Would it not be possible to make the turn day's counter an option? say a slider ?
7 - 15 - 30? Would be nice to enable 7 for wartime, 15 if you're busy and finally 30 if there is no need for immediate micro?.
i would not guess at the work it would take but it seem's it could kill alot of issue's and gripe's with PON
-
steelwarrior77
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:44 am
well how about making it mixed ? 2 weeksa in peace times and choseable 1/2 weeks during wartime ? that should satisfy anyone.
and for more state thigs i will love more overment managment, like more options to improve education (at price of more money spend per turn) , that idea of national budget is simply amazing, and with this come mre things, curenbtly onlyest way how to chnange goverment type is by event, which is bad.
i allways dreamed about changing my russia to partial democracy, with free elections, some freedoms but hard religion gasp over population with ig game tools.
and few more things that i now cant remember.
and for more state thigs i will love more overment managment, like more options to improve education (at price of more money spend per turn) , that idea of national budget is simply amazing, and with this come mre things, curenbtly onlyest way how to chnange goverment type is by event, which is bad.
i allways dreamed about changing my russia to partial democracy, with free elections, some freedoms but hard religion gasp over population with ig game tools.
and few more things that i now cant remember.
I absolutely agree with the idea of more governmental management through control of national budgets. This is not only something that every nation has always had to deal with throughout history, but also a great way for the player to make decisions that affect gameplay. Understandably, a totally free-hand in the game would take away from the developers intentions of making the governmental policies abide by the historical realities of the time and I would agree that would alter on a grand scale, the possible historical outcomes the game needs to work properly (I assume, since I've never finished the grand campaign, and thus the Great War). However, at least a slider with historical limits on each department of the government (and preferably, sub-department, to allow for spending on more specific line-items in the budget) would be a great addition, even if it is only a dream because when PON2 gets released, my suspicion is that such a major alteration to the game will be untenable due to the vastness of the game's decision-making ability with current technology. But maybe a passionate modder can do it?
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
@Seathom: PON's combat system feels a lot more like actual campaigning in its rhythm and decisions. The OODA loop is slower-paced than modern warfare, and the limited ability to control how forces react during a turn (through the orders) enhances the ability to get a jump on or wrong-foot the enemy as compared with a one week turn. The Athena engine's ability to represent the fact that armies might be proximate without a battle and the of dealing with guerrilla and stealthy raiding forces and main-force battles in the same system are powerful features and great for immersion.
PON does feel like governing a country, although it for fun the player is a lot more involved than historically. The economy is engaging and fun, but without a proactive Great Britain or France that makes a market in everything the world economy is short on grease for the wheels of industry and commerce as to buy one must sell and vice versa.
I say keep fortnight turns. The pacing is right.
The structure is fairly rigid but easily understood, which is important. But it lacks the flexibility of markets, where goods in demand will find a way to a buyer. A mechanically simple but very important improvement in the economy to facilitate play and a smoother economy is a mechanism that represents smuggling or minor independent producers and traders and that can provide some trickle of supply to underserved markets without requiring trade fleets. That supply can be of goods sitting in inventories unsold somewhere, or created by minor producers in response to market conditions. Something like artisans that provide the grease in Vicky's system, which is much more elaborate while rigid, so takes a lot of tinkering to adjust.
I disagree with giving player's extensive control over technology development. It was a totally different age and one in which stability and avoidance of disruptive change were desired. The ability to spend gold to accelerate particular programs already in the works is in the game and gives what might be an excessive level of influence over technology, especially as the effects compound, but players enjoy it. More than that would be a mid-20th C thing.
Cheers
PON does feel like governing a country, although it for fun the player is a lot more involved than historically. The economy is engaging and fun, but without a proactive Great Britain or France that makes a market in everything the world economy is short on grease for the wheels of industry and commerce as to buy one must sell and vice versa.
I say keep fortnight turns. The pacing is right.
The structure is fairly rigid but easily understood, which is important. But it lacks the flexibility of markets, where goods in demand will find a way to a buyer. A mechanically simple but very important improvement in the economy to facilitate play and a smoother economy is a mechanism that represents smuggling or minor independent producers and traders and that can provide some trickle of supply to underserved markets without requiring trade fleets. That supply can be of goods sitting in inventories unsold somewhere, or created by minor producers in response to market conditions. Something like artisans that provide the grease in Vicky's system, which is much more elaborate while rigid, so takes a lot of tinkering to adjust.
