Please ! don't forget Marius (battle of sainte victoire near my city Massilia) and Sylla !!FOR THOSE ABOUT TO PLAY WE SALUTE YOU !!!
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
Please ! don't forget Marius (battle of sainte victoire near my city Massilia) and Sylla !!FOR THOSE ABOUT TO PLAY WE SALUTE YOU !!!
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
YEEEEAAAAAH !!!!!! une infinité de possibilités (sisteme WIA super PRESEANCE !!!!)
Gaules, Hispania, Germania, Italia, Asia !!!!
une infinité de possibilités (sisteme WIA super PRESEANCE !!!!)Gaules, Hispania, Germania, Italia, Asia !!!!
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
YEEEEAAAAAH !!!!!! une infinité de possibilités (sisteme WIA super PRESEANCE !!!!)
Gaules, Hispania, Germania, Italia, Asia !!!!
une infinité de possibilités (sisteme WIA super PRESEANCE !!!!)
Gaules, Hispania, Germania, Italia, Asia !!!!
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
El Nino wrote:Mmmmm...
I remember... Yes, Marius shoud be in a scenario, and playable by a human player...
oh... i am just pondering...
"Five scenarios, starting 87 BC till 200 AD"
"Expansion Pack (Birth of Rome 312 to 236 BC"
Marius as a reformer of the military would be rightin between the long gap... or better to say, the main game starting right on the moment of death in 86BC
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
-
hannibal_barca
- Corporal
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:15 am
Strategic level games of the ancient world are few and far between and this one promises to do the subject justice based on the excellent AGEOD engine. Imagine if this opens up a whole new realm of other ancient strategic games: Alexander and Diadochi, the Greek Persian wars, Peloponnesian war, Biblical era (Hittites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians) and many other possibilities. A long neglected period of history finally getting some notice in the computer wargames market.
Great Idea ! Romans are not less popular than WW2 theme game.
While revising map, I suggest extending the map to Macedonia, Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia. It can benefit while designing operational Seleucid–Parthian,Syrian Wars or Alexander the Great era when Romans and their scenarious exhausted.
While revising map, I suggest extending the map to Macedonia, Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia. It can benefit while designing operational Seleucid–Parthian,Syrian Wars or Alexander the Great era when Romans and their scenarious exhausted.
"They better have a Punic Wars scenario somewhere in there."
The next DLC will have normally the 1st Punic War, 264 to 241 BC since the game will be 312-236. Samnite War, Pyrrhus, and the 1st Punic War ; Actually this is what i understand.
Philthib indicated that 5 DLC were considered for now, a second will certainly have the 2nd Punic War, thus for now we don't know the 3 remaining.
The next DLC will have normally the 1st Punic War, 264 to 241 BC since the game will be 312-236. Samnite War, Pyrrhus, and the 1st Punic War ; Actually this is what i understand.
Philthib indicated that 5 DLC were considered for now, a second will certainly have the 2nd Punic War, thus for now we don't know the 3 remaining.
- Packs are "Extension" based on a period with scenarios or campaigns (like here with wars during the era 312-236).
- "DLC" (I don't like this word) are little extensions based on a geographic sector with specific scenarios (like Dacian wars or Briton Island wars)
- In other Words : "Extensions" are big extensions, and "DLC" are small extensions (with the possibility that the sceanrios could be chosen by the buyers or fans...
- "DLC" (I don't like this word) are little extensions based on a geographic sector with specific scenarios (like Dacian wars or Briton Island wars)
- In other Words : "Extensions" are big extensions, and "DLC" are small extensions (with the possibility that the sceanrios could be chosen by the buyers or fans...
-
Zap Brannigan
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:29 pm
[quote="Ilitarist"]But why civil wars? Yes, I understand that everybody loves Caesar. But!
QUOTE]
I know nothing about the actual design process of this game, nor do I have any insight into what it actually going on.
But if you stop and think about it from a design standpoint, you'll realize that it's probably a lot easier to design the initial game in a series if all the sides involved use essentially the same kind of military system. If everything is Roman on Roman, you won't get immediately bogged down in the nuances of asymetrical warfare.
Think about it another way. Who were the main non-Roman protagonists during that period that might show up in a scenario? Pontics (as in Mithridates who overran Greece), Parthians (defeated Roman armies lead by Crassus and Antony, among others), Dacians, Gauls, and Germans.
Each of these peoples used different systems of warfare, some of which could take on the Romans in a standup fight and some of which couldn't. And the Parthians could even destroy Roman armies when they were outnumbered. But each of these systems of warfare had its own peculiarities that in wargame design terms would go far beyond just adding in a little chrome.
So if I were going to design a game about this period, I would really want to start by getting the Romans right, and what better way to do it than to confine onself (initially at least) to Roman on Roman situations.
QUOTE]
I know nothing about the actual design process of this game, nor do I have any insight into what it actually going on.
But if you stop and think about it from a design standpoint, you'll realize that it's probably a lot easier to design the initial game in a series if all the sides involved use essentially the same kind of military system. If everything is Roman on Roman, you won't get immediately bogged down in the nuances of asymetrical warfare.
Think about it another way. Who were the main non-Roman protagonists during that period that might show up in a scenario? Pontics (as in Mithridates who overran Greece), Parthians (defeated Roman armies lead by Crassus and Antony, among others), Dacians, Gauls, and Germans.
Each of these peoples used different systems of warfare, some of which could take on the Romans in a standup fight and some of which couldn't. And the Parthians could even destroy Roman armies when they were outnumbered. But each of these systems of warfare had its own peculiarities that in wargame design terms would go far beyond just adding in a little chrome.
So if I were going to design a game about this period, I would really want to start by getting the Romans right, and what better way to do it than to confine onself (initially at least) to Roman on Roman situations.
Philippe wrote:But if you stop and think about it from a design standpoint, you'll realize that it's probably a lot easier to design the initial game in a series if all the sides involved use essentially the same kind of military system. If everything is Roman on Roman, you won't get immediately bogged down in the nuances of asymetrical warfare.
This is valid point from developing perspective. F.e. in Caesar-Pompey Civil War the only unique units will be local recruits (Asiann for Pompey, European for Caesar), but army composition and core units will be the same. Understood. But isn't it too... Boring? Romans, Romans, Romans...
Philippe wrote:Each of these peoples used different systems of warfare, some of which could take on the Romans in a standup fight and some of which couldn't.
Can it be shown in the game? I think it will be the same army moving but in battle they'll have specific traits and army composition. Balance problem, I think: before PoN you always had similar armies on both sides and I'm not sure PoN is different cause I've never seen battle in it.
The Roman Civil Wars is just a Theme chosen, i don't think that the Team first chose a Roman against Roman.
1. Because there is already more than 1000 Leaders.
2. You forgot that the Romans fought Pharnaces son of Mithridates at Nicopolis and Zela in 48 and 47 BC where Caesar after his victory said Veni, Vidi Vici. In game terms, faction will appear in the game at different moments, Pharnaces to recuperate his father's Kingdom and thus ANY Romans in the Area will be in trouble).
3. The 20000 Egyptians in 47 (Arsinoe IV and Ptolemee XIII) + Egyptian Revolt in Alexandria with 9-10000 Egyptian.
Thus in the game there is already (I think) a Heavy/Hoplite Infantry Model and Phalanx (Macedonian/Seleucids and perhaps Ptolemaic Egypt Type)Model.
A wargame published in 2001 about Caesar in Alexandria (GBoH series) had the Egyptian in HI type.
To model the Models is largely possible since the system have attack strenght, defense, fire and range, thus Romans with their Pilum have fire at close range, whereas an Hoplite or Phalanx have no Fire, the famous Parthian and their Parthian shot with Composite bow will have a rate of fire superior with no depletion (Camel train) with a range of 1 or 2 (don't remember the range, but this is where Philthib indicated (i think) a modification of the system has been done.
Of course there will be i think a difference between a Republican Legion (Triari had no Pilum) and Marian Legion, perhaps a better Rate of Fire for the latter.
Thus don't worry..
PS : Veni Vidi Vici has been today changed in a more modern Veni, Vidi, Visa.
1. Because there is already more than 1000 Leaders.
2. You forgot that the Romans fought Pharnaces son of Mithridates at Nicopolis and Zela in 48 and 47 BC where Caesar after his victory said Veni, Vidi Vici. In game terms, faction will appear in the game at different moments, Pharnaces to recuperate his father's Kingdom and thus ANY Romans in the Area will be in trouble).
3. The 20000 Egyptians in 47 (Arsinoe IV and Ptolemee XIII) + Egyptian Revolt in Alexandria with 9-10000 Egyptian.
Thus in the game there is already (I think) a Heavy/Hoplite Infantry Model and Phalanx (Macedonian/Seleucids and perhaps Ptolemaic Egypt Type)Model.
A wargame published in 2001 about Caesar in Alexandria (GBoH series) had the Egyptian in HI type.
To model the Models is largely possible since the system have attack strenght, defense, fire and range, thus Romans with their Pilum have fire at close range, whereas an Hoplite or Phalanx have no Fire, the famous Parthian and their Parthian shot with Composite bow will have a rate of fire superior with no depletion (Camel train) with a range of 1 or 2 (don't remember the range, but this is where Philthib indicated (i think) a modification of the system has been done.
Of course there will be i think a difference between a Republican Legion (Triari had no Pilum) and Marian Legion, perhaps a better Rate of Fire for the latter.
Thus don't worry..
PS : Veni Vidi Vici has been today changed in a more modern Veni, Vidi, Visa.
Florent wrote:
To model the Models is largely possible since the system have attack strenght, defense, fire and range, thus Romans with their Pilum have fire at close range, whereas an Hoplite or Phalanx have no Fire, the famous Parthian and their Parthian shot with Composite bow will have a rate of fire superior with no depletion (Camel train) with a range of 1 or 2 (don't remember the range, but this is where Philthib indicated (i think) a modification of the system has been done.
Of course there will be i think a difference between a Republican Legion (Triari had no Pilum) and Marian Legion, perhaps a better Rate of Fire for the latter.
[/B]
I believe cavalry archer would never assault standing army. Firing phase is ok but assaulting should be made by Cataphract.
Hope the game map and design also simulate Parthians wars instead of struggle against infamous Gauls.
" Parthians wars instead of struggle against infamous Gauls"
I think both of them will be done eventually. Look above "Parthum Gallicum". To avoid battle in the game there is a click to do on Posture but perhaps there will be an adaptation in the rules to avoid a Banzaï/suicide charge by Pathians as well as Jugurtha's Numidians light troops in 112 to 106 BC using guerrilla tactics and long range fire.
I think both of them will be done eventually. Look above "Parthum Gallicum". To avoid battle in the game there is a click to do on Posture but perhaps there will be an adaptation in the rules to avoid a Banzaï/suicide charge by Pathians as well as Jugurtha's Numidians light troops in 112 to 106 BC using guerrilla tactics and long range fire.
" Understood. But isn't it too... Boring? Romans, Romans, Romans..."
No i don't think so, in the case of Pompey-Caesar, Caesar had 11 Veterans legions in Gaul at start whereas Pompeys had only 7 Veterans legions in Spain, perhaps 2 in Italy (but formerly Caesar legions) and all the other were recruits elsewhere (Syria, Africa, Greece).
Despite this Pompey was the master of the sea with perhaps 500 warships, thus the situation is such that Caesar had to cross through the map (by land) trying with a few ships to reach for exemple Epirus at his own risk.
Historically, the crossing in Epirus was made in 2 times 2 X 9 légions and safely but Pompey( actually his fleet commander) butchered his transports who carried the supply and perhaps more troops if i remember.
Of course Pompey moves his troops at will on the Sea.
The 68 AD and 193 AD are new for me thus i don't know the situation but Caesar/Pompey is really an exciting situation.
No i don't think so, in the case of Pompey-Caesar, Caesar had 11 Veterans legions in Gaul at start whereas Pompeys had only 7 Veterans legions in Spain, perhaps 2 in Italy (but formerly Caesar legions) and all the other were recruits elsewhere (Syria, Africa, Greece).
Despite this Pompey was the master of the sea with perhaps 500 warships, thus the situation is such that Caesar had to cross through the map (by land) trying with a few ships to reach for exemple Epirus at his own risk.
Historically, the crossing in Epirus was made in 2 times 2 X 9 légions and safely but Pompey( actually his fleet commander) butchered his transports who carried the supply and perhaps more troops if i remember.
Of course Pompey moves his troops at will on the Sea.
The 68 AD and 193 AD are new for me thus i don't know the situation but Caesar/Pompey is really an exciting situation.
Florent wrote:No i don't think so, in the case of Pompey-Caesar, Caesar had 11 Veterans legions in Gaul at start whereas Pompeys had only 7 Veterans legions in Spain, perhaps 2 in Italy (but formerly Caesar legions) and all the other were recruits elsewhere (Syria, Africa, Greece).
Despite this Pompey was the master of the sea with perhaps 500 warships, thus the situation is such that Caesar had to cross through the map (by land) trying with a few ships to reach for exemple Epirus at his own risk.
By the way, isn't there too much sea? In all previous games I think navies had little importance, but there when you have to transport your armies I fear of sudden defeat by storms/enemy navies caused by your inability to change something during a simultanious turn.
During the First Punic Wars Rome Lost at least 2 fleets of 200-400 Quinqueremes If the game is well done Storms will be there in bad season and you will have to manage this possibility and take ...the risk. During the battle of Artemysium in the Persian Wars ,200-250 if not more Persian Trireme had the same destiny.
Perhaps a rule to stay near the coast to limit the destruction.
If the game is well done Storms will be there in bad season and you will have to manage this possibility and take ...the risk. During the battle of Artemysium in the Persian Wars ,200-250 if not more Persian Trireme had the same destiny.
Perhaps a rule to stay near the coast to limit the destruction.
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Florent wrote:During the First Punic Wars Rome Lost at least 2 fleets of 200-400 Quinqueremes
Perhaps a rule to stay near the coast to limit the destruction.
dont worry, you can read at Cesars books how often they tend to sink the ships on their own, to block the harbor or to have a improvised "redoute" / palisade
would be enough to be able to block movements and harbors and having some boarding here and there
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests