.

So here is hoping you can afford to take another risk rather than develop ACW II.

The one thing I would hate is another PoN type game. The military side of the game was the weakest in any AGE game while the economy wasn't that engaging, either. Diplomacy is just annoying. The last campaign I tried was Japan, I read a book during turn resolutions (which usually took longer than giving new orders). Unfortunately the book quickly became a lot more interesting than PoN. While I don't regret buying it (support AGEOD and all), I wouldn't buy another AGE game that attempts such a huge scope. It is not where the engine excells.

2) I fear OOB and ToE would have to be redone from scratch. Or rather, I hope they could be redone to reflect certain aspects of the civil war better than AACW does. So AACW-II would be a lot of work...

[Narwhal]

I can say it, now most of PoN sales are done - I did not like the game much either - but I am happy to have supported AGEOD.

What AGEOD engines excels at is fine and complex manoeuvers in a map with small provinces. The scope of PoN forced you to have large regions - and manoeuvering more or less disappeared.

The economy was too heavy on micromanagement in my opinion.

Now, a PoN like game, with only warfare, diplomacy, and marrying one's daughter, could be fun for the 17th century (with only the European map and maybe part of the Americas and boxes for India / Africa). Just make sure the military is as complex as in other AGEOD games => small provinces, mostly.

[Baris]

Without distracting the real topic I feel the same as Narwhal and O.A Mexican. I also prefer smaller regions with more military oriented scenarious/games. While the community did want more nations playable in PON maybe it did give harm to turn processing speed. 4 nations playable would be much better maybe.
In Drang scenario in Rus, it is common to wait 8 mins per turn when there is heavy movement in summer. But it is ok as you know game will end sooner or later. Another problem is also to optimize the AI when the scope of the game gets bigger and bigger. ROP has fine AI but in Drang scenario AI is struggling to control her big armies efficiently.

[OneArmedMexican]

I can say it, now most of PoN sales are done - I did not like the game much either - but I am happy to have supported AGEOD.

What AGEOD engines excels at is fine and complex manoeuvers in a map with small provinces. The scope of PoN forced you to have large regions - and manoeuvering more or less disappeared.

My thoughts exactly. In my very first PoN campaign, I played France and the Prussian's started the Prussian-French War 20 years early. I quickly conquered the Western side of the Rhine but after that Prussia and me became looked in eternal stalemate. The reason: my frontline was one region wide, his two with the Rhine seperating us. With no room for maneuver even the AI was not foolish enough to attack head-on.

What I miss almost as much as room for maneuver is the more complex army structure that has been a standard feature in all AGE games except BoA and WiA.

[Narwhal]

I would like to create a new thread about this, but as the same time - I don't want to see a thread with a title like "Why we don't like PoN so much" that would attract some clicks. The game does not deserve this.

I think that the problem is fundamentally that AGEOD had games that catered to "pure" wargamers, which became the fan-base. As they did a game that was "more" than a wargame and "less" a wargame, the fanbase which was made of "pure" wargamers was a bit disappointed, even if they wanted to like the game the best they could, while a lot of new people who would not like "pure" wargames are extremely happy with the new mix. The game is objectively outstanding - original, immersive, complex, realistic. It is just a little less of the taste of the old fanbase

[berto]

I think that the problem is fundamentally that AGEOD had games that catered to "pure" wargamers, which became the fan-base. As they did a game that was "more" than a wargame and "less" a wargame, the fanbase which was made of "pure" wargamers was a bit disappointed, even if they wanted to like the game the best they could, while a lot of new people who would not like "pure" wargames are extremely happy with the new mix. The game is objectively outstanding - original, immersive, complex, realistic. It is just a little less of the taste of the old fanbase

Good analysis ...

.. and yet, whenever for example the topic of NCP2 has been raised, for example, the AGEOD fanbase (discussing it here, not at the PI Forum) has repeated "add production and diplomacy" over and over.

Are the "pure wargamers" perhaps the silent majority?

I have not been silent on this issue at all. As a "pure wargamer," I am not interested when AGEOD ventures into production and diplomacy and empire building games, like PON.

But I don't recall many people here ever much agreeing with me. Rather, most of the clamor here seems to be for PON-like games.

[Florent]

The building of units is very good in AACW and a little simpler in RoP.
If a game is done on the Mediterranean basin, you will need to buid new Trirem fleets or Quinquerem fleets, or buying mercenaries for your Phalanx, recruiting new Legions

Thus i would like a huge Map à la RuS having most of this Basin, the area need not a 15 km² areas and you can have, the Greeks, Persians, Alexander, the Diadochois, greeks and Carthaginians in Italy, Pyrhus and then the Punic Wars.

perhaps it's too huge

[Nikel]

I think that what people wanted to add strategical depth was production and a full campaign.

Production of military units of course, not sugar, wine,...


Add a few diplomatic, economic, political, historical... options/events and you are done.

Is not this mix what made of AACW a success?


There are many wars in history that can be simulated this way.

But it is also true that it was said, AGEod releasing the same game again, etc.

PON is different, I guess you cannot make happy to everybody

[berto]

I think that what people wanted to add strategical depth was production and a full campaign.

Production of military units of course, not sugar, wine,...

Add a few diplomatic, economic, political, historical... options/events and you are done.

You're right.

There's "production and diplomacy".

Then there's "production and diplomacy".

We must remember to keep the distinction.

I actually get your point, and indeed maybe that's more what people here have really <ahem> been saying.

[OneArmedMexican]

I think that what people wanted to add strategical depth was production and a full campaign.

Production of military units of course, not sugar, wine,...

Add a few diplomatic, economic, political, historical... options/events and you are done.

Exactly!

I think that the problem is fundamentally that AGEOD had games that catered to "pure" wargamers, which became the fan-base. As they did a game that was "more" than a wargame and "less" a wargame, the fanbase which was made of "pure" wargamers was a bit disappointed, even if they wanted to like the game the best they could, while a lot of new people who would not like "pure" wargames are extremely happy with the new mix. The game is objectively outstanding - original, immersive, complex, realistic. It is just a little less of the taste of the old fanbase

As usual you find the right words. The thing is that for economic simulations the turn-based concept of the AGE engine isn't well suited. While it is great for consistently fast-paced pure wargames, it is too inflexibel to adapt to the changing pace of an economic-military simulation where the player might want to speed things up in the peace periods.

But perhaps we are too harsh. PoN was ahuge step into new territory (perhaps too big a step). The old BoA didn't invent all the features that make AGE games outstanding, either. I am sure if AGEOD were to tackle another PoN like project, it would be a lot better.

Still let's hope they get back to a smaller scale.

[jack54]

I think this engine (AGE) is perfect for Rome... punic war type stuff

I would preorder now, LOL, but how good do you think it will handle the politics. I guess event driven elections are fine but what about armies being loyal to a specific General. Not sure how that would work.

We all know how good it does Napoleon; with a Grand Campaign it has to be awesome.

I'm not sold on AGE going any more modern than RUS

[Baris]

Production of millitary units are indeed better than sugar and the 'summer wine'

If a game is done on the Mediterranean basin, you will need to buid new Trirem fleets or Quinquerem fleets, or buying mercenaries for your Phalanx, recruiting new Legions

Thus i would like a huge Map à la RuS having most of this Basin, the area need not a 15 km² areas and you can have, the Greeks, Persians, Alexander, the Diadochois, greeks and Carthaginians in Italy, Pyrhus and then the Punic Wars.

perhaps it's too huge

If the game is to be done on the mediterranean basin, Then we have the Greeks,Italian and French against the Great Macedonian M.Kemal.
It is already simple as described before that there is no air warfare and in the era, transportation of ammunition is achieved by the women.* That can be the first in ageod games that ammunition could be scarce.
I always though Age engine can best simulate the war of independence.

Other than that I always got suspicous about the wars of "punic" or "Troja"and the other thought in general education. The peasants definetely has very different dialect and understanding in the region. There was a joke in my country that ancient wars in anatolia a bit theatrical and unreal.




*[ATTACH]15666[/ATTACH]

[PhilThib]

The building of units is very good in AACW and a little simpler in RoP.
If a game is done on the Mediterranean basin, you will need to buid new Trirem fleets or Quinquerem fleets, or buying mercenaries for your Phalanx, recruiting new Legions

Thus i would like a huge Map à la RuS having most of this Basin, the area need not a 15 km² areas and you can have, the Greeks, Persians, Alexander, the Diadochois, greeks and Carthaginians in Italy, Pyrhus and then the Punic Wars.

perhaps it's too huge

Antic subjects are interesting, but due to the time pace and slow tempo of operation, our engine would do best at simulating some wars as scenarios of 1 to 20 years length, but for sure NO scenario covering the whole Roman or Greek history...they would make PON look like a dwarf game (imagine 800 years of Rome on monthly turns...unplayable)

[Florent]

Actually, my thought was not a continual war or campaigns over a 800 years period but different scenarios and wars on the same map since many theaters were used by all armies.

[Florent]

If a 30 years war is done i would like some anticipation and that not only germany but the nederlands are also done or part of Italy and so, there were multi fronts and France or other countries were also fighting their own wars, the Map could be then used for a Louis XIV game or expansion.

[PhilThib]

If a 30 years war is done i would like some anticipation and that not only germany but the nederlands are also done or part of Italy and so, there were multi fronts and France or other countries were also fighting their own wars, the Map could be then used for a Louis XIV game or expansion.

Yes, that is the only viable option. In addition, some ancient wars were very very long, even longer than the longest of our current AGE games (besides PON of course)... if you take the 2nd Punic, it's 16 years...!!

[TheDoctorKing]

All of those ancient wars would require a very intricate diplomacy model. The Peloponnesian Wars would have dozens of factions, one for each city-state basically, with varying and shifting loyalties to each side. Check out the GMT game "Hellenes" for a good look at this topic. Yes, the AGEOD system would do well to simulate the battles, but you can't do without the diplomacy.

The Punic Wars would be the same thing - all sorts of neutral powers who might or might not support one side or the other - Spanish, Gauls, Roman allies in Italy, Greeks, Egyptians, Numidians, etc...

[Florent]

I agree mostly with you...but you forget that Ageod games has assets to get those alliances or changes of fortune, this is the triggered Events.

Take a City and there is an Event changing or bringing something, in BoA the french intervention, in AACW, Kentucky, in NCP the Saxon change of sides etc...

Why wouldn't it be possible to be able as a Carthaginian,to have a Spanish Tribe ally because you take a city which is the main city of this tribe or a Greek city in a peloponnesian war.

Ageod games except PoN are not diplomatical games as can be seen by GMT's "Here I stand" and soon "The Virgin Queen" but i would say that many "problems" have been overcome by Ageod.

[Baris]

I have so much doubts that ancient wars will fit Ageod historical record about simulating conflicts with good historical facts and research performed including precious leader portraits. It is almost impossible to simulate properly and discuss "punic wars" compared to RCW. Some of the facts are 'pure literature' and have abstract meanings. As PON have some intellectual thought and marvelous game mechanics it would be a waste to develop a game about ancient Utopian Greeks or Rome likewise Homeros Hitites vs Greeks.

It is very clear there is conservative community about history and wargames that no other conflict have a chance to be developed.. So why accuse people only want a game about ww2

[wosung]

It is very clear there is conservative community about history and wargames that no other conflict have a chance to be developed.. So why accuse people only want a game about ww2

Not "only WW2". Bat also WW2.
Because it will sell.

Besides I'd also like to see
Napoleon complete monthly turns.
TYW monthly or two monthly turns.

Or even China 1921-49 monthly turns, with enhanced political options.

Talking about turn lenght: AACW lasts 5 years. It has 2 turns a month and a simple production system. And, for me, it's just somehow the perfect composition (turn length, unit density, clicks per turn, processsing time, funky, popular conflict).

Open question:
Are there any similar conflicts just waiting to be turned into an AGE game? (Apart from AACW 2).

Best regards

Wosung

(member of arch-conservative community)

[wosung]

It is very clear there is conservative community about history and wargames that no other conflict have a chance to be developed.. So why accuse people only want a game about ww2

Not "only WW2". But also WW2.
Because it will sell.

Besides I'd also like to see
Napoleon complete monthly turns.
TYW monthly or two monthly turns.

Or even China 1921-49 monthly turns, with enhanced political options.

Talking about turn lenght: AACW lasts 5 years. It has 2 turns a month and a simple production system. And, for me, it's just somehow the perfect composition (turn length, unit density, clicks per turn, processsing time, funky, popular conflict).

Open question:
Are there any similar conflicts just waiting to be turned into an AGE game? (Apart from AACW 2).

Best regards

Wosung

(member of arch-conservative community)

[Narwhal]

Open question:
Are there any similar conflicts just waiting to be turned into an AGE game? (Apart from AACW 2).

I think the following conflicts could be quite well modeled and "large" enough for a complete game :

- Mexican civil and foreign wars (comparable to AACW)
- Bolivar's War of Independance (comparable to WiA)
- Turkish Independance War (Baris and I make sure we mention it at every opportunity) (comparable to RUS)
- The Great Northern War (comparable to RoP)
- Louis XIVth wars (Devolution, League of Augsburg, Spanish succession, Quadruple Alliance, French-Dutch -comparable to RoP)
- The Austro-Turks Wars (and other wars at the gates of Europe) - comparable to WiA or RoP, depending on the era
- French revolutionary wars (but would go with NCP, I suppose - comparable to AACW)

With diplomatic modules, the following war could be simulated quite well :
- 30 years war
- The Chinese Civil War

With enhanced air module, the following war could be simulated quite well :
- The Spanish Civil War (but no "smaller scenario" possible)

I probably miss some conflicts in India, but I am no expert.

[Narwhal]

Yes, that is the only viable option. In addition, some ancient wars were very very long, even longer than the longest of our current AGE games (besides PON of course)... if you take the 2nd Punic, it's 16 years...!!

True, but Punic would have turns lasting 1 month - so I would not be significantly longer than RoP.

[H Gilmer3]

I'm leaning more and more to WW1. Yes, there is WW1Gold and I have that game, but it isn't the Athena engine. WW1 by the Athena engine would be a good game and as someone else mentioned, triggered events and those types of events when you can choose like from RoP. Also, RuS has already done some work in this area.

I think it could be done. Yes, it would be a challenge because there is a lot more diplomacy but all in all, I think it could be done.

The 4 years it runs is almost exactly the same time as AACW. Actually, less total time (I think without looking closely at the exact dates of begin and end. So, a 2 week turn would be feasible, possibly.