Great game, if it only worked. I'm sure many of you, like I grabbed this game with great expatiations only to be sorely disappointed. Playing year one, with crashes and no events working proved very discouraging. Yes we were/are the beta testers playing on our own dime. Credit must be give to AGEOD for their series of patches which made the game somewhat more playable.
In my game its 1808, I look at the map, I have occupied most of Europe, because treaties don't work. I use Easy Supply, (which is a joke), because normal supply does not work. I have corps sitting in Bavaria and Italy which haven't moved for a year so now maybe I'll occupy North Africa and Egypt. Maybe England is next, a couple of big battles and its occupied. I look at Russia and think, 'what's the point?' Vast expanse of land with no hope of getting more war supplies, why bother with it. I have money oozing out of my pockets and almost no war supplies so I can't build much. My army is to big, I need more ships, but I bought all the income ships I could produce. I'm only left with navy ships, which in this game I don't need. I look at the game in its third year and say I own all of Europe one way or another, so what's the point of playing further? Maybe Viceburg's mod will make things interesting again.
zooter wrote:Great game, if it only worked. I'm sure many of you, like I grabbed this game with great expatiations only to be sorely disappointed. Playing year one, with crashes and no events working proved very discouraging. Yes we were/are the beta testers playing on our own dime. Credit must be give to AGEOD for their series of patches which made the game somewhat more playable.
In my game its 1808, I look at the map, I have occupied most of Europe, because treaties don't work. I use Easy Supply, (which is a joke), because normal supply does not work. I have corps sitting in Bavaria and Italy which haven't moved for a year so now maybe I'll occupy North Africa and Egypt. Maybe England is next, a couple of big battles and its occupied. I look at Russia and think, 'what's the point?' Vast expanse of land with no hope of getting more war supplies, why bother with it. I have money oozing out of my pockets and almost no war supplies so I can't build much. My army is to big, I need more ships, but I bought all the income ships I could produce. I'm only left with navy ships, which in this game I don't need. I look at the game in its third year and say I own all of Europe one way or another, so what's the point of playing further? Maybe Viceburg's mod will make things interesting again.
I can understand your frustration. There are many flaws due to overambition. I remember my post on the NCP2 thread in the NCP forum on that very matter here :
Sure a good diplomatic engine would be great, but I think we shouldn't lose focus of the key for the game's success : succeed in making the operational wargame aspect of the game fun and credible, as in it gives you the proper feeling of the napleonic wars. This to me is the key. This was the key difference between AACW and NCP, and explained more than anything their differing success. When you played AACW, it played great, suddenly you had this wargame that wasn't a tactical game (aka Robert Lee General and stuff) or a "arcade Civil War game" like many others. It was fun yet felt historical in many ways, in terms of army size, type of operations, losses, leaders, strengths and weaknesses of both sides, etc... Sure like in all computer games, once clever players start optimizing the system to its limits, it loses some of its charm. But it worked great. I only played against the AI and despite its flaws I had many fun campaigns where I felt like I was a southern or northern general.
in NCP, the wargame was flawed because the engine couldn't cope with the ill adapted province size / turn length for a european theater of operations with good roads, couldn't cope with the domino effect of the splendid french leadership and troop quality meaning Napoleon was virtually unbeatable, and therefore lacked historical variation in how the campaigns unfolded.
To me a good enough diplomatic engine (you already have it between EAW and other games) is enough, the key is the operational wargame. Give me the proper feel for a 1809 campagin, an 1805 campaign, etc.
Sadly they went for something super duper great because fans clamored for this and it made it a lot more complicated to fix. They will make it a good game, but it won't be a great game like AACW because it's just too complicated for the engine. It might become a fantastic PBEM platform if stripped of some cumbersome elements (kill the AI for the minors for example, make them passive pawns and only source of RGD recruits).
A bit of patience and it will be good.
lycortas2 wrote:Or maybe you could play, you know, multiplayer which is how all strategic wargames are meant to be played. Because I will clue you in on a secret; the AI at paradox and 2by3 is no better, only challenge is a human opponent.
Sorry but I disagree. The AI is never really good, but the game should be playable : The AI in AACW wasn't great but it was solid enough to have fun and the game WORKED. here the game has issues because of silly AI diplomacy dowing around or because supply can't travel through allied depots meaning a big army is bound to starve at some point if not in MCed territory (ie in peace time basically). These are game design issues, not normal AI weaknesses.
I will clue you on a secret : There has always been in all strategic games forums people pretending that really it's all meant for multiplayer anyway. They are wrong : most players play AI only.
I like ageod games but have found that it takes a few years for them to get patched to a suitable and balanced level, just like other games eg War in the East. Some will never make it Empire in Arms IMO. I'm optimistic that ageod will make this a great game but If it wasn't for the fact that I have 2 pbem games on the way I'd put it back on the shelf for a year and wait. I am disappointed that the new part of the game (diplomacy and related conquests/annexations) has so little usable information in the manual.
sorta wrote:I like ageod games but (...) I am disappointed that the new part of the game (diplomacy and related conquests/annexations) has so little usable information in the manual.
I am not disappointed... I have foreseen it
It's just another Ageod game and it will be ready a year or so after its debut. Something I've learnt when I played Paradox games. It's hard to get good strategy game in perfect shape just from the box these days.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests