Has AGEOD team ever thought about joining forces with

[Nikel]

Gexozoid?


There have been some posts and comments about an option to resolve battles in NCP tactically. We all know that AGEOD develops strategy games, but would this option be a good idea? If you want to play the battle, you play it, if not it is resolved such as it is right now.


Gexozoid, whoever he is, has been developing a Napoleonic Wars mod for American Conquest Fight Back game, and he do it for nothing. Links for the site and the forum

http://www.mastersofthefield.com/ew_mod_menu.htm

http://mastersofthefield.freeforums.org/index.php


Some videos here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMMQ1zBYu-4


It is interesting too that right now he is developing a Seven Years War Mod, casually as AGEOD will release a Frederick The Great game Look for some units here

http://mastersofthefield.freeforums.org/ew2-promotional-videos-and-pics-f31.html


I would like to know the opinion of any of the AGEOD team members, Mr Thibaut? Have you thought about this possibility? I read too there was contacts with HistWar developer, or is this an urban legend?

http://www.histwar.com/

[PhilThib]

This is something we have been discussing internally already and agreed upon. We just lacked the time to move forward, and in some cases there are some contractual and legal constraints that block us in the proceedings...

But it is on our agenda.

I did not know Gexo... but do you have a name there we could talk to ?

[Nikel]

I registered there and sent him a pm, posted a thread too.


Searching a bit could find an e-mail address in the first post here, he is Croatian

http://mastersofthefield.freeforums.org/extra-extra-european-warfare-2-calling-to-arms-t308.html

Another specific forum, with other e-mail

http://europeanwarfare.freeforums.org/member2.html



So is it a possible a NCP2 with a grand campaign and a NCP3 with a tactical mode?


And the same for Frederick the Great?

[dooya]

Isn't American Conquest real time strategy? Actually I am a little bit sceptical whether that kind of combat simulation fits into NCP...

[GShock]

It's a big choice. Pull in a tactical battle and Multiplayer can go blessed and forgotten.

from what i've seen of the demo, forum and website, thats what happened to TC2M. I do think that TC2M took the right choices. If you get the tactical, then it's only scenarios. There's no dynamic campaign possibility, no nation management...just the tactical battle.

since NCP is a totally different thing, i don't think it can ever fit...by no mean.

Now, that could be an idea for NCP2 or 3, of course....but in this case, i would sublicense TW engine. It's a crappy game but the tactical battle is good (in MP).

[Nikel]

From the videos I think so.

What I am talking about is something similar to Heroes of Might and Magic. When I played this game, versions II and III, you moved your hero in the map, when you found an enemy you could choose to play the battle or just let the AI plays it and shows the result, of course it was not detailed as the battle report of NCP. If you played tactically it was by turns like the strategic part.


So you can play the strategic part by turns and the tactical in real time? Or perhaps better both by turns? I am not sure

[dooya]

Sounds to me like Crown of Glory. There the tactical battles where played on a hex-field-turn-based engine. I liked the tactical battles a lot, but did not get used to the strategic part of the game. It was just to complicated for me. Consequently, the game did not survive very long on my hard disc.

To summarize, having a hex-field-turn-based battle mode in AGEod games would be very interesting for me.

[Nikel]

Then if AGEOD team finally adds a tactical option to resolve the battles, they will have to choose again So is life


1 Hexed and turn based

2 Real-time and "alive" battlefield

[dooya]

Then if AGEOD team finally adds a tactical option to resolve the battles, they will have to choose again So is life


1 Hexed and turn based

2 Real-time and "alive" battlefield

I would opt for

(3) Something completely new nobody has ever thought of.

[Nikel]

Can you post a screenshot of 3?

[dooya]

Can you post a screenshot of 3?

Can copy it from my mind, but pasting into Photoshop is still a problem (my head lacks USB).

[arsan]

Hi
I´m not so sure about this tactical battle system, really.

I would prefer just a more detailed report of the battle development (like the huge battle log the system now does but translated somehow to the player so the could understand easily the basics of what happened). Maybe even with some simple graphic element.

Getting a realistic, fun and AI capable tactical system that complemented a so complex strategic game like AACW seems too complicated to me. And if done wrong it could be a huge can of worms regarding game unbalances, gamey tactics etc. It could undo much of the realism attained on the strategic part.
Besides campaigns would take eons to be finished

Just my 2 cents

[Carnium]

Then if AGEOD team finally adds a tactical option to resolve the battles, they will have to choose again So is life


1 Hexed and turn based

2 Real-time and "alive" battlefield

Sweeeetttt

Well there could always be "auto resolve" option for people who are not interested in real time battles.
AGEOD games could work like Fifa Manager and its ability to sim or play football matches.
But I doubt AGEOD can come with its own RTS system as they are too small and this cost a LOT of money and time. Maybe if they really join forces with someone else.
Doing too much too soon can ruin the whole thing IMHO....

[Nikel]

dooya, you got me laughing out loud! LOL!


arsan, it is not about replacing what we already have, it is about giving the option to the player, to play the battle or an "automatic" battle result. It is a nice idea what you say, an even better battle report with some nice graphics, but I suppose this could be done with future patches of the already available games? The tactical mode could be for NCP3, and what is left for NCP4? I know it, a life extension to play AGEOD games


Carnium, yes that is the idea Who knows what AGEOD can do in the future

[dooya]

Hi
I´m not so sure about this tactical battle system, really.

I would prefer just a more detailed report of the battle development (like the huge battle log the system now does but translated somehow to the player so the could understand easily the basics of what happened). Maybe even with some simple graphic element.

Getting a realistic, fun and AI capable tactical system that complemented a so complex strategic game like AACW seems too complicated to me. And if done wrong it could be a huge can of worms regarding game unbalances, gamey tactics etc. It could undo much of the realism attained on the strategic part.
Besides campaigns would take eons to be finished

Just my 2 cents

Yes, I think you are right: a tactical battle system might boost ACW beyond sanity, but, nevertheless, there is a market too. Just think of games like War in the Pacific. Did someone ever finish a campaign there?

Actually I think, that a tactical battle system would rather fit in games like NCP, because there you do not have the economy and the army-building stuff. Tactical battles could be a compensation for that.

[Adlertag]

You can also take a look at the "project Histwar", a promising game with a powerful tactical module.
The problem is that it is awaited for a very looooooooong time...

http://www.histwar.fr/screenshots-jeu-strategie-pc/screenshots-du-050408.html

[jastaV]

Hi
I´m not so sure about this tactical battle system, really.

I would prefer just a more detailed report of the battle development (like the huge battle log the system now does but translated somehow to the player so the could understand easily the basics of what happened). Maybe even with some simple graphic element.

Getting a realistic, fun and AI capable tactical system that complemented a so complex strategic game like AACW seems too complicated to me. And if done wrong it could be a huge can of worms regarding game unbalances, gamey tactics etc. It could undo much of the realism attained on the strategic part.
Besides campaigns would take eons to be finished

Just my 2 cents

I'd be enthusuastic with chance to try a tactical level sim, unfortunately have to agree with You!

A great example of tactical battle system is provided by Total War Series!
The Graphic is amazing but the results are tactically quite poore: player is always able to overwhelm the AI opponent.

Another great example comes with Warhammer: Mark of Chaos.
Here we have a great graphic too and a.... tought AI.
Indeed player difficulties to match the AI are related to the fact that soon after skirmish start the battle envolves into a giant melee, with very few chance to act at tactical level.

So, guess it's better to improve the present AGEOD Battle Resolution routine , then going after unrealistic solutions.

JastaV

[jastaV]

I would opt for

(3) Something completely new nobody has ever thought of.

Okay here is my 4!

AGEOD Campaign engine is great because of its unlimited time turn planning phase coupled with a simultaneous turn resolution.
We have simply to translate it at tactical level.

That to say: action goes to tactical map for battle resolution.
Player examine terrain, get information over enemy positions, deploy own troops: fog of war has to influnce all that.
Player gives orders to his formations for the battle: 3rd Corps has to advance forward, to gain control of XXX village, 2nd Corps has to support 3rd Corps advance, 1st Corps will act as a reserve, and so on.
That done we go to the resolution phase, where we just watch to Battle Resolution.
As per the Strategic level resolution the Tactical resolution of battles will be influenced by enemy actions and plenty of random, unpredictable factors: Generals misunderstooding their orders, late order executions,....

As a useful example see also: Austerlitz, Napoleonic Brigade Series: Playing Solitaire Rules

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/nbs/NBSAusterlitz/Austerlitz_3.0.zip


JastaV

[tagwyn]

IMHO you guys are "Whistling Dixie" at a 4th of July Celebration!! We've already been given the greatest game I have ever seen ... ! Let them concentrate on WIA and Vainglory for heaven's sake!! Let's not contribute to their limited time frustration! apy:

[jastaV]

IMHO you guys are "Whistling Dixie" at a 4th of July Celebration!! We've already been given the greatest game I have ever seen ... ! Let them concentrate on WIA and Vainglory for heaven's sake!! Let's not contribute to their limited time frustration! apy:

I thank you very much: You just let me know of Vainglory of Nations!

AGEOD should open a forum page dedicated to work in progress and future projects.

[GShock]

There is a thread both on BOA2 and on VGN. I am very curious about VGN and would like to SEE something ...screenies...

As of BOA, i don't care much. It's been on the top of my list since the very first day i bought AACW. This game has taught me so much...i can already see me playing BOA2 and buying 10 books on the birth of america.

[FM WarB]

I "cut my teeth" on tactical games of the Nappy, ACW, and I must admit WW2 era. When I play a tactical game I want a realistic chain of command with Army, down to Brigade (atleast) commanders. I want accurate looking maps and good combined arms interaction. I want the 10. Hussars to look different than the 1st Hussars.
This would require an exponential increase of the original Aegod files to accurately port to tactical mode in a satisfying manner.

I have only tried one game that tried it (For Liberty!) and this was one of its failings. From what I read, FOF and COG players have fun beating up on the AI when they play out the tactical battles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but not what I am interested in.

Excitement might be added, as the good ole Avalon Hill 1776 did for battles. Have a Grand tactics choice option and pick from various battle strategies. But this would probably only be practicable against the AI, as it would certainly bog down pbem past the point of playability.

[MarkShot]

In terms of tactical (linear warfare), I played SMG, SMA, WNLB, and ANGV. (Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Sid Meier's Antietam, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle, and Auterlitz: Napoleons Greatest Victory)

SMG was a great game. SMA was okay with bugs.

SMG was developed by Firaxis (Sid Meier's company after leaving MPS, Microprose).

SMA was partly subbed out to BAG (Breakaway Games) and was okay, but somewhat buggy.

WNLB & ANGV used the same engine as SMG which was sold to BAG. On paper, WNLB & ANGV should have been two stellar games given that they were based on a superb engine. However, BAG demonstrated how a the perfectly tuned and balanced engine of SMG could be picked up by strangers and destroyed ... yielding poor AI, unbalanced play, and pathetic gameplay. BAG's addition of cavalry which should have enriched the model instead broke a delicate balance when the AI was poorly coded for handling squares and cavalry charges.

A true shame, as both WNLB and ANGV have a rich set of Napoleonic battlefield mods (mainly by Davros) covering the Continent. Additionally, ANGV in principle included a feature that was way ahead of its time and should have greatly enriched the game and large scale battles. Similar to MMG's TC (Take Command) series, ANGV allowed the player to turn over command to an AI commander and issue one of four basic orders to relative to a particular area of the map (like attack, defend, delay, and probe). If not for the broken game mechanics, this might have made battlefields of a few hundred thousand fascinatingly dynamic. Oh, well ...

[MarkShot]

Regarding tactical format:

(1) UGO

(2) WEGO

(3) RTS

I like WEGO similar to the Combat Mission series, since it allows for a deep and rich intellectual exercise; effectively combat chess. But, of course, the tempo and violence of combat is lost. With RTS (like in TC2M - Take Command Second Manassas), the tempo and violence is maintained, but the ability to analyze and plan is much more limited. Also, for an RTS approach to be viable, some form of hiearchical AI system is needed with command proxy agents.

[FM WarB]

My tactical computer wargaming has mostly been with John Tiller Talonsoft and HPS IGo UGo turn based games. I have prodded them for improvements, and have done some scenario designing. I tried Combat Mission but the graphics did not do enough for me to make up for some of the clunky game mechanics and AI issues.

Trying to combine strategic/operational games with tactical games may be the Holy grail. Porting a region based strategic map to a hex based tactical map may be a prgramming nightmare.

For now, I'd like to see Aegod continue to perfect their strategic/operational system.

[GShock]

Do not be skeptical Arsan, as long as it's not Creative Assembly's, a tac + strat game can still work

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

There are literally thousand 3d engines that could be licensed...some even very old whose costs would be affordable. Please, not the TW one

[jastaV]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Sid Meier's Antietam, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle, and Auterlitz: Napoleons Greatest Victory.....were great games for that time, although bugs made impossible to conclude a large sceneries most of times.
Anyway in turn based games player can always overwhelm the AI!

[JB Hood]

take a look at http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=2

http://www.norbsoftware.com