i like to micro manage, at the moment i am deep in a game of 'war in the pacific' which is fantastic if you do like to micro manage. I think the best thing to do, if it is possible would be to have the option to micro manage if you like that sort of game, but be able to turn that option off if you dont making everybody happy.
The last few posts only demonstrate that AGEOD can't completely please everyone. A campaign with 1000+ turns seems daunting to me, but I agree on reflection that turns need to be short enough to give players real control over events. I'll just leave it to Pocus, et al to design the game as they think best. They haven't let me down yet.
It seems this game will only be worth playing for the short scenarios about certain key events of the era. In other words, like the other AGEOD games. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but that's not what I was expecting. No game capable of representing the Franco-Prussian War in painstaking detail will also be able to represent the grand sweep of the era.
.-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
apy:
I'd like to throw my two cents in as well, seeing as everyone else is. I think the decision to stick to 15-day turns is bold and inspired. 
I think it affords a more believable level of realism, both in the smaller scenarios and the GC. Frankly, I'm more about playing than winning--I rarely finish a game anyway, and it never seems to bother me.
I think it affords a more believable level of realism, both in the smaller scenarios and the GC. Frankly, I'm more about playing than winning--I rarely finish a game anyway, and it never seems to bother me.
couple of possibilities are possible. One is that you diferentiate between peace and war turns. Peace turns could be up to seasonal without really impacting the sim. THis would be somewhat problematic in mp though.
As a partial solution you could make the winter and/or rainy season turns longer. Essentially reducing operationalflexibility during this time if year as well as reducign movement etc.
As a partial solution you could make the winter and/or rainy season turns longer. Essentially reducing operationalflexibility during this time if year as well as reducign movement etc.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Lets get not too technical in this thread, which is about to chat with everybody about the VGN project.
There are no plans for now to have 7-day turn (officially) in VGN. Modders will be welcome to do that if they so wish, but for now we keep the 15 day a turn scheme.
The others solutions are not practical, including changing the turn length during play. There is always a war somewhere... when it is winter in one hemisphere, it is summer in the other, etc.
There are no plans for now to have 7-day turn (officially) in VGN. Modders will be welcome to do that if they so wish, but for now we keep the 15 day a turn scheme.
The others solutions are not practical, including changing the turn length during play. There is always a war somewhere... when it is winter in one hemisphere, it is summer in the other, etc.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
One of the addictive qualitys of Imperialism i found was that from turn to turn you had six things to do and resource for only three, it was a constant juggling act which is what i found most enjoyable, one of the keys to this was your workforce produceing them from your goods and then allocating them to your industry or military, this was a much more personal way of managing your population than having a meaningless figure stating your population size, if VGN has anything like this then i reckon your on to a winner.
Bronxuk wrote:One of the addictive qualitys of Imperialism i found was that from turn to turn you had six things to do and resource for only three, it was a constant juggling act which is what i found most enjoyable, one of the keys to this was your workforce produceing them from your goods and then allocating them to your industry or military, this was a much more personal way of managing your population than having a meaningless figure stating your population size, if VGN has anything like this then i reckon your on to a winner.
I liked the Imperialism series for the same reasons.
Hello everybody,
All of this sounds great to me, for I love spending many hours to conquer the world !
As many have told before me, I think 15 days / turn is most appropriate : I'm not afraid by a 1000+ turns game (the longer, the better )
But contrary to what I read on this thread, I would like to have the ability to conquer the world if I want to Many think that it is not realistic but I definitely think that someone who really wants it, provided he's a military genius, can achieve it (remember Alexander, Napoléon or Genghis Khan). It is true that in games like Europa or Vicky a small country can easily rule the world, but it is due to the passivity of countries under AI control. To reduce this effect, in those games, you can only annex 2 or 3 provinces after a war (After the 7 years war, France lost all her provinces in north America and India: in such games it would take 10 or 15 wars to take as many provinces). I hope that in VGN it won't be the same : for example, if I play with France and I manage to invade England (who said it is impossible ? 
) I would at least expect to set Ireland and Scotland free and take Canada back (and maybe 1 or 2 more colonies 
), not just 2 or 3 poor provinces on the other side of the world ! But if I am too aggressive, other countries will make alliances against me (what never appens in games mentioned before), even if they are ennemies ! That would be a realistic way to allow a decided player to build a great empire without making it too easy
All of this sounds great to me, for I love spending many hours to conquer the world !
As many have told before me, I think 15 days / turn is most appropriate : I'm not afraid by a 1000+ turns game (the longer, the better )
But contrary to what I read on this thread, I would like to have the ability to conquer the world if I want to
Many think that it is not realistic but I definitely think that someone who really wants it, provided he's a military genius, can achieve it (remember Alexander, Napoléon or Genghis Khan). It is true that in games like Europa or Vicky a small country can easily rule the world, but it is due to the passivity of countries under AI control. To reduce this effect, in those games, you can only annex 2 or 3 provinces after a war (After the 7 years war, France lost all her provinces in north America and India: in such games it would take 10 or 15 wars to take as many provinces). I hope that in VGN it won't be the same : for example, if I play with France and I manage to invade England (who said it is impossible ? ) I would at least expect to set Ireland and Scotland free and take Canada back (and maybe 1 or 2 more colonies ), not just 2 or 3 poor provinces on the other side of the world ! But if I am too aggressive, other countries will make alliances against me (what never appens in games mentioned before), even if they are ennemies ! That would be a realistic way to allow a decided player to build a great empire without making it too easyWhat would also be realistic to increase the difficulty to conquer the world is to give bonus to a country who has lost several national provinces until those provinces are back into the motherland:
- increased military research
- more volunteers for war
- better military officiers
- ...
That would reflect for example the efforts made by France to regain Alsace and Lorraine after franco-prussian war of 1870.
- increased military research
- more volunteers for war
- better military officiers
- ...
That would reflect for example the efforts made by France to regain Alsace and Lorraine after franco-prussian war of 1870.
Realism in VGN
In a game of this type i dont believe realism is all that important mcduff, realisms fine for a first person shooter but for an empire game it can bog down the game play making it over complicated, i dont know if you've played Imperialism but theres nothing in that game i would say is realistic and yet it is still after 10 years a timeless classic to me and many others, i can do without realism for a good addictive game and in a game of this type how far do you go with your realism, do you allow for characters like Hitler and Stalin, revolutions annexing your country and killing off your monachy.This kind of realism would just give me a headache and add nothing to the game for me.
Bronxuk wrote:In a game of this type i dont believe realism is all that important mcduff, realisms fine for a first person shooter but for an empire game it can bog down the game play making it over complicated, i dont know if you've played Imperialism but theres nothing in that game i would say is realistic and yet it is still after 10 years a timeless classic to me and many others, i can do without realism for a good addictive game and in a game of this type how far do you go with your realism, do you allow for characters like Hitler and Stalin, revolutions annexing your country and killing off your monachy.This kind of realism would just give me a headache and add nothing to the game for me.
I don't think you will like VGN then, sorry
Its supposed to be an highly historical game, with tons of historic flavor.
I think "realism" is pretty appreciated around here... at least i do
Arson following an historical timeline is not my definition of a realistic game, lots of games follow historical timelines without being realistic in their game mechanic, i think you missed my point by a country mile, ive no problem with historical realism, its how the games mechanics handle the finer points of the game putting complicated politics in for example to make it mirror real world politics does'nt automatically make for a great game.
Bronxuk wrote:Arson following an historical timeline is not my definition of a realistic game, lots of games follow historical timelines without being realistic in their game mechanic, i think you missed my point by a country mile, ive no problem with historical realism, its how the games mechanics handle the finer points of the game putting complicated politics in for example to make it mirror real world politics does'nt automatically make for a great game.
Hi!
I agree that realism and historical details does not mean by it self that a game is good. Fun, playability and strategic choices are as important.
And i don't have anything against "generic" or "open" strategy games like Imperialism or Civilization. I enjoy that kind of games a lot also.
I was only stating that, judging by previous AGEOD designs and all that the developers had said about VGN here, this game is not going to be like this "generic" strategy games.
High historic fidelity and flavor and realism/plausibility are things very valued by the developers and by most of the gamers around here. And of course, lets hope
AGEOD manage to mix all this with fun, playability and strategic possibilities... as they have made with the previous games.
Regards!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests