Grand Campaign?

[raylentz]

Hello all,
first of all i want to say thumbs up for this little beauty of a game.i used to play a lot of napoleonic wargames (countless sleepless weekends ) and i was waiting for a computer game which would allow my friends and myself the same feeling only without moving 100 miles back and forth. The wargame in my country ,Luxemburg, is almost non-existing.
While surfing through the Web i found ageod and i decided to give ACW a try and i was, how can i put it, overwhelmed by that game. It had everything i like so much in a wargame. The best part was the fact that you could play either small scenarios or the entire civil war. When i heard that they were planing a similar game in my favourite timeperiod i thougt that my quest for a pc game which would allow us to play from 1805-1815 was over.
Sadly i noticed that you can only play scenarios without the faculty to build your own army and no grand campaign.
After a long reflection i came to the conclusion that for that the game misses a crucial ingredient...diplomacy.
I guess i will have to wait some more and maybe there will be SPI's La grande Armee in a pc version or maybe someone knows a game which allows that.

Regards
Ray

[Clovis]

Hello all,
first of all i want to say thumbs up for this little beauty of a game.i used to play a lot of napoleonic wargames (countless sleepless weekends ) and i was waiting for a computer game which would allow my friends and myself the same feeling only without moving 100 miles back and forth. The wargame in my country ,Luxemburg, is almost non-existing.
While surfing through the Web i found ageod and i decided to give ACW a try and i was, how can i put it, overwhelmed by that game. It had everything i like so much in a wargame. The best part was the fact that you could play either small scenarios or the entire civil war. When i heard that they were planing a similar game in my favourite timeperiod i thougt that my quest for a pc game which would allow us to play from 1805-1815 was over.
Sadly i noticed that you can only play scenarios without the faculty to build your own army and no grand campaign.
After a long reflection i came to the conclusion that for that the game misses a crucial ingredient...diplomacy.
I guess i will have to wait some more and maybe there will be SPI's La grande Armee in a pc version or maybe someone knows a game which allows that.

Regards
Ray

It will come. It will be NCP2. The map is ready for a great campaign. The lacking diplomaty module will come with the completion of Vainglory of Nations.

In any case, as it is, NCP is a true gem. I'm not a huge napoleonian fan, but I must say a pc game able to cope brilliantly with Spain , Russia campaigns is yet somthing I couldn't belive in the past months.

And the graphics... Rarely seen so beautiful map

[Syt]

It will come. It will be NCP2. The map is ready for a great campaign. The lacking diplomaty module will come with the completion of Vainglory of Nations.

Not to mention support for multiple players.

A grand campaign with the current engine would likely have to involve loads of event/ledger options scripting - though it would be a colossoal task, because you'd have to account for alternative outcomes of battles (Napoleon losing Austerlitz or winning at Leipzig).

I think looking at the full WW2 scenarios (1939-45) for Operational Art of War might give some ideas on how to handle such a task.

[PhilThib]

A monster indeed...that's why we could not decently handle it now...we need this game first to please its public, because the gamers will return to us with loads of ideas, suggestions and data for NCP2

That's what happened already with ACW, the game is what it is because of our fans input and follow-up, not because of us

[caranorn]

Off-topic.

While almost non-existing here in Luxembourg, the hobby seems to be much better developped then I ever thought. In the past year I've been contacted by at least three players (at least two native) whether I wanted to play a game etc. And of course there are all the players in and around Metz.

P.S.: We have, had at least one published game designer (one of the Pratzen éditions people) too, but I'm not sure he still lives here as I lost touch with him.

[DennyWright]

I applaud the lack of a Grand Campaign if the diplomacy model produces the results I have experienced in board wargames and PC games when everyone tries to ally with France as quickly as possible and nations backstab each other at a moment's notice.

That is not historical. Any good game - and I include all of AGEOD's output in this category - places you in the shoes of a Commander-in-Chief or President, immersed in the historical realities of the time. So Britain would never ally with the French, Russia and Spain would never agree to invade and share Austria, etc. These are entirely out of historical character but all too frequent in our hobby.

ADG's World in Flames showed one way - tracks that neutral nations move along, until they react historically. In that game, the US is never going to team up with Nazi Germany, for instance.

AGEOD's games are superb at recreating the historical experience - I would rather they continued to give us brilliant time-machines of games rather than joined the multitude of "what if" designers out there.

I speak as someone with dozens of World War Three games bought in the 70s and 80s - none of which I shall ever play again!

[DennyWright]

That's what happened already with ACW, the game is what it is because of our fans input and follow-up, not because of us

Without you, the fans would have no game at all. THANK YOU!!!!!

[dinsdale]

I'd also like to add appreciation that there isn't a campaign game yet. As well as the fairly significant logistical problems; hundreds more units moving each turn, 500+ turns to a game, there's the issue that a great deal of time during the wars were absent of any campaigning. Finally, better to have the operational game first then diplomacy than either waiting 12 months or getting a poorly implemented diplomatic module. With VoN coming, the work spent there can be leveraged later.

Personally I agree with Denny, games morph into Diplomacy or Risk++ when there are unlimited options for alliances. I always liked the Avalon Hill way of doing things in 3R and War And Peace: very limited variations based on events, often with minor allies rather than the steamrolling GB-FRA-RUS alliances

[Reiryc]

Personally I wish there was a grand campaign.

I'm not sure why the inclusion of a grand campaign would affect anyone except those who wish to play it.

I look forward to a grand campaign with ncp or ncp 2 with the inclusion of the diplomacy models being created for von.

[Aurelin]

I applaud the lack of a Grand Campaign if the diplomacy model produces the results I have experienced in board wargames and PC games when everyone tries to ally with France as quickly as possible and nations backstab each other at a moment's notice.

That is not historical. Any good game - and I include all of AGEOD's output in this category - places you in the shoes of a Commander-in-Chief or President, immersed in the historical realities of the time. So Britain would never ally with the French, Russia and Spain would never agree to invade and share Austria, etc. These are entirely out of historical character but all too frequent in our hobby.

ADG's World in Flames showed one way - tracks that neutral nations move along, until they react historically. In that game, the US is never going to team up with Nazi Germany, for instance.

AGEOD's games are superb at recreating the historical experience - I would rather they continued to give us brilliant time-machines of games rather than joined the multitude of "what if" designers out there.

I speak as someone with dozens of World War Three games bought in the 70s and 80s - none of which I shall ever play again!

I think Guns of August, the Matrix one, allows you to speed up or delay entry of some nations. But they will sooner or later join the side they did in history. Haven't played it since I got ACW, so I can't really recall.

[stagira]

A monster indeed...that's why we could not decently handle it now...we need this game first to please its public, because the gamers will return to us with loads of ideas, suggestions and data for NCP2

That's what happened already with ACW, the game is what it is because of our fans input and follow-up, not because of us

It's what i exactly expected by you guys!
I bought last night the game - even being aware there STILL wasn't the MUST of my dreams, i.e. Grand Campaign - hoping, this way, to give my first little contribution (not yet in terms of ideas, but of "funds"...).

I hope that soon a Diplomatic Engine will be added.
It will be very difficult, but in this community doesn't lack the enthusiasm to support the effort!

[raylentz]

I applaud the lack of a Grand Campaign if the diplomacy model produces the results I have experienced in board wargames and PC games when everyone tries to ally with France as quickly as possible and nations backstab each other at a moment's notice.

That is not historical. Any good game - and I include all of AGEOD's output in this category - places you in the shoes of a Commander-in-Chief or President, immersed in the historical realities of the time. So Britain would never ally with the French, Russia and Spain would never agree to invade and share Austria, etc. These are entirely out of historical character but all too frequent in our hobby.

ADG's World in Flames showed one way - tracks that neutral nations move along, until they react historically. In that game, the US is never going to team up with Nazi Germany, for instance.

AGEOD's games are superb at recreating the historical experience - I would rather they continued to give us brilliant time-machines of games rather than joined the multitude of "what if" designers out there.

I speak as someone with dozens of World War Three games bought in the 70s and 80s - none of which I shall ever play again!

Well actually historicaly speaking the coalition often backstabed their allies,France for instance due to the beloved british money or to rebuild it's own strength ;-) so if the game does that aswell it won't be that bad----historicaly accurate.
The confederation of the rhine only persisted because of the strong french presence there. after the leipzig debacle they betrayed their allies, some like the saxons already fired in the same battle at both sides lmao
the russians noticed after the poland campaign that it would be best to ally with the french not out of love but out of a necessity. I will not speak about the Prussians...or my personal favourite Bernadotte
The Austrians even betrayed a royal marriage...... Diplomacy was always a tricky business.
If a player misses to leave enough troops to persuade the "allies" to stay loyal it is their fault and not the AI's ^^
Regards
Ray

[Syt]

IMHO there should be serious repurcussions if a major power with a "traditional" dynasty (England, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden) allies with the Revolutionary France or the Emperor-wannabe.

That might take care of the lingering threat of "England and France steamroll Europe together".

Additionally, different countries could have different, conflicting goals - France wants to dominate Europe, Russia wants the Balkans and Constantinople, Prussia and Austria vie for power in Germany, and Austria also wants to dominate Italy, England wants a stable status quo on the continent, Sweden wants Karelia, etc.

[Hobbes]

I'd also like to add appreciation that there isn't a campaign game yet. As well as the fairly significant logistical problems; hundreds more units moving each turn, 500+ turns to a game, there's the issue that a great deal of time during the wars were absent of any campaigning. Finally, better to have the operational game first then diplomacy than either waiting 12 months or getting a poorly implemented diplomatic module. With VoN coming, the work spent there can be leveraged later.

Personally I agree with Denny, games morph into Diplomacy or Risk++ when there are unlimited options for alliances. I always liked the Avalon Hill way of doing things in 3R and War And Peace: very limited variations based on events, often with minor allies rather than the steamrolling GB-FRA-RUS alliances

I also worry about the size of the beast! 500+ turns - PBEM almost certainly not an option. Maybe one option would be a string of linked historical campaigns with bonuses going to a player who has done well in a previous campaign. But that's very simplistic - it would need a lot of thought.

A full campaign game with monthly turns would probably suit best.
Cheers, Chris

[dinsdale]

I'm not sure why the inclusion of a grand campaign would affect anyone except those who wish to play it.

It affects everyone as resources spent on developing what may be an unsatisfactory campaign could be better used on the operational side. Or worse, NC not coming out in mid 2008.

I'm sure they'll add a great campaign on in the future, and it's better to wait for that while we have a game than either of the other possibilities.

[Reiryc]

It affects everyone as resources spent on developing what may be an unsatisfactory campaign could be better used on the operational side. Or worse, NC not coming out in mid 2008.

Yet those resources being spent on a grand campaign could very well be satisfactory to many players. What makes you think that predominant view would simply be that it was unsatisfactory?

If aacw and boa are any indication (and they are), then a grand campaign can be done and be satisfying to a great many players.

I'm sure they'll add a great campaign on in the future, and it's better to wait for that while we have a game than either of the other possibilities.

I disagree on both. I have no problem waiting a bit more for a satisfying game that includes both short(er) scenarios and a grand campaign such as we have with boa, aacw, and with the upcoming von (which will include a grand campaign).

[Sol Invictus]

I would also like to eventually have a Grand Campaign, but I certainly realize the difficulties involved. I normally play pbem but a Grand Campaign would probably end up being a solo affair because of the length. That would require a very robust AI. It was my understanding that VON would not include a Grand Campaign. At least I thought that it was still a question whether there would be one.

[gwgardner]

I just downloaded and installed the game. First thing I looked for was the Grand Campaign! I really had the impression from the game's website that there was one. Maybe wishful thinking.

So I start off with some disappointment. Frankly I would not have bought the game if I had known there was no Grand Campaign. This from a guy who used to have a whole ping-pong table covered with SSI's monster War In Europe board game.

I do believe I'll lenjoy the game, but hereby request that AGEOD eventually does whatever it takes to make a Grand Campaign possible.

[dinsdale]

Yet those resources being spent on a grand campaign could very well be satisfactory to many players. What makes you think that predominant view would simply be that it was unsatisfactory?

I tend to believe that AGEOD know what they're doing when they release a game and say it will be better to add a campaign later.

If aacw and boa are any indication (and they are), then a grand campaign can be done and be satisfying to a great many players.

Indeed, and when they do finish it, it should be superb. I'd rather have NC now as it is than wait until next year, or have a game which isn't as great as the previous titles. As the 10+ years of warfare between a few dozen countries is a significant step up from BOA and AACW, I expect it's a considerable task to implement.

I disagree on both. I have no problem waiting a bit more for a satisfying game that includes both short(er) scenarios and a grand campaign such as we have with boa, aacw, and with the upcoming von (which will include a grand campaign).

Then don't buy it and wait until the second version is released. Voila, you get what you want, those of us who want to play the game they released get what we want.

[Ashbery76]

I think most gamers prefer a grand campaign to short scenarios as the AGEOD poll overwhelmingly showed.

[Reiryc]

I think most gamers prefer a grand campaign to short scenarios as the AGEOD poll overwhelmingly showed.

Yep...

[Reiryc]

I tend to believe that AGEOD know what they're doing when they release a game and say it will be better to add a campaign later.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't... that's why they favor input from us -- because they realize and also implement valuable contributions from members as they've stated numerous times.

Indeed, and when they do finish it, it should be superb. I'd rather have NC now as it is than wait until next year, or have a game which isn't as great as the previous titles. As the 10+ years of warfare between a few dozen countries is a significant step up from BOA and AACW, I expect it's a considerable task to implement.

The task is definitely considerable.

Then don't buy it and wait until the second version is released. Voila, you get what you want, those of us who want to play the game they released get what we want.

I'll take option B: Play the game and give input into what I'd like to see in the games as requested and appreciated by ageod.

[Henry D.]

If aacw and boa are any indication (and they are), then a grand campaign can be done and be satisfying to a great many players.

That is the point, IMHO, for the whole napoleonic period in general, spanning from 1805 to, say 1815, those games are not a valid reference point.

Both BoA and AACW in all campaigns feature only two pre-defined sides, additional nations coming to one sides aid during the game notwithstanding. There are no changes of alliances mid-game in any of both games, and no minor states to handle, no new states to form, national borders to change or provinces to change hands. There are no periods of peace either...

All that would be necessary for an even remotely realistic feeling grand campaign in a NCP-style game spanning from 1805-15. You need to have a diplomatic system and an AI capable of handling it, changes of alliance for all major nations, an AI that can handle the minor nations, too. Otherwise You will very soon get a very unhistorical game. From 1805 to 1815 every major european nation except Great Britain changed sides at least once, pro and contra France. The current "diplomacy-free" AGE simply cannot simulate that well enough, if at all, at least not without a mass of event-coding more difficult and complex than I care to imagine...

Simply put, the engine in it's current state of development is a wargaming engine, not a strategygaming one, and, as others have already stated, trying to play grand strategy with a wargame is a very difficult and in most cases unsatisfying task at best...

Now, once we got the improved "grand strategy AGE" with VgN, that is whole different matter, then You can count me in to be the first one to Yell for a "NCP Ep. II - Attack of the Grand Campaigns!"

Regards, Henry

[stagira]

I applaud the lack of a Grand Campaign if the diplomacy model produces the results I have experienced in board wargames and PC games when everyone tries to ally with France as quickly as possible and nations backstab each other at a moment's notice.

That is not historical. Any good game - and I include all of AGEOD's output in this category - places you in the shoes of a Commander-in-Chief or President, immersed in the historical realities of the time. So Britain would never ally with the French, Russia and Spain would never agree to invade and share Austria, etc. These are entirely out of historical character but all too frequent in our hobby.

ADG's World in Flames showed one way - tracks that neutral nations move along, until they react historically. In that game, the US is never going to team up with Nazi Germany, for instance.

AGEOD's games are superb at recreating the historical experience - I would rather they continued to give us brilliant time-machines of games rather than joined the multitude of "what if" designers out there.

I speak as someone with dozens of World War Three games bought in the 70s and 80s - none of which I shall ever play again!

Well, what's historical?
A) every country allied with both sides, except Great Britain. It's historical.
Some years ago, a promising but unlucky game, very similar in concept to AGEOD ones (Steven Green's Nap. 1813: does someone remember it?...) contained a "diplomatic" module allowing such alliance shift. Could this lack into an AGEOD game?... nay... coz it's historical!
B) Two fixed sides: it's historical. France and GB. Every other character on the stage simply could shift from one side to the other.
C) Maybe we fear that, after a couple of (simulated) years, the player may lose contact with history. To fix this danger there might be a strong path thru scripting events, helping to avoid "absurd" developements. Notwithstanding this, as someone here already wrote, in those years, many things happened, which were out of reach of contemporaries' imagination before they have actually happened...

[raylentz]

I always hear in these kind of forums the word "historically accurate". I don't think that a player who choses to play the french in an historical Austerlitz battle would win as easyly as Nappy did a couple of years ago ;-) the what if's are far more challenging. how can u simulate fog on a map ;-)

[Reiryc]

That is the point, IMHO, for the whole napoleonic period in general, spanning from 1805 to, say 1815, those games are not a valid reference point.

Both BoA and AACW in all campaigns feature only two pre-defined sides, additional nations coming to one sides aid during the game notwithstanding. There are no changes of alliances mid-game in any of both games, and no minor states to handle, no new states to form, national borders to change or provinces to change hands. There are no periods of peace either...

All that would be necessary for an even remotely realistic feeling grand campaign in a NCP-style game spanning from 1805-15. You need to have a diplomatic system and an AI capable of handling it, changes of alliance for all major nations, an AI that can handle the minor nations, too. Otherwise You will very soon get a very unhistorical game. From 1805 to 1815 every major european nation except Great Britain changed sides at least once, pro and contra France. The current "diplomacy-free" AGE simply cannot simulate that well enough, if at all, at least not without a mass of event-coding more difficult and complex than I care to imagine...

Simply put, the engine in it's current state of development is a wargaming engine, not a strategygaming one, and, as others have already stated, trying to play grand strategy with a wargame is a very difficult and in most cases unsatisfying task at best...

Now, once we got the improved "grand strategy AGE" with VgN, that is whole different matter, then You can count me in to be the first one to Yell for a "NCP Ep. II - Attack of the Grand Campaigns!"

Regards, Henry

Thank you for your reply.

I think one might consider an alternative view to how a grand campaign that doesn't require the diplomatic effects of alliance making to be done by the player but rather to be historical, allowing the player to focus on more obscure matters such as controlling to a looser degree, military and partial economic factors.

The grand campaign could easily follow the predefined path of diplomatic history while the player engages in the military decisions and some economic/production choices that factors in the losses in troops over time. Allowing for some alternative paths in the same vein of the hps napoleonic series with their campaign branches.

[Henry D.]

...The grand campaign could easily follow the predefined path of diplomatic history while the player engages in the military decisions and some economic/production choices that factors in the losses in troops over time. Allowing for some alternative paths in the same vein of the hps napoleonic series with their campaign branches.

Well, it could follow a predetermined path of event-driven changes of alliance, creation of new "vassal" minor states, and such but would such an approach really make much sense or even be satisfactory for the player in the long run? My feeling is that would very quickly derail into a very "nonsensical" game if, say, the AI would be forced to declare war on France with Austria in 1805 and again in 1809 just because it is forced to by historical events that pay little or no attention (trigger-wise) to the actual in-game situation?

Granted, it may be possible to make alliance changes and declarations of war for the AI more "reasonable" by using VP or NM levels (maybe similiar to how it was handled in the 2-player GC in AH's "War&Peace" boardgame) but then the only continually playable nations would be France and GB (the only ones that never changed sides historically), with players only having "temporary" control over other nations joining their side by this mechanism. Yes, that might be feasable, but methinks, would take an amount of additional coding not considerably smaller than coding a wholesome diplomatic system allowing all major nations to be playable in the first place. And still, problems like handling and manipulating minor nations would occur. Personally I don't think it would be worth the effort and push the current engine way above its limitations without resulting in a very satisfying gaming experience.

I don't know the hps games though and don't know how the political aspects are handled there...

Regards, Henry

[Reiryc]

Well, it could follow a predetermined path of event-driven changes of alliance, creation of new "vassal" minor states, and such but would such an approach really make much sense or even be satisfactory for the player in the long run? My feeling is that would very quickly derail into a very "nonsensical" game if, say, the AI would be forced to declare war on France with Austria in 1805 and again in 1809 just because it is forced to by historical events that pay little or no attention (trigger-wise) to the actual in-game situation?

Well that's why a branching campaign that allows for what if branches would be included a la hps campaign games. Have you had the opportunity to play any of those?

I don't know the hps games though and don't know how the political aspects are handled there...

Regards, Henry

Ok, well that answers my question about the hps games...

Well basically they are a campaign game in which prior to a battle, one makes a choice from predefined options. This then sets the stage for the battle yet to come. Thus the branches can be as big or as little as the campaign designer makes. So the battles in 1805 could for instance, happen like situation A (historical), B (semi historical), or C (fantasyland). The player makes a choice and the consequences then move on from there in the battle.

It sounds less fun when described but is actually pretty popular in the hps gaming community. I think it would fit well here and wouldn't necessarily require heavy coding and would be a nice stepping stone to the time when von's style of diplomacy could be incorporated into a second iteration of ncp.

[PDH]

A grand campaign of the Napoleonic wars would be rough - what to do with the "down time" between wars/campaigns, the potentially ahistoric alliances or abuses, and many other things.

However, I for one would like to see longer, perhaps "linked" scenarios, much like what was done in the classic board game War and peace. The 1812-1814 linked scenario managed to (at least in part) keep the players honest with goals and reinforcements, while leading the players through several phases - any of which could be decisively won to end the game earlier. This would avoid the pitfalls of diplomacy for the most part, and also the problems of "down time" (other than the 1813 armistice, which happened for a number of reasons).

Maybe it is the grognard in me that feels the marchs are not long enough to build character, and seeing a grander ebb and flow would be a good thing.

[D_K]

I rather like how Hearts of Iron 2 Doomsday handles this situation, has scripted events that you can follow if you want to for a "historical" game. However it also allows you to branch off into "what if" territory. I like a historical game, but sometimes like to go my own way as well. So i guess I would like a Grand Campaign situation maybe it should just start from a year (maybe 1812) and go.....so what if it doesnt follow absolute history, this is a game right? I tend to follow this model - If you want history, read a book!

Sorry, not dissing anyones comments here or views, just would be nice to have both worlds. I dont own the game yet but have AACW and like it very much. I would like to try the demo soon though.

just my 2 cents