Your wishlist!

[Pocus]

Hi gents,

Let's imagine that the next Ageod-AGE game will be set in an era with soldiers using rifles. Or perhaps muskets. Or is it laser carbines? Anyway... They are using firearms. Now, picture CW2 and EAW latest additions and enhancements, and post at most 3 entries, no more than a line of text per entry, of your 3 most wanted features on gameplay, interface, AI, etc.

Remember, as many (hopefully) will post their wishes, you won't be alone posting, so keep it short and to the point. If an idea comes often, it has much more chances to be a good idea presumably.

[ohms_law]

I wonder if maybe nobody wants to go first? lol
I'll try to kick things off.

My number 1 want: A more detailed ledger. More information, and easier to sort, for both generals, individuals units and stacks, and regions.

[MarshalJean]

1. Options for giving orders/tactical battle plans to different army flanks/naval groups before tactical battle. (ala EAW)
2. More detailed diplomacy system, ala Pride of Nations, but even more complex, if possible.
3. The ability to build/create your own units, which exists in several AGEOD games, but I would like to see continued.

[marek1978]

1.)
Proper order of battle – i would like to be able to see how big are my armies, to sort it by regions, to look at the structure
And I would love some kind of general line showing losses on both sides.

2.)
AI being better in organizing its force – sometimes I see the AI is organizing a loose stacks without leaders or not organizing its army in to proper divisions, corps, and so on. I would like AI to be better in organizing thing – both armies and moves - like a structured offensive or naval invasion.

3.)
More regions , more hex shaped regions with clearer borders. In EAW you guys moved In to more hex game – with each province having six borders. I think it is a right thing to do – It is natural for so many wargamers. But the borders are still not that clear and sometimes shaped in a strange way.

[Lindi]

1) possibly to wait before a move or between a move, for take cohesion or arrive near area for fight in the good time.

2) Ugrate fleet and land move when you need to enter troop in ship, if the ship are only 1 day of the good area the fleet can't have order for take troop an continue de move.

3)More esay to see, the total power of each side on fight rapport.

[jack54]

Here are my 3... these are direct copies from above posts that I agree with:


1-AI being better in organizing its force – sometimes I see the AI is organizing a loose stacks without leaders or not organizing its army in to proper divisions, corps, and so on.

2- A more detailed ledger. especially sort by generals!

3- Delay move--i.e. the possibly to wait before moving or at a waypoint.

[Jim-NC]

1. True synchronized movement. For example, I want units from 2 regions to march to the same region and join in an attack together (whether by delay or orders or something else).
2. Better ledger
3. better diplomacy

[Templer]

1. Improved AI
2. Enlargeable message panel like in PON
3. Extensive improvements of the ledger. Especially in the search and sort functions.

[Templer]

1. Improved AI
2. Enlargeable message panel like in PON
3. Extensive improvements of the ledger. Especially in the search and sort functions.

Wish 3a
Build these in 'To End All Wars'

[GlobalExplorer]

- determine what happens during the days remaining at the end of a turn (for example: moveTo X -> embark Ship -> goto Y)
- difficulty setting that let me give additional resources to the AI per turn, and let me configure exactly which amount (%)
- lift fog of war for allied factions on map or strategic atlas (this could be the situation of a previous turn)

these were the first three things that came to my mind

[andatiep]

An AAR generator !

I mean anythings that could help the player to realize its AAR (and/or diaporama) while he is playing.

Tools that save him time and that standardize the publication on the forums.

[Boomer]

1. Improved AI
2. More options for the player (event cards, recruitment, dynamic fronts, etc)
3. Option to control large scale battles on an operational level... it wouldn't need a 3D interface at all. Think of something along the lines of this...

[ATTACH]31657[/ATTACH]

[ohms_law]

- determine what happens during the days remaining at the end of a turn (for example: moveTo X -> embark Ship -> goto Y)

I like that one. I've often thought about that during play ("dammit, if only I could give these guys multi-part instructions! Argh!").

[arsan]

Hi!

This is my wishlist:

- Secure PBEM system (so players can't peek at rivals movements or redo a turn for better results). AGEOD games shines on PBEM but the total lack of security is a downer

- Rethink the new interface and fix things that have changed for the worst (missing replay turn button, two clicks to get to postures and special orders buttons, generic interface design with little game theme flavor...)

- As others propose, being able to give more complex orders to the forces (waiting before moving etc) would be nice.

Regards!

[Ebbingford]

I'm with Arsan on the new interface, more clicking is now needed to do what could be done before with less.

The ability to choose in advance retreat paths for your forces, I get fed up with seeing my well positioned force retreat towards the enemy instead of back onto it's communications.

I'll come up with a third at a later date

[coturnix]

Hi!

This is my wishlist:

- Secure PBEM system (so players can't peek at rivals movements or redo a turn for better results). AGEOD games shines on PBEM but the total lack of security is a downer

- Rethink the new interface and fix things that have changed for the worst (missing replay turn button, two clicks to get to postures and special orders buttons, generic interface design with little game theme flavor...)

- As others propose, being able to give more complex orders to the forces (waiting before moving etc) would be nice.

Regards!

Add my vote to these three.

[Warsage]

Hi!

This is my wishlist:

- Secure PBEM system (so players can't peek at rivals movements or redo a turn for better results). AGEOD games shines on PBEM but the total lack of security is a downer

- Rethink the new interface and fix things that have changed for the worst (missing replay turn button, two clicks to get to postures and special orders buttons, generic interface design with little game theme flavor...)

- As others propose, being able to give more complex orders to the forces (waiting before moving etc) would be nice.

Me too.

[Schwarzer Herzog]

+1 Arsan, Coturnix and Warsage

There is place for tricksters in PBEM games with unknown players.
Some guys play with tricks or there are some very suspicious PBEM games, I don't know was is worst.

[ANTONYO]

1 - Improve the battle reports
2 - Delay order movement-combat.
3- Ability to choose in advance retreat paths for your forces

[beuckelssen]

1. Dedicate more time and effort to design the tutorials. This games aren´t easy and IMHO tutorials are always "not enough". I think the tutorials should be one of the first scenarios to be created. Not made at the end, or even worse, a reutilization of tutorials from other games.

2. I agree about the interface. The less clicks the better.

So, basically, I would like more accesibility to the games for new gamers.


3. A complex and interesting diplomacy system.


Bonus track: securing the pbem system is mandatory, not an option

[ohms_law]

In game tutorials are pretty pointless. I'd consider more effort in that direction to be a waste of resources, to be honest.
If better tutorials are actually important, than some sort of video playthough tutorials would be much more effective.

I also don't think that PBEM security is a big deal, but I have to admit that I rarely play PBEM anyway. My only point with that is to say "be careful what you wish for!" Automated "security" tends to be... rather inflexible.

I do agree with the general interface criticism. Luckily, Pocus has partially heard us on that issue and has given the option for the "old style" unit stance buttons in EAW. Hopefully they can bolt that option on to the other games.

[Dortmund]

Hi!

This is my wishlist:

- Secure PBEM system (so players can't peek at rivals movements or redo a turn for better results). AGEOD games shines on PBEM but the total lack of security is a downer

- Rethink the new interface and fix things that have changed for the worst (missing replay turn button, two clicks to get to postures and special orders buttons, generic interface design with little game theme flavor...)

My first two votes for that points, and an improved and more easy to understand "march to the sound of guns" rule. The results are sometimes too unpredictable, and the retreats too chaotic.

[ERISS]

In game tutorials are pretty pointless. I'd consider more effort in that direction to be a waste of resources, to be honest.
If better tutorials are actually important, than some sort of video playthough tutorials would be much more effective.

Learning the game is not pointless. It is best done by actually playing an easy scenario, even more if it is specially made for learning. I agree that Ageod tutorials are some pointless, as they're too short, but it is better than nothing.

I think that many players have bought one Ageod game, but almost never played it for they don't want to have to read the big manual for the many times that they don't know how to play a feature. Then they don't buy another game.

A good way to learn the first time, is to have a friend actually showing you the game for at least half a day.

[ohms_law]

I don't think that you give your fellow customers enough credit, but that's just my opinion. What do I know?
Anyway, it's not my company. If they feel that it's worthwhile, then so be it. I'd just rather that time were spent elsewhere, as I believe that would be more effective.

[ERISS]

(...) people weren’t reading these long rulebooks to learn complex rules systems.
Okay, true, that was one function, but at the heart of it all they wanted to be entertained.
Games are all about entertainment, and every interaction with them should fit that function.
many people who buy "paper" gaming products never actually play them or ever intend to.
They buy them to read. If you bore these people silly with your writing, they’re never coming back.
(...)
Matt Forbeck

http://www.forbeck.com/downloads/Horsemen_Essay.pdf
http://www.forbeck.com/about-matt-forbeck/matts-published-credits/

[Jagger2013]

1. Ability for the human to choose in advance retreat paths for your forces. (My biggest gripe. Nothing more frustrating than a retreat in the wrong direction. Happens too often. I would like to be able to designate a most likely line of retreat at the start of turn.)

2. Secure PBEM system (so players can't peek at rivals movements or redo a turn for better results). AGEOD games shines on PBEM but the total lack of security is a downer. (Even if no one is cheating, a few odd results which happen often enough, gets the paranoia hackles up.)

3. Extensive improvements of the ledger. Especially in the search and sort functions. (Would like to know total size of my army at any one time. Be able to find rare leaders, units or abilities, etc.)

[anjou]

Seconded, jagger

[Calvin809]

For me playing mostly CW2 I would like to be able to name and organize my brigades, divisions, corps, and armies instead of just naming stacks. Maybe a way to assign units to an army, brigade, division, etc and it moves to where it's supposed to go. It's more of an immersion thing. I also agree that the ledger would be better with more detail. Also along the lines of tutorials or learning the game engine, I learned a bit on the game engine for playing CW2 by buying AJE and reading the manual for that game. I think the manuals need a bit more detail. There are some thing the tutorial says are in the manual but are not there (CW2), but I did find in the AJE manual.

[Matto]

1. PBEM security + better replay possibilities
2. more "PON system" (diplomacy, events, what-if situations generated by players, crises)
3. keep focus between 1700-1920

+ one more ... keep your great support !!!

[1stvermont]

1] More mp options, mainly the option to sit down and play online at the same time.

2] More generals, good number but seeing generic generals with random stats kills the immersion.

3] Ability to rename armies, I feel this is a big letdown.