Thinking of buying

[GaryChildress]

I've never owned a Napoleanic era wargame in my life. However, this game looks very interesting to me. It looks a bit like Panzer General only with musketmen and a production system. I loved Panzer General and agree that PG was one of the best wargames of its day.

I'm waiting to see if the developers can do anything with the AI though. I see myself mostly playing solo games so it's a little dissappointing to hear that the AI isn't up to par.

Other than that do I understand correclty that units can't stack? Also in PG you basically moved a unit up to a hex neighboring an enemy unit and then attacked the enemy unit in the next hex with yours at which point the enemy unit either takes a hit or else is knocked back a hex if enough damage is done. I take it that is the way this game works as well?

Please keep us posted with the work on the AI. That's probably the only thing stopping me from buying this game at this point. [:(]

[Adam Parker]

I love the concept of this game. I rate Panzer General 1 as one of the most immersive wargaming experiences of my life. It was a time when PC wargames were novel.
 
Then Developers became dreamers: "What more can we throw into the game?" They therefore messed with the scale and gave us a dismal PG2, added a muddled kitchen sink UI in Pacific General and failed further with PG3d et al.
 
As for Nap PC games I as yet have never found one that is satisfactory. I've tried:
 
- Campaigns on the Danube - beautiful looking graphics but broken and bugged.
- HPS Napoleonic Campaigns (many titles) - huge scenario selections but dumb AI.
- Crown of Glory - User unfriendliness and bugged.
- Ageod's Napoleon's Campaigns - too small a scale meaning no playability and bugged.
 
But Nap boardgames are thriving and abound.

[killroyishere]

PG1 had it faults as well though. The fact that you could bring in reinforcements even with a city nearly surrounded or at least all the zones of controls covered erked me to no end. In online play players would exploit this and it was very hard to win as the attacker because you couldn't knock out the last city before time ran out. So, I'm wondering how this game handles that as far as reinforcements go. I know there's no stacking (thank good), but, what about open hexes even though in zone of control of the enemy can they still be used as reinforcement areas?

[GShock]

Lol Adam.
Do you own a game, just one, that is not up for the trashcan? [:)]

[Adam Parker]

Take a poll GShock [:)]
 
Come on. How many of us own dozens if not hundreds of PC games that sit in the proverbial cupboard gathering dust because they are crap?
 
(PS: I wrote the official Getting Started manuals for HPS including some of those Nap games - Once again, awesome, brilliant, plentiful scenarios but a terrible AI. That's why these games sold very well for PBEM and are very much, still played that way today).
 
I bought another PC game just the other day - "Diplomacy"! ROTFLMAO! The designers put everything in that game except for the AI to be able to negotiate! [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]&nbsp;Yes! The disc IS in my bin right next to me (got it bargain basement price so what the heck <shrug>).

[LarryP]

Hey Adam! How's down under? [;)] Up and over is having economy problems. [:@]

One question... what's your favorite war strategy game? Number one now? [&:]

[Adam Parker]

Hi Larry, &nbsp;I was Up and Over in July! Man, the Aussie dollar was king then!
&nbsp;
Right now (regardless of genre)? - Commands and Colors Ancients: Base Game (brilliant solitaire).
&nbsp;
PC? - Nothing from all I own. Last PC wargame purchase was Ageod's "Napoleon". They gave me my money back and it's still bug ladden today, missing one of its best programmers who resigned last check of the forums.

[Erik Rutins]

Adam,

You don't like _any_ PC wargame? [X(]

Regards,

- Erik

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Hi Larry,  I was Up and Over in July! Man, the Aussie dollar was king then!

Right now (regardless of genre)? - Commands and Colors Ancients: Base Game (brilliant solitaire).

PC? - Nothing from all I own. Last PC wargame purchase was Ageod's "Napoleon". They gave me my money back and it's still bug ladden today, missing one of its best programmers who resigned last check of the forums.

The next few weeks\months will show us what our economy is made of. Just today our utilities informed us that they are raising again. Electricity and gas. Jerks!

That surprises me about Napoleon. That's one of my favorite games. I have spent many hours in it and have found no fault. I didn't know they lost their best programmer... ughh. AGEOD has always done great with patches, quality and quantity. I have all their war games and love them all. BoA, BoA2, AACW, and Napoleon.

I don't have a favorite right now either, and I have TONS of games. Isn't it a shame?! [;)]

[Johnus]

Who resigned at AGEOD ??

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Who resigned at AGEOD ??

Adam is the one that said that above my post. I don't know the answer.

[Arsan]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Who resigned at AGEOD ??

Hi!

Well, i think Adam is overstating things A LOT here.
I think he's talking about JastaV, a talented NCP modder that lately (he come aboard before summer) has done some very nice alternative scenarios setups for the game.
He was invited to collaborate with AGEOD as a volunteer this summer, and recently resigned of this volunteer position.
Luckily he is now continuing his work as a modder for the game, as you can see in this thread
http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread. ... post105467
Updated yesterday with his last work.
So basically, he is not a programmer and he is not an AGEOD member.
Adam only got right the resigned part [:'(]

Sorry for the off-topic [:)]
Regards

[Adam Parker]

Yeah that's the guy.... it's a very complicated thread to wade through over at Ageod [:)]
&nbsp;
But the impression I got was that without him, there would be no work on bug fixes for a long while. But that was a few days ago -&nbsp;last time&nbsp;I looked&nbsp;[:D]
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
@ Erik: No! Can ya please make a good one [:'(]!! Lock and Load will be a real candidate. I will still wait on player feedback (but&nbsp;I can't imagine Mark Walker releasing something half done).
&nbsp;
Let me put it this way Erik. My local war game store, the best in Australia has every Matrix title (and HPS title for that matter) on its shelves. Every couple of months I visit, I don't see the stock being depleted. But I look at their GMT, MMP, Avalanche, DoW&nbsp;etc.,&nbsp;board games and they're walking out the door. Huge piles of Twilight Struggle and C&C Ancients gone! Big full shelves of Euro board games too.
&nbsp;
People are wargming but the PC side of the hobby isn't filling the demand. You guys have got to start asking why?
&nbsp;

[IainMcNeil]

I'm trying to work out why you would be posting over 1000 messages discussing PC wargames at Matrix when you don't have any you like? I'm confused If I cound't find one I liked I'd have given and found something I enjoy doing long ago!

[Adam Parker]

Big supporter of the industry Iain volunteering many hours in both wiritng and testing, ultimately being paid for it.

See War Over Vietnam bottom of page for an article I wrote that's been read by the USAF staff college. A game I wasn't involved in but tried till I was blue in my face to get right after.

Same with SSG's Carriers at War - a game I anticpated highly and on invite tried my best as part of a small team to help establish replayablity and squash a few bugs.

I bought SSI's "Steel Panthers 1" even before I owned a PC! I held such high hopes for the medium in my favourite hobby.

But its 13 years on now since Win95 and developers still have not got it right. You've ignored the lessons of decades of board gaming feedback and you've just dug yourselves a hole.

I still want to play games on my PC. I want board game quality.

Give up on AI's, add the things that board gamers have demanded for eons - solitaire playability, easy multiplay, DYO, easy to glance maps, pre-scenario force placement, replayability - and you'll start making money.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Let me put it this way Erik. My local war game store, the best in Australia has every Matrix title (and HPS title for that matter) on its shelves. Every couple of months I visit, I don't see the stock being depleted. But I look at their GMT, MMP, Avalanche, DoW etc., board games and they're walking out the door. Huge piles of Twilight Struggle and C&C Ancients gone! Big full shelves of Euro board games too.

People are wargming but the PC side of the hobby isn't filling the demand. You guys have got to start asking why?

You've got a point - up to a point. What originally made computer wargames popular was that they provided the boardgame player with an AI opponent. Ok, most of the time this AI was just a dumb beginner, but still ... Today most AI's have become a little bit more clever and some even manage to give you a good game, but they're not a match, nor a substitute for playing a human. So why, in this day and age of massive multi-player games do the overwhelming majority of wargamers *still* play that AI instead of another human being ? And pc wargaming companies need to find an answer to that question because playing a boardgame over Vassal et al is becoming more easy and more popular every day. They can compete because a dedicated program is great at enforcing the game-rules, things like fog of war and handling mundane bookkeeping tasks which would overwhelm the boardgame player.

So, again, why don't pc wargamers play MP games ?

I'll do a copy & paste of a previous post which tried to give an answer to this question as I'm too lazy to reformulate the idea [;)]

... Last night I got Victory in the Pacific out and started a solitaire game and one thing immediately struck me : it's called a turn-based game, but it isn't. There's a constant interaction between both players so that it almost feels like a real-time game. Then I had one of these "duh" moments when I realized why multi-player FPS games are so much fun while TCP/ IP pc wargaming is so tedious : in FPS games there's a constant interaction between players while multi-player TCP/IP wargaming is you waiting for your opponent to finish his turn.

So, it's the constant interaction that makes multi-player games a true joy (re-duh) - whether that game is a boardgame or a computer game is immaterial there. Almost all computer wargames have multi-player build into them, but as has been discussed here a couple of times before, there are strong clues that only a tiny minority of wargamers ever play it multi-player online. Up to now I had this attributed to causes specific to the gamer (character, time-zones, no match-making service, ...) , but now I started to look at the game itself as being the big factor here. How many computer wargames are designed from the ground up to be truly multi-player experiences, with constant gamer
interaction ? Very, very few, bordering on none.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arsan]

Hi

Eddy,
Not sure if your idea of lack of interaction is the reason for the lack of multiplayer wargamers. It's not in my case. I'm an only AI player, but mainly for reasons like the character/lack of time /time zones you talk about.

Related to this interactive multiplayer idea, maybe you will find interesting the discussion going on about the incoming AGEOD WWI game here (the thread is long, the part i'm talking about starts mainly on page 4)
http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10311

The WWI game will have multiplayer but no PBEM will be possible as the game system seems to ask for continued interaction between players. Just waht you ask for!
But this "no PBEM news" has been recieved pretty badly by part of the posters...[:(]
I suppose one cannot make everybody happy! [;)]

Again, sorry for the continuing off topic [:)]

Regards

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Arsan
The WWI game will have multiplayer but no PBEM will be possible as the game system seems to ask for continued interaction between players. Just waht you ask for!

Thanks for the info - keeping a close look on it

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Erik Rutins]

Adam,

Allow me to disagree - I have quite a few PC wargames, from our catalog, that I play regularly and enjoy a whole heck of a lot. I've played a lot of board wargames as well and as with PC wargames, if you play one long enough you generally do find a few flaws, mostly ones you can live with. In the case of board wargames, you can house rule it or wait for a rules update if the designer is still active and it's pretty much the same thing with PC wargames.

I frankly find it unbelievable that not a single PC wargame in the last 10 years has made the grade for you. When I think about the number of PC wargames I've played, enjoyed and admired in that time, it tells me that it will be a miracle if we do meet your standards. It is good to have a goal to strive for though. [;)]

Regards,

- Erik

[killroyishere]

Give up on AI's, add the things that board gamers have demanded for eons - solitaire playability, easy multiplay, DYO, easy to glance maps, pre-scenario force placement, replayability - and you'll start making money.

I disagree with this since your majority of computer gamers are solo players. Eliminate the AI and you'll lose that market just to gain another. Robbing peter to pay paul won't work either. What they have to do is make more options for all types of players not just some dedicated boardgaming crowd. As far as my concerns all I want are more challenging levels of difficulty out of these developers. I know they can do it, they just don't do it. Stardocks GalCiv series is proof developers can do it with 13+ different difficutly levels. I always find a good challenge out of that game just by moving up the difficulty ladder. And notice I'm saying difficulty levels not quality of the AI. Developers can make the game more challenging without having to write an AI that's near human. I'm satisfied by the numbers as long as there are levels that are hard to beat.