Ageod's Upcoming Napoleonic Game

[mikeck]

Did you try the new patch 1.2?

[dinsdale]

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.

[Nefaro]

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?).

[panzerde]

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.

[dinsdale]

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.

[Philippe]

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 ?

[Rayfer]

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.

[Johnnie]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[dinsdale]

LOL...was just about to ask the same question when I saw that you did.

Some bizarre freudian slip from the 90s :)

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[Boggit]

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.

[mikeck]

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

[Rayfer]

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.

[mikeck]

 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