Screenshots posted:
http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1770/New.Screenshots.of.Ageod%27s.Upcoming.Napoleonic.Game
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/t31.0-8/11856433_10153047854136932_1649364246713578536_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11807612_10153047854141932_976710899590397909_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11864901_10153047854131932_6825792575642287948_o.jpg)
Nice screenies. Does it use the American Civil War 2 engine?
How does this differ from Ageod's other Napoleonic game?
Hopefully this (like Civil War II) will have something more along the lines of a 'grand campaign' (or campaigns) that the original Napoleon's Campaigns lacked - ? The only really big campaign in the original was the "Spanish Ulcer" campaign that I never really cared all that much about...
Hate the map font. Wish they'd just go back to the gorgeous design of the Nap's Campaigns map...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 12, 2015, 10:27:50 AM
How does this differ from Ageod's other Napoleonic game?
And how many times can we be expected to have any interest in 1805? Why can't we ever see 1794 (the French successfully run a massive convoy from America and win big with balloons at Fleurus )or 1795 ( Archduke Charles' first campaign) or 1796 (Napoleon in Italy) 1797 (Royal Navy Mutinies)? Just to name a few years that could be covered to add to the interest in the era.
Am I the only one sick and tired of the AGE engine? There are some talented people at Ageod, but it's time to move on to something new.
This one is looking sexy!
JH I'm pretty sure the major change is the use of the new AGE engine like CW2 uses. The original had some fairly serious issues that hopefully will be fixed with the upgraded engine.
Quote from: tgb on August 12, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
Am I the only one sick and tired of the AGE engine? There are some talented people at Ageod, but it's time to move on to something new.
I don't know. I really like the AGE engine.
Quote from: Bison on August 12, 2015, 10:57:18 AM
Quote from: tgb on August 12, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
Am I the only one sick and tired of the AGE engine? There are some talented people at Ageod, but it's time to move on to something new.
I don't know. I really like the AGE engine.
It can definitely play a good game. It's beating me up in RUS gold at the moment.
I too still like the engine and will definitely be interested in this new game.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 12, 2015, 10:27:50 AM
How does this differ from Ageod's other Napoleonic game?
10% more Boney.
Quote from: tgb on August 12, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
Am I the only one sick and tired of the AGE engine? There are some talented people at Ageod, but it's time to move on to something new.
Nope, sorry but I quit a long time ago around AJE. Just not enough feedback to the commander and too hard to get information/feedback to make decisions. I've passed on all since then.....
PE
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 12, 2015, 10:27:50 AM
How does this differ from Ageod's other Napoleonic game?
This one goes to 11
It would be great if it covered the 1796 Italian Campaign. As for 1805, I'm actually quite fond of that campaign if they could do it right. The implementation in the original game is pretty lacking. I'm also hoping for revised versions of the 1813 and 1814 campaigns.
The AGEOD engine works pretty well for wars of this era at this scale, IMHO. It's not bad for getting a reasonable overview of the campaigns as a whole, I find.
Quote from: mirth on August 12, 2015, 02:52:49 PM
10% more Boney.
...and we're all just letting this slide?
It's past time for AGEOD to either create a new engine or really, really update the current one. And I say this as a big fan of the current engine.
I really do not understand calls for a "new engine." If the present engine "works" why need it be replaced? Doesn't it make sense to improve same with each new game that uses the engine? Then one gets the benefit of a tried and true and mature engine along with not having to learn a new one with each subject. And new engines come without a guarantee.
Quote from: Johnnie on November 18, 2015, 08:22:01 PM
I really do not understand calls for a "new engine." If the present engine "works" why need it be replaced? Doesn't it make sense to improve same with each new game that uses the engine? Then one gets the benefit of a tried and true and mature engine along with not having to learn a new one with each subject. And new engines come without a guarantee.
I think the old engine has had a lot of extra features and such stuffed in over the years & sequels.
That can make it rather sluggish and turn processing pretty slow since the engine only uses one CPU.
Pride Of Nations really demonstrated that the game engine hit it's ideal limits years ago due to this, which is sad because having all those aspects in an AGE game would be amazing - if it didn't take so to resolve turns. It's just not able to keep pace with newer hardware's multi-core processing power, which has moved to a multi-core focus over the past decade.
After becoming familiar with the AGE engine, I've come to enjoy the drag & drop UI and how much of the system works. It's just obvious that the old engine needs a sequel so the developers can continue to expand features at the pace they intend without being so limited. That may be out of the question regarding time/income investment at the moment, but those of us who've enjoyed them can keep hoping a new evolution comes. :)
I'm pretty sick and tired of the AGE engine, which I never cared for a lot in the first place. I'm much more excited about Slitherine's upcoming Victory and Glory, and the start of the Beta.
I think AGEOD's engine cane still work just fine if they stick the right era. ACW is about as late as the game can model reasonably.
The one thing I do hate, and that I suspect won't change anytime soon, is the laborious process of creating Corps and Armies. There's just way too much dumping of units into "containers," which gets old fast.
The biggest issue I have with the Ageod engine is that same issue I have will many older engines. They do not scale well with higher resolution monitors. So the text and other UI features become near impossible to read, which is a huge turn off when I sit down to play a game. Do I play a game where I can actually read the text and make out the counter information or the one where I cannot?
Damn, if Ageod does anything right, it's make a sexy looking boardgame. Everytime I see screenshots of their games it makes me wish I knew how to play them.
First AAR of the game: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?41286-AAR-from-the-Beta (http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?41286-AAR-from-the-Beta)
Dammit. Saw this thread pop back up and thought the game had been released in time for my 4 day weekend
Is this game going to do to Ageod's Napoleon's Campaigns what their American Civil War 2 did the ACW 1...?
Quote from: Rayfer on November 24, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
Is this game going to do to Ageod's Napoleon's Campaigns what their American Civil War 2 did the ACW 1...?
I certainly hope so. :)
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on November 24, 2015, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Rayfer on November 24, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
Is this game going to do to Ageod's Napoleon's Campaigns what their American Civil War 2 did the ACW 1...?
I certainly hope so. :)
LOL...me too!
I love the AGE engine, think it plays well, looks good, and allows you to jump straight into almost any game once you've learned one of them.
I am a little pessimistic about the Napoleonic game though. I love Kevin Zucker's operational board games, but I've never come across any computer game which has been as compelling. It's all a bit railroaded, and combined with expectations that Napoleon always wins battles until he develops piles, very predictable.
Early years; Napoleon and his Panzers crush everything. One line of advance through the Danube, through Germany or through Italy punctuated by Nappy winning battles.
Late years; What's wrong with Napoleon. Cold and hungry, run away from the Russians... Oh no, the Prussians and Austrians have joined in. Shit, we're outside Paris.
Waterloo; hope the British and Prussians leave a huge gap for me to march through or I'm screwed.
I can't put my finger on why the boardgames work better, it may come down to die rolling and the decisions around moving center of operations or supply, but when it's automated and abstracted the games lose their appeal to me.
I really, really hope AGEOD nails it, but I think it's a very tough game to get right.
Quote from: dinsdale on November 24, 2015, 10:35:00 PM
I can't put my finger on why the boardgames work better, it may come down to die rolling and the decisions around moving center of operations or supply, but when it's automated and abstracted the games lose their appeal to me.
I really, really hope AGEOD nails it, but I think it's a very tough game to get right.
Agreed. Having said that, if AGEOD's Thirty Years War is an indicator, this will be pretty good. You might also give this (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/282/details/Campaigns.On.The.Danube)a look. Aging a bit, but it has had some recent updates and it more like what you're looking for, I think. I'm a big fan of the Zucker games, myself.
If you haven't tried Tiller's Napoleonic Campaigns games HTH, particularly a large campaign scenario, you may find those very compelling, too.
Quote from: panzerde on November 24, 2015, 10:41:09 PM
Agreed. Having said that, if AGEOD's Thirty Years War is an indicator, this will be pretty good. You might also give this (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/282/details/Campaigns.On.The.Danube)a look. Aging a bit, but it has had some recent updates and it more like what you're looking for, I think. I'm a big fan of the Zucker games, myself.
Agree with the TYW comment, similar problem but I find the game really enjoyable. I got Frank Hunter's game just prior to him joining Matrix, loved the fog of war where you weren't sure where your own units were.
Quote
If you haven't tried Tiller's Napoleonic Campaigns games HTH, particularly a large campaign scenario, you may find those very compelling, too.
I haven't played them for a while, though I remember the Napoleonic and Civil War games were worked much better than the WW2 titles. Been looking at he HPS and Tiller games recently, I held off on getting Scourge of War, so I should really get one :)
Quote from: dinsdale on November 24, 2015, 10:35:00 PM
I love the AGE engine, think it plays well, looks good, and allows you to jump straight into almost any game once you've learned one of them.
I am a little pessimistic about the Napoleonic game though. I love Kevin Zucker's operational board games, but I've never come across any computer game which has been as compelling. It's all a bit railroaded, and combined with expectations that Napoleon always wins battles until he develops piles, very predictable.
Early years; Napoleon and his Panzers crush everything. One line of advance through the Danube, through Germany or through Italy punctuated by Nappy winning battles.
Late years; What's wrong with Napoleon. Cold and hungry, run away from the Russians... Oh no, the Prussians and Austrians have joined in. Shit, we're outside Paris.
Waterloo; hope the British and Prussians leave a huge gap for me to march through or I'm screwed.
I can't put my finger on why the boardgames work better, it may come down to die rolling and the decisions around moving center of operations or supply, but when it's automated and abstracted the games lose their appeal to me.
I really, really hope AGEOD nails it, but I think it's a very tough game to get right.
Interesting post dinsdale....having never played the board game (or any board war game since about 1985) your concerns are not ones I have to consider or deal with. I really like Ageod's ACW2 game and look forward to this new Napoleon game with optimism.
What is the latest on this? I hope it's good news.
Release date confirmed by Pocus as December 3rd.
Quote from: WallysWorld on November 26, 2015, 05:11:42 PM
Release date confirmed by Pocus as December 3rd.
Squeeeeeeeee! :D
The video shows one battle with 65% casualties on one side versus 81% on the other. Hope that's not representative of the game generally.
Although I want to like ageod games, often buy and can't figure out. But have to admit something about this game will likely make me buy tomorrow:)
I'll give them one more chance:)
There are a lot of Video Tut's out there for AGEOD.. if you find a good one for one of the games you own, try it out. Make sure you can get into it. If not, don't buy another title, as you will not like that as well. But if you do get into it, the games/company is really good. Just can have a steep learning curve.
Thanks tuna...have tried some videos and it's probably just me, hard to click. Hoping this time period might make me focus better...of course as long as reasonable cost:)
I'm expecting only good things from this. Pocus and his team always make an effort to get things right. If they do let any balls slip past them, they have the track record on support to fix them. I know that this is a project close to both Philippe's Thibaut and Malacher hearts, so I'm expecting it will be very good.
Hoping so...seems like hype machine has been low on this one, but still looking forward.
Both the Philippe's were talking to me about the game back at the Home of Wargamer's 2014 press event. I can can assure you they were very excited about the idea. FWIW, they are both pretty modest people, so maybe that is why the "hype machine" isn't so obvious. I suspect it will be to AGEOD's Napoleonic game what AGEOD's Civil War 2 was to Civil War 1. I'm expecting it will be very good, and will be disappointed if it isn't. On the basis of what little I know, plus past performance, I'm not expecting to be disappointed though.
Sounds good....we will see tomorrow:)
It's out - $40. Since it appears the Aging engine (see what I did there?) has been tweaked to include more domestic policies and even diplomacy (yay!), I'll grab it, in spite of my misgivings.
Yeah, I'm in. I have too many games to play right now but I love Ageod. :smitten:
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
It's out - $40. Since it appears the Aging engine (see what I did there?) has been tweaked to include more domestic policies and even diplomacy (yay!), I'll grab it, in spite of my misgivings.
Yeah, I thought you were against this aging engine in the early discussions:). Will be interested in your impressions.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 03, 2015, 10:04:23 AM
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
It's out - $40. Since it appears the Aging engine (see what I did there?) has been tweaked to include more domestic policies and even diplomacy (yay!), I'll grab it, in spite of my misgivings.
Yeah, I thought you were against this aging engine in the early discussions:). Will be interested in your impressions.
I said that I was tired of the engine and wanted to see Ageod try something new. The addition of (I hope) a meaningful diplomacy system, allies that act autonomously, and greater freedom in shaping domestic policy made for enough of an evolution from a wargame engine to a grand strategy engine that I was willing to give it one more shot.
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 03, 2015, 10:04:23 AM
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
It's out - $40. Since it appears the Aging engine (see what I did there?) has been tweaked to include more domestic policies and even diplomacy (yay!), I'll grab it, in spite of my misgivings.
Yeah, I thought you were against this aging engine in the early discussions:). Will be interested in your impressions.
I said that I was tired of the engine and wanted to see Ageod try something new. The addition of (I hope) a meaningful diplomacy system, allies that act autonomously, and greater freedom in shaping domestic policy made for enough of an evolution from a wargame engine to a grand strategy engine that I was willing to give it one more shot.
Let us know if it made those advances, can't consider for purchasing until tonight so would love to know before.....keeping my fingers crossed since interested in the material.
I may not be able to dive in before the weekend.
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 11:57:07 AM
I may not be able to dive in before the weekend.
Ok no worries
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 10:49:25 AM
I said that I was tired of the engine and wanted to see Ageod try something new. The addition of (I hope) a meaningful diplomacy system, allies that act autonomously, and greater freedom in shaping domestic policy made for enough of an evolution from a wargame engine to a grand strategy engine that I was willing to give it one more shot.
It's funny, because this is exactly why I probably won't buy this.
And in the "it never rains but it pours department", I just received download information for the beta of Victory and Glory (Slitherine's other Napoleonic war game) ;D
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 12:40:54 PM
And in the "it never rains but it pours department", I just received download information for the beta of Victory and Glory (Slitherine's other Napoleonic war game) ;D
Just took a look at the handful of screen shots on the Slitherine site for Victory and Glory, and did not like the look of it at all. Not saying anything about gameplay....just the look of the map, IMHO, is painful to the eyes.
Quote from: Rayfer on December 03, 2015, 12:47:09 PM
....just the look of the map, IMHO, is painful to the eyes.
+1. Far preferred the beautiful map of the original Napoleon's Campaigns. Small thing I know, but I hate the faux 'calligraphic' font used in this new version, as though it's supposed to look 'age of Napoleon-y' -- it just looks bad.
EDIT -- Oops, I guess Rayfer was talking about the other game! Regardless, don't like the new map :buck2:
Quote from: Rayfer on December 03, 2015, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 12:40:54 PM
And in the "it never rains but it pours department", I just received download information for the beta of Victory and Glory (Slitherine's other Napoleonic war game) ;D
Just took a look at the handful of screen shots on the Slitherine site for Victory and Glory, and did not like the look of it at all. Not saying anything about gameplay....just the look of the map, IMHO, is painful to the eyes.
The developer's previous game,
Hannibal, was nothing special to look at, but the gameplay and AI are so good I still play it, 10 years after release.
Yay, another Ageod game to purchase! :smitten:
Now that I actually know how to play, this should be much more fun than in the past. O0
http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup
Now streaming Wars of Napoleon
So:
After playing the small Waterloo scenario and firing up the Grand Campaign I can say that this is a standard Ageod game with some modifications:
1) You can play any Great Power in the Grand Campaign.
2) They took the diplomacy system from PrON and inserted it here. Alliances are now important, as allies will support you autonomously. You can't declare war without a CB, and can't pass through another nations territory without a right of passage treaty.
3) National modifiers - Every country starts with a set of perks (perhaps the ability to form Corps right from the start, or the abiitiy to recruit more cavalry). Playing Decisions and Edicts will add more modifiers or even remove some.
Turn resolution is still pretty slow in the Grand Campaign, but better than To End All Wars. I don't have the beefiest systems, so you might have better luck.
Quote from: tgb on December 04, 2015, 06:22:01 PM
So:
After playing the small Waterloo scenario and firing up the Grand Campaign I can say that this is a standard Ageod game with some modifications:
1) You can play any Great Power in the Grand Campaign.
2) They took the diplomacy system from PrON and inserted it here. Alliances are now important, as allies will support you autonomously. You can't declare war without a CB, and can't pass through another nations territory without a right of passage treaty.
3) National modifiers - Every country starts with a set of perks (perhaps the ability to form Corps right from the start, or the abiitiy to recruit more cavalry). Playing Decisions and Edicts will add more modifiers or even remove some.
Turn resolution is still pretty slow in the Grand Campaign, but better than To End All Wars. I don't have the beefiest systems, so you might have better luck.
I saw that people with pretty strong systems are complaining about sluggishness and long turn resolutions. I'm guessing yet again they have not updated the engine to take advantage of multi-core processors. The guys who re-released WW1 Gold (Centennial Edition) figured out how to speed up AGEOD's engine. This is disappointing.
I was going to pick up but nothing in the initial impressions I have seen really has pushed me over the edge yet. And if turn processing is yet again slow as I have seen stated in a couple places, just not something that will interest me at this time.
I should have followed my instincts. I started the 1806 campaign as the Russians (offered as an option) and found I had one garrison (locked) and one flotilla for trade. That was it. I couldn't raise an army, conduct diplomacy, build troops, etc. All I could do was hit "next turn" and watch the world go by. I posted about this on the Matrix forum and the official reply (from Pocus at Ageod) was "Well, you picked an uninteresting option."
Guess what, Sparky. As the developer, it's up to YOU to make ALL the playable options and scenarios interesting.
SO I went back and fired up the Grand Campaign, again as the Russians. Two turns (with 5 minute resolution times) of waiting for my units to unlock. While waiting for the third turn to resolve (again, 5 minutes) I got a CTD.
Uninstallation achievement reached! I'm just sorry I didn't get it on Steam so I could at least get a refund.
Quote from: tgb on December 05, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
I should have followed my instincts. I started the 1806 campaign as the Russians (offered as an option) and found I had one garrison (locked) and one flotilla for trade. That was it. I couldn't raise an army, conduct diplomacy, build troops, etc. All I could do was hit "next turn" and watch the world go by. I posted about this on the Matrix forum and the official reply (from Pocus at Ageod) was "Well, you picked an uninteresting option."
Guess what, Sparky. As the developer, it's up to YOU to make ALL the playable options and scenarios interesting.
SO I went back and fired up the Grand Campaign, again as the Russians. Two turns (with 5 minute resolution times) of waiting for my units to unlock. While waiting for the third turn to resolve (again, 5 minutes) I got a CTD.
Uninstallation achievement reached! I'm just sorry I didn't get it on Steam so I could at least get a refund.
Yikes...! I've been seriously thinking about getting this game since it released but having read some of this threads comments I'm not sure. The release of ACW 2 improved ACW1 to an awesome degree and I was hoping the same for this Napoleonic game improving the earlier, similar Napoleon's Campaigns. Appears this might not be the case at all.
Thanks for the info...I guess I am glad I was unable to purchase the first day...maybe they make improvements along the way to pick up at some point, but although I can deal with many shortcomings, long turn processing is just a pet peeve of mind since I am too impatient:)
I'm glad I held off buying this game on day one and tgb your feedback confirms this for me. If it becomes available on STEAM and goes on sale I'll get it. Hopefully by then we'll all know if the poor turn time resolution is fixed or not.
Quote from: Rayfer on December 05, 2015, 09:04:34 AM
Quote from: tgb on December 05, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
I should have followed my instincts. I started the 1806 campaign as the Russians (offered as an option) and found I had one garrison (locked) and one flotilla for trade. That was it. I couldn't raise an army, conduct diplomacy, build troops, etc. All I could do was hit "next turn" and watch the world go by. I posted about this on the Matrix forum and the official reply (from Pocus at Ageod) was "Well, you picked an uninteresting option."
Guess what, Sparky. As the developer, it's up to YOU to make ALL the playable options and scenarios interesting.
SO I went back and fired up the Grand Campaign, again as the Russians. Two turns (with 5 minute resolution times) of waiting for my units to unlock. While waiting for the third turn to resolve (again, 5 minutes) I got a CTD.
Uninstallation achievement reached! I'm just sorry I didn't get it on Steam so I could at least get a refund.
Yikes...! I've been seriously thinking about getting this game since it released but having read some of this threads comments I'm not sure. The release of ACW 2 improved ACW1 to an awesome degree and I was hoping the same for this Napoleonic game improving the earlier, similar Napoleon's Campaigns. Appears this might not be the case at all.
Sadly, this is exactly what I was beginning to suspect as the release got closer and more details started to come out. An improved Napoleon's Campaigns, where the focus was on specific campaigns would be great. Instead they applied the same approach as To End All Wars, grafted on a bunch of pointless stuff from PON, and have ended up with an unplayable game.
Sorry to hear this. I was really hoping I was going to be wrong and I'd end up buying it, because the subject may be my number one wargaming interest.
This is why I said earlier it's way past time for the Ageod game engine to be replaced/updated.
I have only played as the French but I find it to be the same as civil war two. Some units are locked some units are unlocked. Can't speak as to playing to the Russians but sometimes you just have to wait for units to unlock. And birth of Rome I remember playing the Parthians or something and all of their units were locked for the first few times so I concentrated on building new ones and raising money. I have only played A little bit but it strikes me as being a regular AGEOD game. If you like the previous ones you'll like this one but it certainly goes off Napoleonic war better than it did WW1. Why don't you give France or Austria a shot. Huge armies with lots to do
Tgb, I saw the poster respond to your complaints about Russia in 1806 what he recommended what you play Russia in the grand campaign and not just the 1806 scenario. So you can play Russia just plain Russia in that small scenario was in a great option that's all
Quote from: mikeck on December 05, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
Tgb, I saw the poster respond to your complaints about Russia in 1806 what he recommended what you play Russia in the grand campaign and not just the 1806 scenario. So you can play Russia just plain Russia in that small scenario was in a great option that's all
Did you read my whole post? I DID try playing Russia in the Grand Campaign. I'm 63. I can't wait around for 5 minute turn resolution followed by a CTD. I'll never make it to the end of the campaign.
I didn't read your whole post. I'm sorry you had a crash the desktop. If you want to give up the whole game because you had a crash the desktop plane rush out then that's up to you it's your money. I find the game resolutions to be longer than they are in the Rome games but much shorter than they are in pride of nations. I don't mind waiting 30-45 sec for a turn resolution but that's me. Even if it starts to go up to a minute or so I'm OK with that want to game this complex
Where in my post(s) did I say ANYTHING about 30-45 second turn resolution or even a minute. If you are going to try to refute what I wrote, at least REFUTE WHAT I WROTE!!!!!!!!!
Relax and have a beer, tgb.
In my opinion, I don't think your giving the game a chance. Its clearly rubbed you wrong, but you really haven't played it. Why make such a stink over a few turns played and a CTD?
What rubs me wrong is someone who wants to argue with what I posted without bothering to read it or comprehend it.
Do you have the game on the long AI processing time? Ageod games have the option to increase the amount of time a player gives the AI to think about it's moves. Generally I increase it because it's like playing a computer chess. The more layers it can forecast out the better it's moves will be of course chess programs routinely out think me, so maybe I should reconsider giving it more time to think.
Quote from: tgb on December 05, 2015, 06:38:28 PM
Where in my post(s) did I say ANYTHING about 30-45 second turn resolution or even a minute. If you are going to try to refute what I wrote, at least REFUTE WHAT I WROTE!!!!!!!!!
Ok, You said
" I played 2 turns (with processing taking 5 minutes + each), and then after another 5 minutes of turn resolution I got a CTD.
Uninstalled. I just wish I had my $40 back. "
...I read it and comprehended it. You mentioned 5 minute resolution times. Specifically. So, as stated above, I simply responded that mine take 30-45 and doesn't bother me.
So my comment was that I'm not having resolution problems like you are my terms are over in 30 to 45 seconds. That's exactly what I said. I don't know why you're looking for a fight and why you're so excited about this. I'm not trying to "REFUTE" anything, you offered your opinion of the game after 3 turns, and I offered mine. That's it. Not sure why you are so spun up over this.
Edit
Quote from: mikeck on December 05, 2015, 05:46:52 PM
I don't mind waiting 30-45 sec for a turn resolution but that's me.
Mikeck, your statement can be interpreted in the same way as tgb. You did not specifically state that 30-45 sec is YOUR current experience. "But that's me" is a statement of preference.
Given tgb is already in a bad mood. Just leave him be and don't need to escalate further.
Quote from: jomni on December 06, 2015, 03:08:14 AM
Quote from: mikeck on December 05, 2015, 05:46:52 PM
I don't mind waiting 30-45 sec for a turn resolution but that's me.
Mikeck, your statement can be interpreted in the same way as tgb. You did not specifically state that 30-45 sec is YOUR current experience. "But that's me" is a statement of preference.
Exactly. Thanks you.
To weigh in very vaguely, I find I prefer a 4-5 minute delay to 30-45 second one. The former let me read a few pages of a book while the latter just make me twiddle my thumbs and get anxious. At least that was my experience when I used to play ProN.
Quote from: jomni on December 06, 2015, 03:08:14 AM
Quote from: mikeck on December 05, 2015, 05:46:52 PM
I don't mind waiting 30-45 sec for a turn resolution but that's me.
Mikeck, your statement can be interpreted in the same way as tgb. You did not specificalstate that 30-45 sec is YOUR current experience. "But that's me" is a statement of preference.
Given tgb is already in a bad mood. Just leave him be and don't need to escalate further.
I wasnt trying to claim to specifically get those times. Just that I wouldn't mind. But yeah, this isn't going anywhere worth while. Good point.
TGB, buddy, I'm really not trying to agitate you. Sorry if it did
Quote from: bobarossa on December 06, 2015, 10:53:25 AM
To weigh in very vaguely, I find I prefer a 4-5 minute delay to 30-45 second one. The former let me read a few pages of a book while the latter just make me twiddle my thumbs and get anxious. At least that was my experience when I used to play ProN.
I'm getting about 20-30 seconds but imagine that may very depending on how many moves and battles are being made and fought. 4-5 minutes is a little crazy for me. I only get maybe an hour or two to play in a block I can't spend that much time waiting. That's why I never got into PON.
Seems to be a lot of variance on the thread. Best i can tell it is less dependent on system than on scenario. I have only played the grand campaign though. I found that on the "Prussia 1806" I wasn't allowed to make regional decisions or recruit which is a big part of the game. I don't care for that decision
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: Rayfer on December 03, 2015, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: tgb on December 03, 2015, 12:40:54 PM
And in the "it never rains but it pours department", I just received download information for the beta of Victory and Glory (Slitherine's other Napoleonic war game) ;D
Just took a look at the handful of screen shots on the Slitherine site for Victory and Glory, and did not like the look of it at all. Not saying anything about gameplay....just the look of the map, IMHO, is painful to the eyes.
The developer's previous game, Hannibal, was nothing special to look at, but the gameplay and AI are so good I still play it, 10 years after release.
I think
Hannibal's hand-drawn artistic style, with papyrus undertoned background on the map, looked better than the new Napoleonic one's graphics. :-\
I like the period maps....BoA had me sort of. But this one isn't bad...Rise of Prussia was horrible. (The map). I do like the counter art and profiles. Nice art. The generals in ROP looked...odd.
I'm not a Napoleonic grog so I'm interested (maybe jomni) to hear if the uniforms and units are correct
I love the BOA maps and unit markers. I just wish they could address two issues. 1. Font size. 2. Extra zoom in layers.
Quote from: mikeck on December 06, 2015, 01:24:19 PM
Quote from: jomni on December 06, 2015, 03:08:14 AM
Quote from: mikeck on December 05, 2015, 05:46:52 PM
I don't mind waiting 30-45 sec for a turn resolution but that's me.
Mikeck, your statement can be interpreted in the same way as tgb. You did not specificalstate that 30-45 sec is YOUR current experience. "But that's me" is a statement of preference.
Given tgb is already in a bad mood. Just leave him be and don't need to escalate further.
I wasnt trying to claim to specifically get those times. Just that I wouldn't mind. But yeah, this isn't going anywhere worth while. Good point.
TGB, buddy, I'm really not trying to agitate you. Sorry if it did
Nah, I was in a crappy mood, more about the attitude coming from Ageod than anything else. Didn't mean to take it out on you.
Just an FYI that JC has a review of "Wars of Napoleon" on his terrific blog: http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.ca/2016/01/wars-of-napoleon-review.html (http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.ca/2016/01/wars-of-napoleon-review.html)
I played a bit of this. Problem is that I cannot stand the UI. If youre moving a large cluster of units in a short area, it turns into a mess of black lines and you end up having no idea what the heck is happening
Quote from: Hofstadter on January 04, 2016, 03:09:47 AM
I played a bit of this. Problem is that I cannot stand the UI. If youre moving a large cluster of units in a short area, it turns into a mess of black lines and you end up having no idea what the heck is happening
All AGEOD games are like that but once you get used to their logic it all makes sense. It took me many years to finally grasp how to play an AGEOD game the way the creators intended it. You have to get inside their heads and understand how they interpret wargames. Once you do the reward is great. AGEOD games are not for everyone though I will admit that and it's all due to the unique gameplay mechanic.
I am thinking about buying this game, could someone give some impressions about it?
Thanks you in advance :)
Quote from: W8taminute on January 04, 2016, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Hofstadter on January 04, 2016, 03:09:47 AM
I played a bit of this. Problem is that I cannot stand the UI. If youre moving a large cluster of units in a short area, it turns into a mess of black lines and you end up having no idea what the heck is happening
All AGEOD games are like that but once you get used to their logic it all makes sense. It took me many years to finally grasp how to play an AGEOD game the way the creators intended it. You have to get inside their heads and understand how they interpret wargames. Once you do the reward is great. AGEOD games are not for everyone though I will admit that and it's all due to the unique gameplay mechanic.
W8... Can you explain this a little bit and give some more insight. How does playing it the way the developers intended it to be played solve the issue Hofstadter is speaking about? One would seem to have no impact on the other. Thanks!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 24, 2016, 07:49:47 AM
Quote from: W8taminute on January 04, 2016, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Hofstadter on January 04, 2016, 03:09:47 AM
I played a bit of this. Problem is that I cannot stand the UI. If youre moving a large cluster of units in a short area, it turns into a mess of black lines and you end up having no idea what the heck is happening
All AGEOD games are like that but once you get used to their logic it all makes sense. It took me many years to finally grasp how to play an AGEOD game the way the creators intended it. You have to get inside their heads and understand how they interpret wargames. Once you do the reward is great. AGEOD games are not for everyone though I will admit that and it's all due to the unique gameplay mechanic.
W8... Can you explain this a little bit and give some more insight. How does playing it the way the developers intended it to be played solve the issue Hofstadter is speaking about? One would seem to have no impact on the other. Thanks!
Hi JH. Yes I think I can clarify a bit further what I meant. You see the computer games AGEOD makes can be thought of as digital representations of Stratego style game pieces on a complex board warsim. On a physical copy of the game you would actually use your fingers to move pieces from one space to the other and in a particular order. This is easy to understand if you have a physical board in front of you with pieces that you can touch and feel. It's kind of the same thing in their digital games.
To solve Hofstadters problem one would simply choose the army hq unit and set it's subsequent movement orders to 'synchronized'. Doing this will make all of it's corps that are attached to the army hq move to the same destination as the army hq. Something like what you see in modern grand strategy board wargames.
Of course there are times when you have a bunch of stacks that are not in the same army and need to issue individual orders to them. This is where you need to get a grasp on stack turn order like you would in a physical game. AGEOD solves this by using the 'next unit' key shortcut (i.e. e and r for land units, and t and y for naval units).
The guys over at AGEOD are mostly old wargame grognards. They're veterans of board wargames and have translated that experience to the digital world. Just check out some of their older AGEOD forum posts and you get the idea of where they're coming from.
Quote from: verdugo94 on January 24, 2016, 07:19:35 AM
I am thinking about buying this game, could someone give some impressions about it?
Thanks you in advance :)
I'm a long-time AGEOD fan and own most of their games, but my honest advice would be to hold off a bit on WoN unless you have a high tolerance for bugs and oddities. I've only been a able to play some of the shorter scenarios and a few turns in the grand campaign because of crashes and other bugs - events that don't fire or events that fire and delete half your army, units that wander the map aimlessly (Russians building artillery in Spain, for example), and a multitude of other head-scratchers.
As usual, they are working hard to fix the problems - I think they're on their third or fourth beta patch just since the holidays, and the crashes are fewer and some of the events seem to be fixed. But they still have a long way to go.
My advice would be to keep an eye on the AGEOD forum to assess the progress.
Ageod seems to be jinxed when it comes to games about Napoleon, which is a shame and really odd because they're French.
I still remember the terrible maps from their first Napoleonic game. I always chalked it up to the way the French educational system works. If you go the liberal arts route they make you study (and I mean really study) geography to an extent that anglophones have no concept of. Braudel and the Annale school of historians are a logical by-product. But apparently they skip all of that if you go into computer engineering.
Quote from: Queeg on January 24, 2016, 11:33:02 AM
I'm a long-time AGEOD fan and own most of their games, but my honest advice would be to hold off a bit on WoN unless you have a high tolerance for bugs and oddities.
My advice would be to keep an eye on the AGEOD forum to assess the progress.
+1
I never had a crash but did experience some oddities. Many HAVE experience crashes though so either hold off or try the new beta patch. I have not tried it yet but from looking at the change log, it may solve A lot of problems. The mechanics and system are great though...much like The Russian revolution game
Thanks for your answers :) I have bought The Campaings of Napoleon from Chandler to pass my waiting until the game is fixed.
Have a nice day.
Matrix tagged me with the Easter Sale on this.
I played the 1805 scenario, and managed a crushing victory against the Coalition. Mostly because I kept winning battles. Speed of turn resolution was OK, about 20 seconds. The biggest issue I have with the game is that battle results were not realistic. I was routinely able to ambush the enemy, and proceeded to wipe out 10 thousand troops at a time. Other than that, it was fun. And I am one of those players on the fence with AGEOD.
I really like Ageod games, but you have to take them case by case. For some weird reason, they seem to be jinxed when it comes to Napoleonics (weird because they're French). Their first Napoleonic game had a catastrophically bad map that put me off getting this one. My impression is that the map is ok, but there are other issues and I think I'm going to wait about a year or so and see if the problems get ironed out before taking the plunge.
In the meanwhile there are plenty of other Ageod games like WIA and Revolution under Siege Gold to keep me busy while I'm waiting.
Yeah I really like Civil War II but the videos off the other eras like Seven Years War and the new Napoleon game don't seem to fit as well. The logistics angle and slow, steady approach seems more appropriate for the Civil War.
This is on sale for its debut on Steam.. Has it been fixed, or is it still a mess?
Quote from: Tuna on May 07, 2016, 01:36:03 PM
This is on sale for its debut on Steam.. Has it been fixed, or is it still a mess?
What was wrong with it, other than the usual AGE turn processing times?
Just curious. I was eyeing it too.
Reading the forums, it sounds like it was CTDing a lot.. Also the AI was doing Stupid things. Sounds like a big patch just came out, but I didn't see any posts saying all is well now. I love how beautiful the map is and would love to purchase if it was working ok.
Patch 1.2 came out a week ago and is extensive. If nothing else, reading the change log will show you the complexity of the game. I have always loved AGEOD games but I think they have stretched the AG Engine as far as it can go.
Change log:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?43363-Wars-of-Napoleon-has-been-updated-to-version-1-02!
The engine is not the issue. The game is buggy. It crashes on different rigs. I am amazed that a new game which uses such a tried and true engine could be so unstable. But then I know nothing of programming, etc.
Did you try the new patch 1.2?
Quote from: Johnnie on May 08, 2016, 12:16:25 PM
The engine is not the issue. The game is buggy. It crashes on different rigs. I am amazed that a new game which uses such a tried and true engine could be so unstable. But then I know nothing of programming, etc.
Their games really excel at the operational level, within wars which are scripted or with limited deviation. A wide open napoleonic free for all is very difficult to handle while maintaining the events everyone knows and expects.
Paradox gave up on trying to accommodate historical events within the wide open scope of a game, and I would hope AGEOD will do the same and go back to events within a constrained campaign or war. The ACW, Rome, 7 Years War, Wars In America, are superb, as the overall war has few major paths, so the events work and flow into the game.
So the new Napoleonic one's progress is more heavily scripted than previous AGE games?
Hell.. I'm still playing AJE/BOR and haven't even put much time into CW2 and TEAW yet. Not in a big hurry, especially since Napoleonics isn't the highest period on my favorites list (gonna catch hell for saying that?).
I'm on a WWI kick again and your post made me reinstall TEAW, Nef. The new Napoleon game may not be baked yet, but I suppose it's been long enough to give the WWI game another try. I bought it right after it came out, but it didn't stay installed very long.
Conversely, AJE/Birth of Rome have always been installed. I think Rise of Prussia is pretty good as well. One of these days I need to give RUS a play. I even quite like the 30 Years War game they did right before the Napoleon game.
Quote from: panzerde on May 08, 2016, 08:25:58 PM
Conversely, AJE/Birth of Rome have always been installed. I think Rise of Prussia is pretty good as well. One of these days I need to give RUS a play. I even quite like the 30 Years War game they did right before the Napoleon game.
If you haven't played Wars In America you should give it a try. I really like Rome, but I think WIR is by far the best game with the engine. The only game I have played where having numerical and quality superiority doesn't prevent the feeling of pushing a sword into jello.
I've always thought they have the potential to make a Vietnam game which really captures the temptation, futility and frustration of winning every battle and losing the war.
Quote from: dinsdale on May 08, 2016, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: panzerde on May 08, 2016, 08:25:58 PM
Conversely, AJE/Birth of Rome have always been installed. I think Rise of Prussia is pretty good as well. One of these days I need to give RUS a play. I even quite like the 30 Years War game they did right before the Napoleon game.
If you haven't played Wars In America you should give it a try. I really like Rome, but I think WIR is by far the best game with the engine. The only game I have played where having numerical and quality superiority doesn't prevent the feeling of pushing a sword into jello.
I've always thought they have the potential to make a Vietnam game which really captures the temptation, futility and frustration of winning every battle and losing the war.
WIR ?
Quote from: Philippe on May 09, 2016, 12:34:54 AM
Quote from: dinsdale on May 08, 2016, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: panzerde on May 08, 2016, 08:25:58 PM
Conversely, AJE/Birth of Rome have always been installed. I think Rise of Prussia is pretty good as well. One of these days I need to give RUS a play. I even quite like the 30 Years War game they did right before the Napoleon game.
If you haven't played Wars In America you should give it a try. I really like Rome, but I think WIR is by far the best game with the engine. The only game I have played where having numerical and quality superiority doesn't prevent the feeling of pushing a sword into jello.
I've always thought they have the potential to make a Vietnam game which really captures the temptation, futility and frustration of winning every battle and losing the war.
WIR ?
LOL...was just about to ask the same question when I saw that you did.
dinsdale:
I get your point. But the problem is more basic here. The initial release ran ok on my rig (albeit with only limited play.) After adding the latest patch, it doesn't run at all. That is it consistently crashes as soon as I try to process my first turn. And this is on any basic scripted scenario, not the grand campaign.
I know enough that I can tell that the crashes (at least mine) are not the result of the complication of the game.
I think that some gamers actually enjoy tinkering around to get a defective game to work. I am not one of those. When I buy a game that does not work, I get frustrated. I want Ageod to fix it, preferably without any help from me.
Quote from: Nefaro on May 08, 2016, 07:08:20 PM
So the new Napoleonic one's progress is more heavily scripted than previous AGE games?
Hell.. I'm still playing AJE/BOR and haven't even put much time into CW2 and TEAW yet. Not in a big hurry, especially since Napoleonics isn't the highest period on my favorites list (gonna catch hell for saying that?).
No hell from me. I think the revolutionary period is a lot more interesting...ie things up to 1805. I guess I've just played things in the 1805 to 1815 time frame way too many times over the last 50 years.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 09, 2016, 07:25:48 AM
LOL...was just about to ask the same question when I saw that you did.
Some bizarre freudian slip from the 90s :)
Quote from: Johnnie on May 09, 2016, 10:08:19 AM
dinsdale:
I get your point. But the problem is more basic here. The initial release ran ok on my rig (albeit with only limited play.) After adding the latest patch, it doesn't run at all. That is it consistently crashes as soon as I try to process my first turn. And this is on any basic scripted scenario, not the grand campaign.
I know enough that I can tell that the crashes (at least mine) are not the result of the complication of the game.
I think that some gamers actually enjoy tinkering around to get a defective game to work. I am not one of those. When I buy a game that does not work, I get frustrated. I want Ageod to fix it, preferably without any help from me.
Can't excuse that, I agree its not acceptable.
Quote from: MengJiao on May 10, 2016, 08:59:48 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on May 08, 2016, 07:08:20 PM
So the new Napoleonic one's progress is more heavily scripted than previous AGE games?
Hell.. I'm still playing AJE/BOR and haven't even put much time into CW2 and TEAW yet. Not in a big hurry, especially since Napoleonics isn't the highest period on my favorites list (gonna catch hell for saying that?).
No hell from me. I think the revolutionary period is a lot more interesting...ie things up to 1805. I guess I've just played things in the 1805 to 1815 time frame way too many times over the last 50 years.
But now I'm doing it as the Ottoman Empire! And no crashes yet. Though not much is happening in Sept 1805.
RUS is probably my favourite at the moment. I like Espana!, but whichever side you play an early land grab usually leads to final victory.
I always felt like the games where AGEOD seemed to run into trouble were those where there are traditional front lines; ACW I, II, TEAW, etc. You end up seeing the AI pushing waaay beyond the line unsupported and making other odd decisions. The game handled fluid lines much better; WIA, RUS, WIP, Rome, 30yrs war, etc
Quote from: mikeck on June 07, 2016, 08:22:07 PM
I always felt like the games where AGEOD seemed to run into trouble were those where there are traditional front lines; ACW I, II, TEAW, etc. You end up seeing the AI pushing waaay beyond the line unsupported and making other odd decisions. The game handled fluid lines much better; WIA, RUS, WIP, Rome, 30yrs war, etc
Not sure what you mean by 'traditional front lines' when referencing ACW1and 2 in the same grouping as TEAW? I agree with what you're saying with TEAW but not with ACW1 and 2. In the actual ACW the south often conducted cavalry raids deep into the north by living off the land, even Lee went north twice. Even the greatest of generals throughout time made odd decisions that led to great victories but more often tragic defeats. That an AI would do the same makes it more realistic.
When I say "traditional front lines" what I mean are basically established boundaries for the conduct of the the war. That in essence, the operation is planned in order to penetrate a specific boundary line and then either surround the enemy or move towards a strategic location behind that line. I have my land and you have yours...where they touch is where we are fighting.
Maybe a better way to separate it is to suggest that the ageod games do well when the goal is destroying strategic locations and destroying armies but does less well when the goal is more about keeping and holding territory. The goal of the north was to take back the territory of the south until grant arrived in an essence change that to destroying the will to fight. In World War I it was all about attacking to simply grab territory. The game seems to have more of a problem with that and does better when you're just trying to destroy enemy armies
Quote from: mikeck on June 08, 2016, 07:46:25 AM
When I say "traditional front lines" what I mean are basically established boundaries for the conduct of the the war. If I cross this line im moving into any territory and I'm invading that territory striking for a specific strategic city or envelopment. That in essence, the operation is planned in order to penetrate a specific boundary line and then either surround the enemy or move towards a strategic location behind that line. In the American Civil War in 1862 that line is the Potomac River and the borders of Kentucky and Tennessee in the east and the junction of the Mississippi river with Kentucky Missouri and Illinois. The AI confederacy will send stonewall Jackson with the division up through the appalachian
Mountains over the Potomac and up into northern Pennsylvania to do something and I'm not sure what.
Compare that to "rise of Prussia "Frederick moved his army all over Prussia and Silesia and Austria and what is now the Czeck Republic shifting to meet threats wherever they are. He was defending "Prussia proper" and Silesia from attack in four different directions so there really were no front lines. Or compare to moors in Rome where I might be trying to subjugate Parthia which would require me to move armies throughout the region putting down rebellions and trying to trap and crush enemy armies.
Maybe a better way to separate it is to suggest that the ageod games do well when the goal is destroying strategic locations and destroying armies but does less well when the goal is more about keeping and holding territory. The goal of the north was to take back the territory of the south until grant arrived in an essence change that to destroying the will to fight. In World War I it was all about attacking to simply grab territory. The game seems to have more of a problem with that and does better when you're just trying to destroy enemy armies
Thanks, makes more sense now. I was thinking more of a traditional front line along the lines of WW1 where each and every mile of the front had to have troops in position to defend and/or attack. This wasn't the case in the ACW....but you're right, there was a front line as you described, they just didn't man every mile of it with troops. In the ACW I believe the raids into the north were to instill fear in the general population in hopes it would force Lincoln to seek out a negotiated end to the war. Maybe that's what the game is simulating?
I think your right in that it's trying to simulate raids but it has trouble. I often saw confederate AI take a general like stonewall Jackson give him three brigades worth of infantry, not form into a division, and move it all the way up north of Pittsburgh to basically sit there and with her on the vine. In a non-linear war that force might destroy a city or catch an army unaware. Used as a "raid", it's just slow infantry starving in enemy territory. It would send 4 corps to try to destroy an army on the Mississippi while it allowed me to waltz right into Richmond and take all of Virginia. I love AGEOD games and An avid fanboy. I own all of them but I have a difficult time playing the Civil War games for this reason. So maybe if the cities didn't mean as much as destroy the armies it would be OK
Quote from: MengJiao on June 07, 2016, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on May 10, 2016, 08:59:48 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on May 08, 2016, 07:08:20 PM
So the new Napoleonic one's progress is more heavily scripted than previous AGE games?
Hell.. I'm still playing AJE/BOR and haven't even put much time into CW2 and TEAW yet. Not in a big hurry, especially since Napoleonics isn't the highest period on my favorites list (gonna catch hell for saying that?).
No hell from me. I think the revolutionary period is a lot more interesting...ie things up to 1805. I guess I've just played things in the 1805 to 1815 time frame way too many times over the last 50 years.
But now I'm doing it as the Ottoman Empire! And no crashes yet. Though not much is happening in Sept 1805.
Had a crash after running 3-4 big turns. That seems like a memory leak. Works fine after you restart the computer.
hi all!
after 1 year of fine-tuning, bug fixing and playtesting by 'early buyers' ;) is this game ready to be played?
i'd like to play solitair/h2h on my own - cannot make heads nor tails from ageod ai... - anyone here still playing with latest paches?
TIA
chem!
I was looking in the forums a few weeks ago, because I've always been interested in this one. The maps are beautiful, I enjoy Alea Jacta Est, enjoyed Civil War I.
But from most of the posts it looks like the game is still broken. If you hear otherwise, let me know, because I will jump on it. Playing Waterloo on Asid's server has peaked an renewed interest.
WoN's release last year was very tempting but i was short of money -
matrix' sale didn't include the game but this year's sale + my anniversary coupon make it a walk to the movies...
will it be a good or bad movie - that's the question? haven't found out except the locals keep muttering about crashes...
few folks seem very happy, though... ( http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4195230 )
...very tempting... (again!) :pullhair:
Quote from: chemkid on December 16, 2016, 08:41:31 AM
WoN's release last was very tempting but i was short of money -
matrix' sale didn't include the game but this year's sale + my anniversary coupon make it a walk to the movies...
will it be a good or bad movie - that's the question? haven't found out except the locals keep muttering about crashes...
few folks seem very happy, though... ( http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4195230 )
...very tempting... (again!) :pullhair:
It has some very odd things in the 100 Days scenario. Lancers are all dragoons, some iconic units like the Empress Dragoons and the Polish Lancers are presented as dragoons too. Lazy stuff that should have been picked up early. I don't know if that is the same in the GC game, but certainly the Waterloo campaign was disappointing.
Quote from: chemkid on December 16, 2016, 08:41:31 AM
WoN's release last was very tempting but i was short of money -
matrix' sale didn't include the game but this year's sale + my anniversary coupon make it a walk to the movies...
will it be a good or bad movie - that's the question? haven't found out except the locals keep muttering about crashes...
few folks seem very happy, though... ( http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4195230 )
...very tempting... (again!) :pullhair:
For me the game is very stable but it's a question of trying to do too much. AGEOD got in a cycle of adding more and more "things to do "like cards to be placed on territories in the form of events. Things that the AI did not know how to use but the player did. just made it to one-sided. With all of the event cards, diplomacy and alliances, I think it was just too much for the AI.
They decided to go back to basics with wars of succession and have simplified a lot of things. There still diplomacy and such but the event cards are gone it is much more of a sharper focus....the AI is much better for it
Agreed. What I'm seeing of Wars of Succession so far is a return to the successful AGEOD formula of games like Rise of Prussia, but with recent engine improvements.
I've avoided WoN for all the reasons listed above. That bums me out, because I really enjoyed their original Napoleon game.
I was tempted too during the recent Steam sale where it was discounted to about $23. But I also think they've not got all the bugs out of the game yet and it will be on sale again sometime. Mikeck makes a good point. ACW 2 Was great but sometimes the AI was kind of overwhelmed with all the many options and would sometimes do something dumb or crazy that a human would not. So I think Napoleon's probably worse. But, damn it looks good.
All the details aside -- and I take those as important as well -- the scenario design is poor.
I've now played the Jena Campaign a half-dozen times and I'm not persuaded there's a way for the French to lose. I get it, it was a bad deal for the Prussians historically. There are ways of making the game at least interesting for either side without traducing history.
Same observation about the Hundred Days and Austerlitz, although I've played them fewer times.
Missed opportunity.
I have a nagging suspicion that Ageod is jinxed when it comes to Napoleonic games, which is why I didn't buy this one.
thanks for lots of your replies! great, keep 'em coming BUT my money's gone now for a different game...
cheers!
I picked up the game a few weeks ago on sale and have played now a total of about 9 hours. I like the game. It has not crashed on me during game play so far. It did however crash twice during my 9 hours when you try to start up the game. According to the forums this is going to happen so simply restarting the game will have to be the fix for now.
So you give it a thumbs up for gamelplay w8t?
Quote from: Tuna on December 18, 2016, 04:50:34 PM
So you give it a thumbs up for gamelplay w8t?
I do give it a thumbs up, but I admit I am biased towards AGEOD games.
I still haven't even fired up Thirty Years' War since getting it on the bundle sale quite awhile back. :-" Nor the extra AJE expansion I was missing.
Too many games!!!
~~~~>
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dealspwn.com%2Fwriter%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fhuge-game-collection.jpg&hash=6850d14da184222c62fce13b7329c747ac350a52)
Are you in that picture?
Quote from: Tuna on December 19, 2016, 03:16:25 PM
Are you in that picture?
If you look closely, you may be able to see a purple-colored finger sticking out. Because I'm being crushed under the weight of my Steam, GOG, and Gamersgate libraries. Couldn't fit the rest in the pic.
Impwessive dispway
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq527%2Fdatsun260zyojimbo%2Fshamefur-dispray_zpse6f0294b.jpg%7Eoriginal&hash=98f745ec686978fcf80fca0aeeb2a80165844d2c)
Quote from: Philippe on December 16, 2016, 11:27:04 AM
I have a nagging suspicion that Ageod is jinxed when it comes to Napoleonic games, which is why I didn't buy this one.
My guess is because - as we all know- it wasn't A war....it was SEVERAL wars. That means being able to form alliances and coalitions which are not this engines strong suit. No one wants to play just one campaign but it's hard to say "it's 1803...fight!" Without the ability to ally. It's just too big of a conflict I think.
The Thirty Years War is the same in some respect except there weren't really huge alliances. As Sweden I don't have to worry about allying with France and Russia to kill the HRE or something weird
Quote from: mikeck on December 19, 2016, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: Philippe on December 16, 2016, 11:27:04 AM
I have a nagging suspicion that Ageod is jinxed when it comes to Napoleonic games, which is why I didn't buy this one.
My guess is because - as we all know- it wasn't A war....it was SEVERAL wars. That means being able to form alliances and coalitions which are not this engines strong suit. No one wants to play just one campaign but it's hard to say "it's 1803...fight!" Without the ability to ally. It's just too big of a conflict I think.
I want to play just one campaign. Meaning, I want the various campaigns broken out as scenarios. I'm completely uninterested in the "Grand Campaign" that always seems to show up in games like these. I want to play the Marengo campaign, and I want to play the 1809 campaign against Austria, and I want the 1806 campaign versus Prussia, etc. What I don't want is an unwieldy mess of a so-called Grand Campaign that starts with something the resembles the reality of say, 1800, and then gets progressively less and less like what really happened, and has no hope of presenting anything remotely accurate because the simulation is too coarse and the AI isn't good enough.
If I want to do that, I'll play Civilization. There's nothing wrong with Civilization, but it isn't a Napoleonic strategy game. The idea that somehow you can pull off a Napoleonic grand campaign game is the reason that there has never, ever been a decent Napoleonic strategic war game.