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

[Athens]

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...

AGE 3.0 (PON) has a diplomacy subsystem ( even if in needing of an overhaul).

AGE 2.0 ( PON and RUS) have both some diplomatic features sufficient to cover 75% of the needs by events.

[Kev_uk]

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

- French revolutionary wars (but would go with NCP, I suppose - comparable to AACW)

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

Now (apart from my WW2 Med/Egypt wish), these would be good and would really suit the AGE engine better than another grand-strat PoN attempt at simulating the whole of WW2, with the workload that would take to even be on par with HoI (despite its real time format, it really is the only game we have to have pulled this off with any real success, despite its criticisms).

French Rev Wars, YES!!! Right from Valmy onwards please, with the militia into La Grande Armee! Cool, so cool, and please dont pull a NCP, do the whole lot, with diplomacy, production, discontent in France against the Revolution, first invasions from the old Absolutist States...wow.

And SCW? Now, think of RuS, but with real militia, Soviet intervention levels, Allied intervention levels (but on whose side?) blockades, supply problems, poor weapons, etc etc. But instead of just purely military conflict, incorporate the various factions; POUM, CNT-FAI, and discontent within these groupings...

Go well with RuS as a civil war pack.

[Baris]

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).

If China conflict will have "ISO documents" from RUS department about turn processing,turn lenght etc.. then you have my vote
That should be very interesting.

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.

I think that should be sticked Narwhal. As the current poll force to select 'other specify' Better to start another one.
As for "TWI" M:Kemal decided to corporate "with the bear until to cross the river".. That means all religous leaders and peasants he needs to corparate until the war is won. That should be very interesting war in AGE engine. I hope one day.

[wosung]

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.

Indeed, all fascinating conflicts. Probably they do match most ingredients of the "AACW formular" (game lenght, unit density, clicks & desicions per turn, etc.) for making a popular, successful AGE game.

But my honest question is: Are those (and also TCW, Chinese Wars) popular enough to generate some income for Paradox France? Or are those wishes rather projects for "deadly serious" volunteer teams like the RUS guys, who'd arguably doing more a labour of love, rather than a profit oriented buissness, even more than the two Phils?

Apart from what future AGE games each of us wishes, which ones would we choose as AGE main project, if we'd be in charge ourself? Given that the "AACW formular" for a successful AGE game arguably is sticked to a comparable game lenght, unit density, clicks & desicions per turn, etc. and ... to a popular theme?

Again, those are meant to be serious open questions.
(and not a vicious trick to convince you guys that the next big AGE project should be ... WW2 global)

Best regards

[Narwhal]

None of those projects would bring half as much cash as AACW 2, I believe.

The only projects that might be slightly profitable in my list, would be, in my very subjective opinion, the Great Northern War (Russian / Nordic markets), and maybe, maybe, Bolivar's Indepedance Wars and Louis XIVth war due to the number of countries involved in that last case.

[Kev_uk]

None of those projects would bring half as much cash as AACW 2, I believe.

Either AACW2 or even NCP2. Or, possibly a WW2 adaptation of the AGE engine, but it would have to work right, and maybe the engine is not that suited for a modern conflict (although a Spanish Civil War game could just pass the mark, similar to RuS, adapted air combat, and the more I think now, the more I like...).

NCP2 seems a good poll leader though.

[Durk]

Narwhal and One Armed Mexican identify what is wonderful about the Ageod system. ACW is a perfect platform for this system. PON is not an ageod fan based game. Too much work, not enough battle.
WW2 has so many titles and is not suited to ageod's good leadership model.

ACW can develop from current game into one with more incentives for movement and combat on the move; and let the WWI imitation wait until 1864 or 65 when it really kicked in. As well as refining the economic and recruitment models.
While I realize my suggestions for wars with leadership challenges, Thirty Years and English Civil War, may not cross the popularity line, Halberdier's idea of tactical resolution might make the most sense of all.
Current battle resolution is very abstract. Opening this up to more detailed play would change the game completely, but might be a nice option.
No game company has cracked the code to make the transition from strategic to tactical really work. Ageod has the right model and could do this.

I think everyone is waiting for a Napoleon Campaign revision. Great game, but players want to win the whole world which can only happen in a Grand Campaign Game. This would be a near WWII sales experience.
Otherwise, Thirty Years War and rely upon your fan base to fix and make even more fun.

[charlesonmission]

Care to take a guess at how many copies would sell? If a game is $40 each, wouldn't it need to sell 10,000 copies to be worth the effort? I would certainly buy it though!

Charles

None of those projects would bring half as much cash as AACW 2, I believe.

The only projects that might be slightly profitable in my list, would be, in my very subjective opinion, the Great Northern War (Russian / Nordic markets), and maybe, maybe, Bolivar's Indepedance Wars and Louis XIVth war due to the number of countries involved in that last case.

[wosung]

Narwhal and One Armed Mexican identify what is wonderful about the Ageod system. ACW is a perfect platform for this system. PON is not an ageod fan based game. Too much work, not enough battle.

I dare to say, I got bored with PON, as it was before the actual patch, rather quickly. This was one of my most anticipated games for 2011. From my limited experience playing the first 10 years of the USA campaign three times plus tried the scenarios, I find it strangely ... unbalanced. For the first decade of the US campaign, too little player's input per turn, combined with (too) many just wonderful colonial actions, trade goods, buildings. Plus, two week turns for a 70 year Grand campaign, is just over the top for me.

Right now PON is like a 19th century grand strategy wargame construction set with an Excel input interface. It will come to life with Phils & friends generated scenarios.

WW2 has so many titles and is not suited to ageod's good leadership model.

Could you explain this?
AACW formation scale from army to regiment can be found in WW2, also seniority, also many commander traits, the latter being a flexible concept anyway. I'd imagine Rommel getting a mobile warfare trait, Monty a set piece battle one plus a handicap with multinational command structures and so on.

While I realize my suggestions for wars with leadership challenges, Thirty Years and English Civil War, may not cross the popularity line, Halberdier's idea of tactical resolution might make the most sense of all.
Current battle resolution is very abstract. Opening this up to more detailed play would change the game completely, but might be a nice option.
No game company has cracked the code to make the transition from strategic to tactical really work. Ageod has the right model and could do this.

I'd imagine going also tactical as for a combo would be a major undertaking for Pocus. OTOH maybe a longtime perspective could be evolving the AGE engine also into a tactical engine for black-powder set-piece battles, comparable to Slitherine/Matrix Field of Glory Series.

I think everyone is waiting for a Napoleon Campaign revision. Great game, but players want to win the whole world which can only happen in a Grand Campaign Game. This would be a near WWII sales experience.
Otherwise, Thirty Years War and rely upon your fan base to fix and make even more fun.

As for Napoleon complete, the question is, will it be monthly or two-week turns? Both have pros and cons. Less maneuvre fun & shorter campaign playing time vs. maneuvre fun & somtimes tedious campaign. How to hit the AACW-formular sweet spot, when your campaign exceeds the magic five years or so? Trade beloved detail to overall campaign action? Stay two-weekly and fill it out with DLC linked scens? It's like the PON dilemma and ultimatively like the grand strategy TB vs. RT dilemma. And I hope the Phils stay TB. Less ... juvenile, more thinking. But will it sell & be acclaimed? The recent Panzer Corps experience indicates, it's still possible.

[Laruku]

Regarding money, the two options are clear: WWII and AACW2.

Taking into account the bestselling point of view, I'm biased towards the Spanish Civil War. I think it's an appealing conflict, no PC game as such being developed before. How much sales it would get is something I ignore, because of being a local conflict, although the international implications. I read somewhere that was the war with the most books written about after WWII.

Then my personal choice goes to the Punic Wars. Classic minded as I am, I'd gladly welcome a Pax Romana 2. This wargame had a lot of potential and was miscarried by the editors, afaik. It deserves a second choice.

But if you want millions of copies being sold, not just a few thousand, you're looking at the wrong places. There is a japanese company, called KOEI, dedicated to produce wargames and RPG. There is a series of games, based upon an ancient novel: Romance of the Three Kingdoms. They sell millions of copies in whole Asia and the rest of the world. I think it would be possible to implement that in the AGE engine, adding a spice of RPG, in my opinion. A legal issue should be about the name, to avoid copyright problems, but, as I said, those games are based on a no copyrighted book.

Just my two cents (or yens )

[Baris]

Games to be developed in AGE 2 engine ex: Turkish*, maybe China or Spanish conflicts indeed need more "serious independent teams" then RUS team. I mean they wont sell much but also needs less development time and fund then PON.
Hopefully if PON is more widespread to gaming community other projects will have a chance to be developed by other teams using age engine. Im pretty sure some of them will be very welcome by the Ageod community in terms of sales.

*There is a saying in my language. If you say something 40 times it would happen. Hopefully

[Durk]

Could you explain this?
AACW formation scale from army to regiment can be found in WW2, also seniority, also many commander traits, the latter being a flexible concept anyway. I'd imagine Rommel getting a mobile warfare trait, Monty a set piece battle one plus a handicap with multinational command structures and so on.

I agree with your other comments, so to explain.
In the 16th to 19th centuries, leaders led directly. The leadership concepts of the ageod games work perfectly whether in the complicated mode of RUS, ROP or ACW; or in the simplified mode of WIA or PON because of the direct leadership issues.
20th century wars are so different. Certainly we can rate these leaders, but the lack of independent judgments, politics, equipment qualities, and the absence of major set piece battles might make this system not work so well in a modern era.
Yes, other games attempt to do this, but not so well.
Sure, any system can be imposed upon any situation, but the leadership system of the current games is not handled so well at the strategic level for units which move in such different ways than being directly led.

[Laruku]

Well, I think it would be fit quite well the leadership system in a WWII game. Just think those leaders: Patton, Rommel, Manstein, Monty... You may choose some traits for them. I think it is possible.

[caranorn]

I agree with your other comments, so to explain.
In the 16th to 19th centuries, leaders led directly. The leadership concepts of the ageod games work perfectly whether in the complicated mode of RUS, ROP or ACW; or in the simplified mode of WIA or PON because of the direct leadership issues.
20th century wars are so different. Certainly we can rate these leaders, but the lack of independent judgments, politics, equipment qualities, and the absence of major set piece battles might make this system not work so well in a modern era.
Yes, other games attempt to do this, but not so well.
Sure, any system can be imposed upon any situation, but the leadership system of the current games is not handled so well at the strategic level for units which move in such different ways than being directly led.

Shouldn't be too hard to rate the major commanders of WWII. Consider that because of the massive scale of that war most leaders in that conflict would be corps, army and army group commanders, most of whom are pretty well documented. Only very few if any division commanders would make it on the list...

[H Gilmer3]

I'll buy it regardless of what they make.

[ohms_law]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Hundred Years War. Granted, the HYW is less of a "war" and more like a series of interrelated political and socio-economic changes, but I bet that the AGE engine could give the time period a good treatment.

Lord knows that, as much fun as it is, Europa Universalis just isn't designed to deal with the HYW directly.

[DanSez]

The Chinese Warlord period would be a facinating additon and pretty much untouched territory. In a grand scope - you could go from the late 1880's thru the rise of the Communist and the unification civil war with a game plan end in the 1950's.

Another good period would be the Justinian I's wars against the Vandals and Ostrogoths.

Keep up the good work

....
On further review and thought, maybe a monster campaign of 70 years would be a bit much (Chinese Warlords) - but as an earlier poster said, the 1920-1950 period would be very interesting broken up into 2 or 3 mini campaigns - Pre Japanese Invasion (Marco Polo Bridge) - Japanese invasion - Post WW2.
....

The middle campagin above would pull in a lot of WW2 prospective customers.

[Philippe]

I would like to see a remake of Napoleon's Campaigns, but without a grand campaign or production.

There's too much going on in the individual campaigns that is already almost too hard to model. Better that it be done right, since the Ageod engines are the only ones at the moment that can come close to modelling the historical situations correctly. Unless the grand campaign were done with the same level of sophistication as a Total War game (i.e. very little), a grand campaign would distract from the development of the historical campaigns. If someone wants an ahistorical grand sweep approach, they should play EU III (or Total War).

[Ben Waterhouse]

Well I would like to see mid 19th century European wars from about 1848 to 1871, which would include some or all(!) of the following:
Italian Wars of Independance, Schleswig Wars, Austro-Prussian War and Franco-Prussian War.

One can live in hope...

[John Sedgwick]

Ben - you can find those already in Pride of Nations, e.g. the Risorgiomento and the Franco-Prussian War. I was somewhat disappointed by the slow turn processing in PON's grand campaign (2-5 minutes between turns on my laptop), but even just the scenarios and DLCs are worth the price of admission if you're as interested in this period as I am. That said, I would love to see a game about the period 1848-9.

[Narwhal]

Can't wait for the new Bolivarian game !

[Castel]

Voted for Antiquity Greek.

Not sure that something like the Peloponnesian war would work all that well with the age system but a game about Alexander ? Yes, definitely yes.

[Blind Sniper]

Please, improve your best game: ACW (IMHO)...

[Hindaeneas]

It would be lovely with something more like the old game Imperium Romanum II then game number twentymillion about the Second Punic War. It would seam with my limited knowledge that the engine could do scenarios like those of IR II just beautifully.

[michaelangelo]

It would be interesting to see this engine paired with a setting such as that in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (end of the Han Dynasty).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI is an enjoyable PC game, but I would love to see that world via AGEOD

[Hohenlohe]

It would be interesting to see this engine paired with a setting such as that in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (end of the Han Dynasty).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI is an enjoyable PC game, but I would love to see that world via AGEOD

I personally think that it will be not possible because its a trademark of KOEI Ithink...

greetings

Hohenlohe

[michaelangelo]

I personally think that it will be not possible because its a trademark of KOEI Ithink...

greetings

Hohenlohe

I doubt KOEI could trademark the title or subject matter - Romance of the Three Kingdoms is one of the oldest books based on actual Chinese history, which would proceed any trademark laws by a few hundred years.

[H Gilmer3]

What does "The Future is Close" mean?

[H Gilmer3]

Isn't it about time to actually tell us what the new project is and not just hints? Heh heh heh!!!

[ariefbud]

chinese civil war or korean war.