My adventures with WON

[fred zeppelin]

It's hard to tell if they are going to continue to try to fit a square peg into a round hole. If they do, they will continue to alienate and eventually, they'll build a new game and no one will come.

If I were them, I'd stabilize WON, fixing script issues as they arise, and then work on a new engine. Convert their enormously detailed data into a new data format (assuming a true database) and then re-release all these games (WON, PON, TYW, EAW) under this new engine and as version 2 (or Gold) of these games. I believe their market base will be more than happy for it and shell out more money. AGEOD can get some income and provide a better framework for these types of games.

Just my opinion.

I own almost every AGEOD game and buy them (including WoN) mostly to support the developers, even though I know I'll probably never be able to play them. So I am a fan.

But the episode last summer with World War I Gold was an eye-opener. A tiny company (certainly no bigger than AGEOD) bought the rights to WWIG and completely overhauled the game engine - fixed crashes, greatly reduced turn times, etc. - and released the new version as World War I Centennial Edition. They got sued and run out of business - coincidentally (or not) at the very time AGEOD released its own new WWI game (TEAW) - but that's not my point. The point is that another tiny developer was able to do right what AGEOD had been doing wrong for years - and was convinced they could fix the game and still sell it at a profit.

I recognize that the WWIG engine is different from the standard AGEOD engine, but the point remains. You guys have identified some pretty obvious engine and database inefficiencies, and I find it hard to believe AGEOD could not fix them if they were really committed to doing so. I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't produce a better product if they devoted even half the time and resources to streamlining their game engine that they do to adding additional features that the engine can't handle and then issuing "patches" that can't possibly fix the real problems.

Little guys really can do things right. But they have to make doing things right a priority.

[veji1]

I own almost every AGEOD game and buy them (including WoN) mostly to support the developers, even though I know I'll probably never be able to play them. So I am a fan.

But the episode last summer with World War I Gold was an eye-opener. A tiny company (certainly no bigger than AGEOD) bought the rights to WWIG and completely overhauled the game engine - fixed crashes, greatly reduced turn times, etc. - and released the new version as World War I Centennial Edition. They got sued and run out of business - coincidentally (or not) at the very time AGEOD released its own new WWI game (TEAW) - but that's not my point. The point is that another tiny developer was able to do right what AGEOD had been doing wrong for years - and was convinced they could fix the game and still sell it at a profit.

I recognize that the WWIG engine is different from the standard AGEOD engine, but the point remains. You guys have identified some pretty obvious engine and database inefficiencies, and I find it hard to believe AGEOD could not fix them if they were really committed to doing so. I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't produce a better product if they devoted even half the time and resources to streamlining their game engine that they do to adding additional features that the engine can't handle and then issuing "patches" that can't possibly fix the real problems.

Little guys really can do things right. But they have to make doing things right a priority.

I don't think it's an issue of commitment. I think the main issue is a mix of habit, limited programming expertise and a difficulty to admit that change is needed.
- Habit because when you have made a game like BOA and then expanded it to make AACW (still THE game by Ageod, one only has to look at the forum size : 65k posts, more than triple the closer games (PON and not coincidentally CW2)) and found success, been able to turn what was initially a garage operation into a real small studio, it's hard to break a habit that brought you success. But the point is here : at their scale, AGEOD are doing what microsoft did with Vista, try to modernise based on an engine/Architecture that rejects more complexity and can't be modernised.
- Limited programming expertise. I don't know this for sure, I am mainly musing based on my impressions and what other posters like Vicberg have said, but I have the feeling that the guys at Ageod just don't have up to standard programming expertise anymore. Phil Thib is a boardgame designer, and a fantastic one, Pocus is as far as I can see an old guard developper who developped the great AGE engine in 2005 but might not be up to date / able to see or implement the changes that would be needed, which is understandable because if you work mostly alone in a small company it's just hard to keep evolving without fresh blood.

I might be wrong but I think there isn't an issue of commitment. There are issues of inability to let go of the past (the AGE engine as constructed), inability to see that what has value in what they have built over 10 years isn't the engine itself but their style of games, the feel they have, the experience they give the user (The engine is but a tool which has reached obsolescence) and inability (possibly financial, possibly human) to accept the need for reorientation : you either make the jump to a new engine you build from scratch, or you keep the same engine doing small improvements, but then it is vital to admit its limits and don't overburden it : no more multi faction games but rather back to 2 opposing factions with only limited autonomy for allies or such, simpler operational wargames focusing on campaigning, logistics (supplies, organisation of replacements/recruitements, etc).

There might be also a simple management issue within the studio : Phil Thib is a boardgame designer who might have a hard time grasping that computer games don't mean unlimited ability to add features and complexify games that had to be kept simpliish to function as boardgames (I mean the EU boardgame was a freaking gem because it selfimposed limits and it's the reason why EU and EUII (really a properly patched and working version of EU, sort of like EU Gold) became massive hits back in 2001 (15 years ago!!!!) that put Paradox on the computer game map : perfect balance between complexitiy, historical feeling (sure in a lot more arcade style, but events and leaders and such still gave you that feeling). And Pocus might have had a hard time putting that message across and just tried to keep making the grand designs working by adding pipes and spoilers and big wheels and all to the engine, which now looks like a tuned up monster truck based on a Peugeot 206 (a great car in its own right).

Changing the workin dynamic, admitting something has to change, these are very difficult things to do that Ageod has avoided because they have been able to get by even though their nice games could have been so much better lately had they made the shift.

I am a big fan and will willingly pay for the feel and immersion their games give me, but I can see that structural changes are needed and again that's why on the NCP forum I advocated for a more operationally focused game without too much extra stuff because I know from experience as a player that the extra stuff (so many independent factions with their own AI, a complex web of diplomacy, thousands of events for everybody, etc) ends up weighing on the game. Other posters wanted more and more and more. Sure more is good if the engine can handle it, but if the engine stays the same...

My 2 favorites game by Phil Thibs are by far EUII (ie the gold version of EU really, in the same spirit) and AACW. one was released 15 years ago, and the other 9 years ago. For the last 9 years some nice games have been published that I bought, but nothing comparable. A new approach is I humbly believe needed : you go the John Tiller route where you focus on what you can do with the means you have (operational games in the modern era) or you have to make big changes in how you work.

I wish the guys good luck and hope they can make it work.

[fred zeppelin]

I don't think it's an issue of commitment. I think the main issue is a mix of habit, limited programming expertise and a difficulty to admit that change is needed.

But at some point you know you're selling games that no longer work - and you're asking a shrinking cadre of die-hards to pay for them. Setting aside the issues of business ethics - and the notion that loyalty should be a two-way street - it's a dead-end business model.

I don't know who sued the guys who reworked WWIG into WWICE, but it probably would have been smarter to ask them to a take a look at the rest of the AGEOD inventory and see what can be done to fix it. If someone hadn't shut them down, they would have made money selling a working version of a game AGEOD had been trying to sell broken for years. So it is possible to make a game that works and still make money - the two aren't mutually exclusive.

There comes a time when your "vision" has to be to make games that work instead of games that don't. That's what distinguishes a business from a hobby.

[Ace]

Wait, apart from WW1 Gold, all their games work. Sure, some could be better (AACW perfection never repeated), but they do work. I am puzzled to read about failing to play a turn without a CTD. No such thing on my computer. I do sometimes sense they perpetually judge effort (time spent) vs result (better game) ratio. And I sense they are hard pressed to flush out games from financial reasons becasue 2 good games actually earn more than 1 brilliant game.

[Taillebois]

But at some point you know you're selling games that no longer work - and you're asking a shrinking cadre of die-hards to pay for them. Setting aside the issues of business ethics - and the notion that loyalty should be a two-way street - it's a dead-end business model.

I don't know who sued the guys who reworked WWIG into WWICE, but it probably would have been smarter to ask them to a take a look at the rest of the AGEOD inventory and see what can be done to fix it. If someone hadn't shut them down, they would have made money selling a working version of a game AGEOD had been trying to sell broken for years. So it is possible to make a game that works and still make money - the two aren't mutually exclusive.

There comes a time when your "vision" has to be to make games that work instead of games that don't. That's what distinguishes a business from a hobby.

I agree, the smarter move would have been to co-opt the WW1CE guys rather than sue them.

[veji1]

Wait, apart from WW1 Gold, all their games work. Sure, some could be better (AACW perfection never repeated), but they do work. I am puzzled to read about failing to play a turn without a CTD. No such thing on my computer. I do sometimes sense they perpetually judge effort (time spent) vs result (better game) ratio. And I sense they are hard pressed to flush out games from financial reasons becasue 2 good games actually earn more than 1 brilliant game.

Agreed, I don't suffer crashes, the game run (slowly because of how the engine is made). CTDs are really annoying if you suffer from them and just a message of support from the devs saying they'll have a look and do their best makes a big difference because sometimes it's due to something on the player's machine they couldn't anticipate. What sucks a bit is that they put out the game before the holiday period (sound business decision) but then disappeared on holiday (understandable from a human point of view, but when you put a game on the market you don't disappear during 10 days of its first release month, you at least log in twice a day from holidays to answer questions, assuage fears, etc.).

As you point money is probably the central problem, but there might also be issues of control ("it's my studio") whereas maybe going for outside help at a modical cost could have made a big difference...

[veji1]

I agree, the smarter move would have been to co-opt the WW1CE guys rather than sue them.

What exactly happened in this case ?

[fred zeppelin]

Wait, apart from WW1 Gold, all their games work. Sure, some could be better (AACW perfection never repeated), but they do work. I am puzzled to read about failing to play a turn without a CTD. No such thing on my computer. I do sometimes sense they perpetually judge effort (time spent) vs result (better game) ratio. And I sense they are hard pressed to flush out games from financial reasons becasue 2 good games actually earn more than 1 brilliant game.

People aren't making up these CTDs. And turn times that verge on endless, units that wander the map aimlessly and events that never fire are hardly hallmarks of a working game.

My point simply is that the excuses we've heard here for years - they're small, they try really hard, no one makes these games anymore, etc. - ring increasingly hollow as they add more bloat to an already overburdened game engine. And especially when you see what an equally small team did to overhaul WWIG into a highly playable (and potentially profitable) game.

At some point, they're going to run out of die-hards who will blindly support them. Their apologists eventually will excuse them out of existence.

[fred zeppelin]

What exactly happened in this case ?

Someone sued Digital Froggies, the company that released WWICE, at the very same time as TEAW came out. I don't claim to know who, but the timing is what it is.

[veji1]

People aren't making up these CTDs. And turn times that verge on endless, units that wander the map aimlessly and events that never fire are hardly hallmarks of a working game.

My point simply is that the excuses we've heard here for years - they're small, they try really hard, no one makes these games anymore, etc. - ring increasingly hollow as they add more bloat to an already overburdened game engine. And especially when you see what an equally small team did to overhaul WWIG into a highly playable (and potentially profitable) game.

At some point, they're going to run out of die-hards who will blindly support them. Their apologists eventually will excuse them out of existence.

Without using as harsh a language I would somewhat echo this feeling : Time for Ageod to realize that their last games haven't been functionning in a satisfactory manner (PON, WON, AJE...) and that there are questions to ask themselves pretty bluntly : After 10 years an engine is just too old for the times, the hardware people have (multiple cores, etc) and to stay a functionning studio it needs to change. either that or this studio goes back to being a small garage operation like what John Tiller does, and just churn out small games that use the same template (basically WIA / ROP type of games).

[seathom]

I'm sure people are having CTD's, but why they are I am not sure. My computer is ancient and runs it well. Perhaps some people are much farther along in their games and are experiencing CTD's? I don't know. I agree with Ace that the games are playable and could be better, of course. Some interesting things have been brought up in this thread, in particular that the engine uses spreadsheets rather than a database. I hope this is something that the guys will try to remedy because this is definitely a very big shortfall in the engine, IMO. Also, that it appears that the engine works best when 2 sides are present rather than numerous sides is the other main concern I have.

I'm sorry, but I don't get a hard-on when "defending" AGEod; I just think they make really fun games to play. Should I remain silent when those that feel the games are antiquated speak (loudly)? Good luck with that! I hope everyone continues to bring up the deficiencies in the games so they can be improved.

A third concern of mine was the apparent rush to get the game out by year end. WON clearly needed more and better beta-testing. I don't think anyone would have complained (seriously, but maybe in jest) about the delay in getting the game out. After all, the most important thing is to get out a good game right from the start. I have discovered how ambitious a project WON had become and so far, I'm really enjoying the game.

[vicberg]

Let's keep perspective. We aren't talking about an overhaul. All in all, the engine and game is very good. Tons of historical detail. Beautiful games. The deeper you scratch the more that is there, though in a relatively simple display. Brilliant game design.

Comparing this to something like War in the Pacific, the depth is comparable in terms of supply, cohesion, combat mechanics, etc. But if you've played War in the Pacific, it's a click fest and a monsterous effort to undertake. Far too detailed for a game of that size and magnitude. Each turn (1 day in a 1200 hundred day war), requires hours if you want to be successful at it. I get a similar amount of depth from AGEOD games with a heck of a lot less clicking and it doesn't take hours for each turn. I got to the point where I dreaded a WITP turn because of the sheer scope and effort involved.

There's quick fixes to reduce the number of events and longer term fixes which could be a layer added to interpret what the engine is currently doing and translate that into some type of DB call. These could be done without a massive overhaul. Heck a simple global variable for faction that's available to the scripts would take perhaps a day or two to implement and reduce scripts by a significant percent (at least 50%)

So we aren't talking a year. We are talking perhaps months. A conversion program could reduce the number of events without having to redo all of the game files. Another conversion program could build a database. An interpretation layer could enable DB access without changes to the engine.

If they take my suggestion and add a country concept to the data relationships, including the distance between countries (or come up with a dynamic check during turn execution which WOULD require a database for performance), then that would definitely push out on the delivery but provide for a lot more flexibility when dealing with multiple minor countries, who owns them and what effect ownership has on neighbors, etc...

I don't think this is a matter of technical expertise at AGEOD. I believe they've tried to extend their code base, which was built for a 2 faction game, into something it wasn't designed to do (7-8 player games). There have been countless massive software companies who have done the exact same thing.

At this point it's a choice for them.
1) Enable 7 players in WON, but only 2 factions similar to what Altaris did in EAW Ultimate Mod. 7 player but only 2 factions and the diplomacy system there enables trying to swing Italy one way or another. Each faction has it's own money, rail pool, build pool, etc..
2) Enable 7 independent players in WON, and make changes to the engine to support it.

[fred zeppelin]

Without using as harsh a language I would somewhat echo this feeling

Harshness simply in the hope of being heard. Sometimes even the best of friends require an intervention. Better to tell them what they need to hear instead of merely more of what they want to hear.

[Franciscus]

Without using as harsh a language I would somewhat echo this feeling : Time for Ageod to realize that their last games haven't been functionning in a satisfactory manner (PON, WON, AJE...) and that there are questions to ask themselves pretty bluntly .

Hi veji1

I will abstain myself from this discussion (re WON), but, if possible, I would like to know why do you think AJE is not functioning in a satisfactory manner ?

Regards

[veji1]

Hi veji1

I will abstain myself from this discussion (re WON), but, if possible, I would like to know why do you think AJE is not functioning in a satisfactory manner ?

Regards

Sorry you are right, I have no elements to support this assertion, I haven't played the game : I contemplated buying it than decided not to at the beginning based on first returns notably on play balance, but the game migh very well run perfectly and be well balanced. Apologies for talking out of my *** about a game I don't know enough about.

Actually now that you are talking about it, would you recommand me buying it now ? I need my ageod fix but am getting frustrated with WON and have played AACW to death (less so CW2, but it never quite got me hooked as AACW).

[Franciscus]

Sorry you are right, I have no elements to support this assertion, I haven't played the game : I contemplated buying it than decided not to at the beginning based on first returns notably on play balance, but the game migh very well run perfectly and be well balanced. Apologies for talking out of my *** about a game I don't know enough about.

Actually now that you are talking about it, would you recommand me buying it now ? I need my ageod fix but am getting frustrated with WON and have played AACW to death (less so CW2, but it never quite got me hooked as AACW).

Hi again

I am not impartial, having spent many hours working on AJE, specially with latest 1.05 patch.

IMHO, if you like the roman age, AJE series is very good. Perfect ? No, but pretty d*** good

I am specially fond of HAN, if you are interested in the second punic war there are very few games dealing with it.

Check the AJE forum, and decide for your self.

Best regards

[Baris]

As far as I remember between WW1 Gold and WW1 CE there is only speed improvements (which still good improvements of course) as I own both of them. But gameplay improvements patched before it become WW1 CE as far as I remember.

I would say under 3 playable factions in PBEM play is very enjoyable in RUS Gold, AI filling gaps smaller autonomous forces inside some factions, creating some difficulties to players. Same as AJE. I wouldn’t say previous games aren’t working or need an overhaul as I play most of it PBEM and some smaller scale ones versus AI. I will gladly to have an opponent if he thinks it is not 'working'.

[fred zeppelin]

As far as I remember between WW1 Gold and WW1 CE there is only speed improvements (which still good improvements of course) as I own both of them. But gameplay improvements patched before it become WW1 CE as far as I remember.

You're right. WWICE added a new 1917 scenario and changed the artwork a bit, but the main change was a significant improvement in performance.

[fred zeppelin]

Hi again

I am not impartial, having spent many hours working on AJE, specially with latest 1.05 patch.

IMHO, if you like the roman age, AJE series is very good. Perfect ? No, but pretty d*** good

I am specially fond of HAN, if you are interested in the second punic war there are very few games dealing with it.

Check the AJE forum, and decide for your self.

Best regards

I'm happy with AJE. It was one of AGEOD's early games, before they started trying to do too much.

[dpt24]

AJE (plus ALL the expansions/other scenarios/stand alones of ancient Rome) to me is probably the "best" AGEOD game out there. The AI handles it pretty well, even with diplomacy it usually works. I agree that a more focused game might be better; I wish that Thirty Years War had been a full AGEOD production instead, I think it was complicated enough to be interesting but still within what the AI is good at. I'm of the opinion the next AGEOD game should either be Birth of America 3, or the English Civil War. I think both are subjects that are interesting, and within the AI's strengths to handle. I also think Revolution under siege and Rise of Prussia are really good games, and somewhat underrated by a lot of people. Problem with RoP is it's not a topic most English speaking players care about, but some of my best, most competitive AGEOD games with the AI took place there. RuS is great, haven't played gold, but got a lot of use out of the game, though I agree AI flaws in building armies were an issue playing as the counter-revolutionary forces against the Soviets.

[dpt24]

Or, make AJE 2 with Gallic Wars, Liberator's Civil War, something fall of Rome (Attila Total War is selling well) and Cleopatra/Anthony. Complicated? Somewhat, but I think it would sell well and be fun to play. That said, I'm enjoying WoN quite a bit, I usually prefer Grand Campaigns, and hated that the earlier Napoleon game didn't have one... now I kind of wish WoN had a few more smaller campaigns, particularly the 1812 invasion of Russia and 1813-1814 defeat of France.

[lycortas2]

I was a tester for PON and I was co-creator of the War in the Pacific CHS mod and helped create WitP Admiral's edition and for me PON is the greatest historical strategy game ever made except that the turns are slow and you MUST play it with 7-8 human players to keep the world economy running. The game needed more testing but 'more testing' for PON because of it's scale would have needed a year minimum and payed testers.

I am starting to work on resources in WON which I will release as a mod. I was going to work on events and stuff but Vic is way more of a smarty pants than me!
There are odd things like Spain producing three times more horses than France, despite my literature saying it was near the same and money not being a limiter for many factions.
I have converted money to EP's twice in the first 16 turns or so and I am still swimming in cash. I have zero war supplies and zero manpower however. I think this needs work.

From what I understand of the period, when a king needed 24 more cannon he told a foundry and they produced them, the key being the King's pocket book. It might take time, but it would get done.
In here money is rarely a limit. The only two times I remember 'war supplies' being an issue in the Napoleonic Wars was 1813 with the huge expansion of the French army after many cannon and muskets were lost in Russia and in 1812 Russia preparing for the invasion they were not even close to having enough muskets and a number of units fought with pikes.

[vicberg]

Excellent!

When you get your mod done, perhaps we can combine into one assuming they are done roughly together.

A way to fix the swimming in cash is to allow development. Build arsenals and gun foundries and it costs a LOT of money. You can adjust new unit and replacement costs increasing money and reducing war supply cost.

We won't know until we play well into this game how the play balancing is going. Right now, I believe as France I could attack both Prussia and Austria at the same time and win on both fronts. I'm not convinced that's historical.

[Montbrun]

I was a tester for PON and I was co-creator of the War in the Pacific CHS mod and helped create WitP Admiral's edition and for me PON is the greatest historical strategy game ever made except that the turns are slow and you MUST play it with 7-8 human players to keep the world economy running. The game needed more testing but 'more testing' for PON because of it's scale would have needed a year minimum and payed testers.

I am starting to work on resources in WON which I will release as a mod. I was going to work on events and stuff but Vic is way more of a smarty pants than me!
There are odd things like Spain producing three times more horses than France, despite my literature saying it was near the same and money not being a limiter for many factions.
I have converted money to EP's twice in the first 16 turns or so and I am still swimming in cash. I have zero war supplies and zero manpower however. I think this needs work.

From what I understand of the period, when a king needed 24 more cannon he told a foundry and they produced them, the key being the King's pocket book. It might take time, but it would get done.
In here money is rarely a limit. The only two times I remember 'war supplies' being an issue in the Napoleonic Wars was 1813 with the huge expansion of the French army after many cannon and muskets were lost in Russia and in 1812 Russia preparing for the invasion they were not even close to having enough muskets and a number of units fought with pikes.

Napoleon would raid the arsenals of his defeated foes for "war supplies." This was especially true for muskets, cannon, and horses.

[Sirlion]

A lot of good comments, I'm glad there are even programmers trying to explain how things work (or dont, in this case).

I own almost every AGEOD game and buy them (including WoN) mostly to support the developers, even though I know I'll probably never be able to play them. So I am a fan.

But the episode last summer with World War I Gold was an eye-opener. A tiny company (certainly no bigger than AGEOD) bought the rights to WWIG and completely overhauled the game engine - fixed crashes, greatly reduced turn times, etc. - and released the new version as World War I Centennial Edition. They got sued and run out of business - coincidentally (or not) at the very time AGEOD released its own new WWI game (TEAW) - but that's not my point. The point is that another tiny developer was able to do right what AGEOD had been doing wrong for years - and was convinced they could fix the game and still sell it at a profit.

I recognize that the WWIG engine is different from the standard AGEOD engine, but the point remains. You guys have identified some pretty obvious engine and database inefficiencies, and I find it hard to believe AGEOD could not fix them if they were really committed to doing so. I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't produce a better product if they devoted even half the time and resources to streamlining their game engine that they do to adding additional features that the engine can't handle and then issuing "patches" that can't possibly fix the real problems.

Little guys really can do things right. But they have to make doing things right a priority.

Ok after this I really think I wont be buying any more products from AGEOD, like, ever. Period. This... this is something else. Wow. I dont know how one can spend money to support a company that makes products that dont even work, but that's subjective I guess so all well and good. The things said here are not encouraging.

[lukasberger]

A lot of good comments, I'm glad there are even programmers trying to explain how things work (or dont, in this case).



Ok after this I really think I wont be buying any more products from AGEOD, like, ever. Period. This... this is something else. Wow. I dont know how one can spend money to support a company that makes products that dont even work, but that's subjective I guess so all well and good. The things said here are not encouraging.

The game works very well for me.

Don't just read the stuff from the really super negative guys, who hate everything. There are quite a few legitimate complaints and gripes posted here as well, don't get me wrong, but there's a lot more positive stuff to the game than just the things you read in this sort of thread.

The game works pretty well for most players. It needs to be polished a bit and optimized, no one is claiming there are no issues, or that it's perfect but it's very playable.

No crashes in dozens of hours here and I've had a lot of fun playing it. It'll be much better after a couple more patches and some more work, but that's only to be expected for a game of this type, any game really.

[vicberg]

A lot of good comments, I'm glad there are even programmers trying to explain how things work (or dont, in this case).


Ok after this I really think I wont be buying any more products from AGEOD, like, ever. Period. This... this is something else. Wow. I dont know how one can spend money to support a company that makes products that dont even work, but that's subjective I guess so all well and good. The things said here are not encouraging.

Have you had fun with their games? I have. I'm having fun with WON right now and in 3 PBEM games. Having a lot of fun.

I'll say this again. They've pushed their games beyond the limits of what the engine can handle and they've tried to make it work through thousands of scripts, which are difficult to debug and therefore many errors. It's a mistake that every software company has made over the years. I wouldn't stress it or throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scripts will get fixed. People like myself and Mike will fill in any gaps in the game through mods.

[Ace]

A lot of good comments, I'm glad there are even programmers trying to explain how things work (or dont, in this case).

Ok after this I really think I wont be buying any more products from AGEOD, like, ever. Period. This... this is something else. Wow. I dont know how one can spend money to support a company that makes products that dont even work, but that's subjective I guess so all well and good. The things said here are not encouraging.

Have you purchased their product before using age engine? WON isn't any worse than any other their game. If you liked their game before, you'll like WON. If you didn't like their game before, you might not like WON as well.

That being said, I like playing WON. Several not working events don't interfere with game enjoyment. As for the AI not being as smart, I ussually take underdog side. I play Austria, and I can say French AI has really pushed me to the wall, taking Berlin and Prag and wheeling towards Wienna from the North.

I have only one complaint about the game that is tied to the old engine, and that is turn length, AI turns are too long (not like I heard in PON - but still longer than it should be), I have even resorted to surfing on internet for a couple of minutes while AI calculates its move.

[Sirlion]

Well I did enjoy Pride of Nations a lot to be fair, no matter the turn length... which is the only product I own from AGEOD (until now). Allright, let's have faith.

[fred zeppelin]

Ok after this I really think I wont be buying any more products from AGEOD, like, ever. Period. This... this is something else. Wow. I dont know how one can spend money to support a company that makes products that dont even work, but that's subjective I guess so all well and good. The things said here are not encouraging.

I still buy their games - I don't think they're bad guys; I just think they need to get some technical help to streamline their game engine instead of just limping along doing the same old thing. The whole WWIG/WWICE episode, plus the comments here from from the folks who have looked at the game database, just suggests to me that there probably is a better way.

I still have high hopes for WoN. The Napoleonic era really should be the sweet-spot for the game engine, and the artwork, etc. shows all the typical AGEOD attention to detail. It's truly a beautiful game. No one wishes them more success than I do.