I disagree with giving player's extensive control over technology development. It was a totally different age and one in which stability and avoidance of disruptive change were desired. The ability to spend gold to accelerate particular programs already in the works is in the game and gives what might be an excessive level of influence over technology, especially as the effects compound, but players enjoy it. More than that would be a mid-20th C thing.
Cheers
-
loki100
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
- Location: Caithness
- Contact: Website Twitter
Pocus wrote:If someone who has some experience in modding want to try to do a PON Gold or PON 2, then new developments in Wars of Napoleon might help him. But that's quite a big task!
oddly I was thinking exactly the same thing
and to agree with Sir Garnet, weekly turns in the PoN grand campaign would be a disaster, the provinces are much larger than the norm in AGEOD games and all it would do would be to slow game play for no gain
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
-
steelwarrior77
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:44 am
To keep the discussion up - I dunno if AGEOD can afford the time that would need to be put in it - but it could be optional 7/15/30 days turns - so for long periods of no warfare and not much happening it goes faster - in time of warfare slower and I would love to see as many provinces as in TEAW - so they would not be too large ;-D I just repeat what XTRG suggested already ;-D
So the game could be faster and slower - also in PBEM games where one could vote how fast the next turn should be...I believe all over it would be faster - cause not so many times of war...or needed fine tuning...and even 7 day turns are not too much control - as we can see in WON ;-D so realism is still up...
So the game could be faster and slower - also in PBEM games where one could vote how fast the next turn should be...I believe all over it would be faster - cause not so many times of war...or needed fine tuning...and even 7 day turns are not too much control - as we can see in WON ;-D so realism is still up...
-
loki100
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
- Location: Caithness
- Contact: Website Twitter
I personally think that 2 week turns work best but don't want to answer for the current system simply on the grounds that 'that is how it is'.
My argument against 1 week turns is to compare province size and army interaction with that of NCP or the upcoming WoN. Both those feature a lot of provinces and operational movement in an era where movement into combat was complex. In effect, one way to model France's advantages in the early phases (ie corps-army structure) is to enable this sort of manouver and flexibility (and the risks that you can get badly caught out).
Now for a number of reasons, PoN uses an odd combination of the simple army structure (generate command pts, add units) with march to the sound of the guns (commanded stacks in the same theatre will support each other) and very large provinces. In the PoN model there is not the small scale operational movement of the Napoleonic games (and you really don't want more provinces {= more processing demands} within PoN), so no gain to weekly turns. Given likely unit movement over 2 weeks, in a big European war you will have relatively continuous fronts, so units can't just run around. In a colonial war, weekly turns and big provinces just add to the frustration with no gain as the key there is detection and bringing the enemy to battle.
The case against monthly turns is less obvious. I think it could work, they clearly do in games like AJE and WiA, but those also are games with small armies, no inter-army co-operation and poor infrastructure. In other words, the opposite of the pre-conditions for the operational interaction of a classic Napoleonic campaign. My concern at applying this in PoN is that because transport links are better, with WE-GO, in a war it all becomes random and about luck not orders and planning. I realise most people suggesting monthly turns are making a distinction between peace and war turns. So I could see how it is of no real importance if the world is at peace so it becomes a matter of what the game engine can carry.
I guess what I'm suggesting is if it is possible (and no idea if it is), then swapping between 4 week/2 week turns is attractive. Inevitably once you have your economy working and so on, any game of PoN does involve quite a lot of times when you do some very minor twiddling and then press 'end turn'. For the reasons above, I wouldn't go below 2 weeks though ... a reflection of game scale.
My argument against 1 week turns is to compare province size and army interaction with that of NCP or the upcoming WoN. Both those feature a lot of provinces and operational movement in an era where movement into combat was complex. In effect, one way to model France's advantages in the early phases (ie corps-army structure) is to enable this sort of manouver and flexibility (and the risks that you can get badly caught out).
Now for a number of reasons, PoN uses an odd combination of the simple army structure (generate command pts, add units) with march to the sound of the guns (commanded stacks in the same theatre will support each other) and very large provinces. In the PoN model there is not the small scale operational movement of the Napoleonic games (and you really don't want more provinces {= more processing demands} within PoN), so no gain to weekly turns. Given likely unit movement over 2 weeks, in a big European war you will have relatively continuous fronts, so units can't just run around. In a colonial war, weekly turns and big provinces just add to the frustration with no gain as the key there is detection and bringing the enemy to battle.
The case against monthly turns is less obvious. I think it could work, they clearly do in games like AJE and WiA, but those also are games with small armies, no inter-army co-operation and poor infrastructure. In other words, the opposite of the pre-conditions for the operational interaction of a classic Napoleonic campaign. My concern at applying this in PoN is that because transport links are better, with WE-GO, in a war it all becomes random and about luck not orders and planning. I realise most people suggesting monthly turns are making a distinction between peace and war turns. So I could see how it is of no real importance if the world is at peace so it becomes a matter of what the game engine can carry.
I guess what I'm suggesting is if it is possible (and no idea if it is), then swapping between 4 week/2 week turns is attractive. Inevitably once you have your economy working and so on, any game of PoN does involve quite a lot of times when you do some very minor twiddling and then press 'end turn'. For the reasons above, I wouldn't go below 2 weeks though ... a reflection of game scale.
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
The problem with PON is, apparently Ageod couldn't make up their mind what they want it to be: an operational or a grand strategy game. With weekly or monthly turns. Focus on military operations or on empire management.
Either you have granular war-making and meaningless empire management (weekly turns) or abstracted war-making and ... well ... empire management (monthly turns). So: From the 1840's to the 1920's will there be more peace (meaningless dull weekly empire management) or more war (abstracted war making with monthly turns)?
Besides: I find the idea of an operational game with weekly turns spanning from the 1840s to the 1920s rather ... absurd.
And last not least: I'm neither a game designer nor a coder. But the idea of having mixed weekly/monthly turns for peace and war sounds overly complicated and hard to make.
Either you have granular war-making and meaningless empire management (weekly turns) or abstracted war-making and ... well ... empire management (monthly turns). So: From the 1840's to the 1920's will there be more peace (meaningless dull weekly empire management) or more war (abstracted war making with monthly turns)?
Besides: I find the idea of an operational game with weekly turns spanning from the 1840s to the 1920s rather ... absurd.
And last not least: I'm neither a game designer nor a coder. But the idea of having mixed weekly/monthly turns for peace and war sounds overly complicated and hard to make.
-
steelwarrior77
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:44 am
I am a programmer and if a game is written with the options in mind - it will be extra effort - depending on: In how many files parameters are hidden. But it is not complicated - just the question, if it needs too much time for an indie company...and it would solve both - more controle in combat and shorter boring times...
-
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm
wosung wrote:The problem with PON is, apparently Ageod couldn't make up their mind what they want it to be: an operational or a grand strategy game. With weekly or monthly turns. Focus on military operations or on empire management.
Either you have granular war-making and meaningless empire management (weekly turns) or abstracted war-making and ... well ... empire management (monthly turns). So: From the 1840's to the 1920's will there be more peace (meaningless dull weekly empire management) or more war (abstracted war making with monthly turns)?
Besides: I find the idea of an operational game with weekly turns spanning from the 1840s to the 1920s rather ... absurd.
And last not least: I'm neither a game designer nor a coder. But the idea of having mixed weekly/monthly turns for peace and war sounds overly complicated and hard to make.
Out of curiosity wosung, why would you find week long turns absurd? I see nothing wrong with a game lasting a very long time. You can quit whenever you want or you could start in 1880 if you wanted a shorter game.
-
TheDelegate
- Civilian
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:55 am
I would love to see PON 2! Having poked around with PON once in awhile over the last couple years, but never making any real headway into the game, I want to play it but it just seems so broken in some major aspects [diplomacy, world market, and turn time]. I think the 15-day turns fit perfectly with this time period and is quite unique, but it would be interesting to have the option for 1 week or monthly turns as well [but not a very high priority].
Having followed this discussion with interest, I would like to add my thoughts on turn lengths.
Firstly, I believe that unless dramatic (very) improvements are made with respect to turn processing times, the current number of turns for a grand campaign is simply too great. In the majority of cases, I find that in peacetime there is not enough to do, of real interest or significance, during a given turn. By this I mean that, once the first couple of years have elapsed, tweaking of trades is all that needs doing. Considering that I usually play GB, the largest faction at the start of the game in terms of things to do, this is clearly suboptimal. If we had 800 or so monthly turns this situation would be vastly improved.
Secondly, monthly turns would not have such a negative impact on the military side of the game as some here have suggested. AJE and WoN have already been given as examples of monthly turns being successfully implemented into an operational level strategy game. However, for me WW1G is much more representative. That game is set in an overlapping time period and, as far as I’m concerned, handles strategic level European land warfare better than any other game. The only area where it falls down noticeably is in the case of asymmetric colonial warfare, which happens to be the most common form seen in PON. Fortunately, it is my belief that this is due mostly to the enormous scale of the units in that game.
I would also like to add that I agree with the idea that monthly turns would simulate well the concept of delayed transmission of orders from a nation’s capital/HQ to the frontline. While in the case of Europe this clearly becomes an abstraction, in the colonial world it would add to the realism rather than subtract.
P.S. If others are interested, I would very much like to discuss the potential of PON to be a great multiplayer game.
In the time I have spent playing the game against the AI, I have always had the feeling that this level of sophistication and historical immersion was wasted on a single player and that multiplayer would be the ideal realization of the designer’s vision. Sadly, I arrived too late at the party to join the multiplayer game which was once active on these forums.
Firstly, I believe that unless dramatic (very) improvements are made with respect to turn processing times, the current number of turns for a grand campaign is simply too great. In the majority of cases, I find that in peacetime there is not enough to do, of real interest or significance, during a given turn. By this I mean that, once the first couple of years have elapsed, tweaking of trades is all that needs doing. Considering that I usually play GB, the largest faction at the start of the game in terms of things to do, this is clearly suboptimal. If we had 800 or so monthly turns this situation would be vastly improved.
Secondly, monthly turns would not have such a negative impact on the military side of the game as some here have suggested. AJE and WoN have already been given as examples of monthly turns being successfully implemented into an operational level strategy game. However, for me WW1G is much more representative. That game is set in an overlapping time period and, as far as I’m concerned, handles strategic level European land warfare better than any other game. The only area where it falls down noticeably is in the case of asymmetric colonial warfare, which happens to be the most common form seen in PON. Fortunately, it is my belief that this is due mostly to the enormous scale of the units in that game.
I would also like to add that I agree with the idea that monthly turns would simulate well the concept of delayed transmission of orders from a nation’s capital/HQ to the frontline. While in the case of Europe this clearly becomes an abstraction, in the colonial world it would add to the realism rather than subtract.
P.S. If others are interested, I would very much like to discuss the potential of PON to be a great multiplayer game.
In the time I have spent playing the game against the AI, I have always had the feeling that this level of sophistication and historical immersion was wasted on a single player and that multiplayer would be the ideal realization of the designer’s vision. Sadly, I arrived too late at the party to join the multiplayer game which was once active on these forums.
Field Marshal Hotzendorf wrote:Out of curiosity wosung, why would you find week long turns absurd? I see nothing wrong with a game lasting a very long time. You can quit whenever you want or you could start in 1880 if you wanted a shorter game.
I didn't wrote I find weekly turns absurd.
I wrote I find an operational game with weekly turns spanning from the 1840s to the 1920s absurd. 80 years of operations (or even 40 years) on a weekly base are *absurd*, like eating a thin soup with chopsticks. A lot of manual work without meaning.
How do you think white elephant 2.0 will sell?
Steelwarrior, if you or someone else could mod or "Gold" this game, I would be forever indebted to you; this is my favorite game of all-time -- not even close!
The only thing I would really, really like to see is more attention to getting the events to fire without having to script anything. Maybe once I actually scripted, it wouldn't seem that bad; but for me, that is a humungous leap (shockingly, not everyone in the world is comfortable with scripting, especially those of us who will be 53 in a few weeks -- don't mock us, we had board games only when we were young!).
Beyond that concern, anything else is pure icing on the cake (my budgeting request). God Bless you if you or anyone takes up this endeavor. If I was a Swedish political leader, that person would get the Nobel Prize!
The only thing I would really, really like to see is more attention to getting the events to fire without having to script anything. Maybe once I actually scripted, it wouldn't seem that bad; but for me, that is a humungous leap (shockingly, not everyone in the world is comfortable with scripting, especially those of us who will be 53 in a few weeks -- don't mock us, we had board games only when we were young!).
Beyond that concern, anything else is pure icing on the cake (my budgeting request). God Bless you if you or anyone takes up this endeavor. If I was a Swedish political leader, that person would get the Nobel Prize!
-
Voluntary Exchange
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:15 am
Please rethink the problem. Have operation size, yes, but use continuous time for your turns. Do away with fixed turn time. Have daily or even hourly clock ticks. The user interface is only used when you need to make changes or respond to choices. Work it like the Hearts of Iron series.
Go to a global map without provinces at all! Use a Google Earth type globe system with explicit coordinates for everything!
Go to a global map without provinces at all! Use a Google Earth type globe system with explicit coordinates for everything!
Voluntary Exchange wrote:Please rethink the problem. Have operation size, yes, but use continuous time for your turns. Do away with fixed turn time. Have daily or even hourly clock ticks. The user interface is only used when you need to make changes or respond to choices. Work it like the Hearts of Iron series.
Go to a global map without provinces at all! Use a Google Earth type globe system with explicit coordinates for everything!
With all due respect, why not just play Victoria 2?
-
Voluntary Exchange
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:15 am
Voluntary Exchange wrote:Not realistic enough. Not operational level. Very false economic model of game (designed by Nanny state people who do not understand how actual economics works).
These are true, but surely you must know that all of AGEOD's games are turnbased? Their current engine has taken years to get where it is now. If it is a real-time game that you want, you should look into some of the mods available for Victoria 2 which improve realism.
P.S. I believe Victoria 2 is in fact operational level. The provinces are if anything smaller than those in PON and the units are brigade-sized.
-
steelwarrior77
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:44 am
seathom wrote:Steelwarrior, if you or someone else could mod or "Gold" this game, I would be forever indebted to you; this is my favorite game of all-time -- not even close!
The only thing I would really, really like to see is more attention to getting the events to fire without having to script anything. Maybe once I actually scripted, it wouldn't seem that bad; but for me, that is a humungous leap (shockingly, not everyone in the world is comfortable with scripting, especially those of us who will be 53 in a few weeks -- don't mock us, we had board games only when we were young!).
Beyond that concern, anything else is pure icing on the cake (my budgeting request). God Bless you if you or anyone takes up this endeavor. If I was a Swedish political leader, that person would get the Nobel Prize!
I´d love to mod it - but have limited time - maybe, if we can found a team with modding experience - it may be quite time intensive but doable ;-D
-
lukasberger
- AGEod Veteran
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:59 pm
Pocus wrote:If someone who has some experience in modding want to try to do a PON Gold or PON 2, then new developments in Wars of Napoleon might help him. But that's quite a big task!
seathom wrote:Steelwarrior, if you or someone else could mod or "Gold" this game, I would be forever indebted to you; this is my favorite game of all-time -- not even close!
The only thing I would really, really like to see is more attention to getting the events to fire without having to script anything. Maybe once I actually scripted, it wouldn't seem that bad; but for me, that is a humungous leap (shockingly, not everyone in the world is comfortable with scripting, especially those of us who will be 53 in a few weeks -- don't mock us, we had board games only when we were young!).
Beyond that concern, anything else is pure icing on the cake (my budgeting request). God Bless you if you or anyone takes up this endeavor. If I was a Swedish political leader, that person would get the Nobel Prize!
steelwarrior77 wrote:I´d love to mod it - but have limited time - maybe, if we can found a team with modding experience - it may be quite time intensive but doable ;-D
Agree with seathorn, this is possibly my favorite game ever as well. I've spent countless hours playing it both solo and as part of the epic PBEM that happened a few years ago.
If there ever was an effort to make a PON 2 or PON Gold, I would happily help.
I'm particularly interested in leaders, have added hundreds of them through modding and would love to add more, but could also work on scripting, events and general polishing. Unfortunately I lack the time to lead such a project, but I would happily participate if someone else was to take the lead in getting it off the ground.
-
steelwarrior77
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:44 am
-
Scipionminos
- Private
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:55 pm
Pocus wrote:If someone who has some experience in modding want to try to do a PON Gold or PON 2, then new developments in Wars of Napoleon might help him. But that's quite a big task!
Maybe a PON 2 (Gold) kickstarter project under the aegis of Ageod withe the new graphic of CW2/ EOW/ WON , maybe new protraits (like leader protrait mod enchanced) and mechanics from new Ageod games.
That would be a dream come true.
-
lukasberger
- AGEod Veteran
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:59 pm
Egg Bub wrote:Remember that for maybe 95% of players of PON 1 the turn-processing time was the big turn-off. I can't see a PON 2 or PON gold being more successful than the original unless this problem is dealt with.
Sure, but PC's and coding are always getting better and even a year or two can make a big difference in speed.
Plus just this little 2 page thread has almost 4,000 views (obviously most aren't unique, but still) so there's clearly some interest.
lukasberger wrote:Sure, but PC's and coding are always getting better and even a year or two can make a big difference in speed.
Plus just this little 2 page thread has almost 4,000 views (obviously most aren't unique, but still) so there's clearly some interest.
Well, with that in my I ordered parts to build a new PC a couple of weeks back. I got one of the unlocked Pentium G3258 processors with a view to overclocking it to ~4.5GHz. At that clock speed it yields the fastest single-thread performance of any CPU in the world. Hopefully this is exactly what PON needs. When I do the build in a couple of weeks I will report any performance improvements.
That said, going into 2016 any sequel to PON would really need to utilize modern parallel CPUs better to get satisfactory turn-processing times.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests