Fatal Years 1.04

[SirGarnet]

They don't even realize FY could possibly one day be the reson for one or two customers to buy RUS [:)]

Reading the FY PDF decided me on purchase as as it was full of thoughtful ideas and good game-based and historical analysis.

[Chilperic]

I'm really not sure highly historical and carefully tested pure wargames will ever be business success. After all, any game even with an broken economic model, anear obscure GUI and a full can of bugs gets more audience than a pure wargame in the computer field ( Think...EU3 at its release...or...[:D] ).

What I feel on the contrary if the tool is created, and AGE 2.0 is such a tool, we must try to do it. If we fail, we will at least have done what we could.

But AGE 2.0 has been used mostly for delivering a copy of the most mediocre SPI boardgames design in the last days of this company, around 1980 ( yes , I 'm a very old wargamer [:)]). Open the event files of the AGE offical games: 60 to 80 % of the events are just creating new units or giving replacements.

RUS example: foreign troops are coming by fixed events. They will appear and be removed at fixed dates. So not only replayability hasn't been a real concern, but you may find yourself in the strange situation where you're winning as Whites but French and Greeks will leave...Sorry, that's poor design. Place a RUS copy into the hands of a boardgamer having played TOC, or Reds, or any other boardgames. He will conclude computer wargames are just competing about the only question of the number of parameters into the definition of a unit...

Many computer games don't allow to create sort of modest substitutes to the bright and clever boardgames rules. AGE 2.0 is an exception, remaining largely unused by AGEOD. MAybe such refinements will give no more purchases as unfortunately the common wargamer on computer is just dreaming about pancake supplies features and alternative histories delivered by this Swedish Company (no, not Krapea [:D]). Howver, why in this case having built such a tool? [&:]

AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments [:)]

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments [:)]

+1



(Oh, and can you beat this: My wargaming goes as far back as Avalon Hill c. 1962. And, yes, of course SPI later on. At one point, I owned ~80 SPI games. Those were the days!)

[oldspec4]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments [:)]

+1



(Oh, and can you beat this: My wargaming goes as far back as Avalon Hill c. 1962. And, yes, of course SPI later on. At one point, I owned ~80 SPI games. Those were the days!)

+2...and I also go back to the early sixties w/ a Milton Bradley (IIRC) version of the American Civil War (1961 or 2?)

[Chilperic]

And the truth is current boardgames are better than a large part of the old, to a few exceptions. They work on design, they think about game mechanism, they discuss them, they fill real historical research, they try to simulate obscure subjects. They have to deal with strong limits ( at most 25 turns to be played in one or two seessions and the less counters possible) and so are forced to innovate.

Frankly, what are the real innovation for computer wargames? 1) Nicer gfx. 2) Enginr to produce Turtledove's novels (Paradox games) 3) 90 unit parameters in place for 80.

Caricature indeed. Large part of truth however. Maybe because a large part of computer strategy players aren't interested in strategy ([:D] they want to fulfill their nationalistic or fantasy Role-playing desire, like changing Vanuatu in renaissance superpower). Maybe because a part of computerwargame devs aren't really interested in strategy, and they care more for the 90 parameters [:D]

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Chliperic


Caricature indeed. Large part of truth however. Maybe because a large part of computer strategy players aren't interested in strategy ([:D] they want to fulfill their nationalistic or fantasy Role-playing desire, like changing Vanuatu in renaissance superpower). [:D]

Yes Indeed.. It is very disappointing not to be able play Sanusiyya ! [&o]

Unfortunately there is a worry in marketing terms to make everyone happy,content about playable nations when there is a game developed reflecting wider world conflicts in long time periods. But actually Ageod did it quite well that how playability is restricted when trying other nations.
Now.. When they will fix ammo bug? Whole age engine "out of order" with freeze and crush when they did try to fix it [:D]

[Chilperic]

ORIGINAL: Baris





Yes Indeed.. It is very disappointing not to be able play Sanusiyya ! [&o]

Unfortunately there is a worry in marketing terms to make everyone happy,content about playable nations when there is a game developed reflecting wider world conflicts in long time periods. But actually Ageod did it quite well that how playability is restricted when trying other nations.

nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

1 and 2 are the largest groups. 4 is a dominant subspecies in computer strategy market, vocalizing much when the vast majority of players, having less time to play, are less present on the boards.

4 is the tiniest of the 4.

Any pure wargame with PON problems would have been fully forgotten now. Thansk to the 1, 2 and 4 categories, a small core of players is yet active. Until the next game.

[gamer78]

Ansolutely true. I got that response when I was informing PON features in another forum. Is Sanusia playable? [&:] [:D]

Fifth category is amongs the players is: is the game stable ? I guess still 'legendary stable ACW'played more than RCW in that sense with mixed reasons with point one. RCW is İMHO far the best game age engine produced and better tuned with your mod. For myself Im very well interested in specific conflicts about independences or civil wars that occured in the past for intellectual and game play concerns. Gameplay concerns comes from the fact tha each country can not be simulated well enough that their existance in the game will be too shallow, when you are developing a game about era not specific theatre.But unfortunately it is not enough for most gamers as you categorized them well.

Edit: İt is a plus that age engine can simulate ACW,ROP, WIA and RUS conflicts so unique with music and graphic designs that each game reflect the era without needing further pancakes.

[Chilperic]

I would just add we are all belonging to the 4 categories, at different level. For my own, I am (3), then (1), with remains of (4) and uninterested by (2). Now (1) is clearly related not only to your nationality buthistorical knowledge and interest too. And (2) is a potent factor explaining the unreasonable place in hearts for both CSA during ACW and Germany in WW2. [:)]

I precise I'm talking about Strategy games. Tactical ones aren't totally related to these categories, even if they share common points.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

There are other sorts of players (perhaps smaller in number still).

[Chilperic]

To achieve on this subject, FY is (3) first and foremost, (4) because of the AGE 2.0 engine and (1) because of Whites .[:)] PON was (3) and (4), but the real lasting core audience is more and more (1) and (2). WiTE is (3), (4) and (1) and its design has reached its intended audience.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

I would just add we are all belonging to the 4 categories, at different level. For my own, I am (3), then (1), with remains of (4) and uninterested by (2). Now (1) is clearly related not only to your nationality buthistorical knowledge and interest too. And (2) is a potent factor explaining the unreasonable place in hearts for both CSA during ACW and Germany in WW2. [:)]

I precise I'm talking about Strategy games. Tactical ones aren't totally related to these categories, even if they share common points.

Exactly also my priorities. But the thing is according to Maslov at least [:)], in order to climb the pyramid(For pure strategy) I have to see the independence/civil war for my country with an unbiased eye for the sake of historical knowledge and interest. So number 1 would be the priority for me but with a feeling there will be 'strategy elements' in it with age engine 2. [;)]
RUS gave me the perspective about what is told and what actually is about military history. Think about it when there are some lies told about history officially but the reality is somehow lacking or fake. That's why I like to see the story of the 'others' in the age engine.

Edit: Pon is number 4 indeed.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

There are other sorts of players (perhaps smaller in number still).

I mean to say: I fit into the (apparently) tiny category of gamers who are seeking

--deep immersion, deeper understanding of history
--realism (does not necessarily or at all equate to complexity; equates hardly at all to flashy graphics or multi-media experience)
--a sort of re-enactment of history in miniature (not exact recreation of history, but a recreation of historical circumstances, where I can experiment with different plausible outcomes)
--an intellectual puzzle (e.g., what are the best tactics/strategies?; how could I do better/worse than Real Life?)

Maybe, in short:

--more simulation than competitive (much less social) game

So I really don't care about (arbitrary) victory conditions, and I will play a game hot-seat solitaire, if the AI sucks; and I don't give one hoot about social interaction (not looking for a friend; won't do PBEM now or ever--for my own good, and many, reasons!). Usually I don't, but sometimes I will even try to recreate history more or less as it actually happened, just out of curiosity to understand Real History better. I appreciate and prefer a decent to good AI (rare), but without it, I can still find ways to enjoy the game/simulator.

How many times have I read a military history, usually with deficient maps (certainly none of them animated or interactive; e-books, anyone?) and been confused and lost by the written description of battles and campaigns? A game (board or computer) gives me the nearest thing to the visual, interactive map/recreation, "living history book" I seek. (This does not mean I want a first-person shooter, or RTS, or fancy graphics/sounds! Even a 2D representation with NATO counters will do, so long as it is "realistic" (really meaning: plausible) and interactive.)

I suppose I am closest to (3), but not in the sense that I care about winning or losing -- completely arbitrary measures of the gaming experience; I will decide for myself what "winning" or "losing" the game means; most of all, I want to have "fun", however I peculiarly define it.

Am I weird or what?

[Sodei]

To me, strategy games need three main components. First, there is a need for an history/story around it. Be it real history or a fictional one, this is a most as it will give a sort of script to it. I need a motivation to play a strategy game. This is why I am not a fan of RTS games on the Net, think of something like Starcraft which is a great game, it's just not for me. After that, a strategy game need a solid gameplay. This may have different form, more tactical or the other way around, like the AGEOD games. It those not have to be complexe, it may very well be simple yet great. Complexity is more an hassle to me as it often implies such a level of understanding that I need to dedicate alot of time to play a single game/campaign. I sadly don't have that much time. Last but not least, a strategy game need replayability. This implies a rich gameplay and a decent story. I won't buy a game if it's a single shot. I love to replay and try something new or play with a different style ( more aggressive then usual for exemple).

On a similar topic, I was lurking around the Hannibal forum. I am hesitant to buy the game even if everyone gives it great review. My reason is that I am unsure of the AI. After playing the demo a couple of time (it's only 4 turns sadly) I am not convince of what I a mseeing. I know that Chilperic appreciate the game's AI, considering what he did to RUS, that give alot of credit to Hannibal's developper IMO. The only problem I have is that the computer only seems to be good because of the different set of rules that apply to Rome and Carthage (Reinforcement/ Battle mechanics that I haven't fully grasp or that I simply don't appreciate enough). It the end, I will surely buy it when a discount comes around, after all the game do present itself with the three main points I search in a strategy game.

[Chilperic]

One of my pet feature in FY: internal infighting locking part of your forces for one turn [:D]

Here the Trokskyst camp locked for one turn, when the Siberian menace on Simbisrk is closing...


Line 10394: Event already referenced, current occurences 0 Max allowed: 99 <<Active>>
Line 10397: CheckIsPlayer: Checking if faction is under human player control 1000003 Communists True
Line 10398: Min date evaluated: 1918/07/01 converted to turn 4045 current turn 4046 True
Line 10399: Max date evaluated: 1921/12/30 converted to turn 4129 current turn 4046 True
Line 10401: Probability evaluated: Probability 5 rolled 4 True
Line 10403: Entering triggered actions for event evt_nam_Disgruntled_Trotskyst
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1002574 L. Trotsky added, List Count now at: 1
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1000580 I.I. Vatzetis added, List Count now at: 2
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1000563 M.N. Tukhachevsky added, List Count now at: 3
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1002415 Ghai-Khan added, List Count now at: 4
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits finished Regions Selected: 3 SubUnits Selected: 4
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Ukraine Front parent of: 1002574 L. Trotsky fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Tukhachevsky' Column parent of: 1000563 M.N. Tukhachevsky fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Ukraine Front parent of: 1000580 I.I. Vatzetis fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Western Front parent of: 1002415 Ghai-Khan fixation type changed to 1
Line 10409: Finished processing event: evt_nam_Disgruntled_Trotskyst

Kamenev Army is grounded because of the prensence of Ghai-Khan into. I've chosen to lock entire stacks because of an element for strenghtening the effect of a rare event ( probability of 5/100 each turn) and for realism sake, dissensions in a military unit having direct consequence on movement and reaction capacities. A better solution would of course have been reducing let's say by 50% movement allowance, but that's IMO not possible.[:)]



Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war [:D]

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war [:D]

Not to mention increase replayability.

[Chilperic]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war [:D]

Not to mention increase replayability.

Of course [:)]

This isn't my idea, but the mere transcription in AGE scripting language of a rule of Triumh of Chaos, one of these rules which, without having 90 parameters and easy to understand because of a deliberate abstraction level, add flavor, realism, replayability, fun, surprise. In one word,the reason for which boardgames are so much better than most computer wargames designs. A lesson to learn IMO[8D]

[Gnaeus]

I agree with nearly all of Chilperic's posts on the philosophy of game design and how he has implemented them in his RUS mod. That being said, I'd pay 25 Engagement Points for a peace treaty with AGEOD that allows them to make enough money from whatever category of buyer to continue developing the engine so that outside developers or modders can use it to make more serious simulations.

Unfortunately, whatever the business reasons, with PON they seem to be moving in a Paradoxical direction.

[Chilperic]

IMO the engine (AGE 2.0, AGE 3.0 being a whole other story) is achieved. There is no need to further improvements, new features, except the fixes for some bugs. If new commands are added , fine, but it isn't badly needed.

What's lacking is a real work on game design. A great engine doesn't produce great games. And a game is meant to be played, after release but also before, and tweaked.[8D]

[Sodei]

I think the same about Chilperic's work. He solved by himself (gonna speak like you're not there [:D]) many problems or simply unrealistic situation that were implanted in RUS. The RUS team is to be thanked for releasing the game but it's FY that make it into a gem that steal so much of my time. Yes it is not perfect, I have never found a single game to be so.

I think that you rightfully can present yourself as a Great Jedi Master, as you have not simply conquered the AGE 2.0, you have come to understand it and master it's subtil ways. I am eager to start a new SibW campaign to test that new feature. I hope that it will succeed it's mission. Really, those features seems so tied to the RCW that I don't understand how they could be disregarded ( AIL is included in that).

My last game ended in a nice victory when I jammed something like 80 000 troops at Moscow that held one and a half month [X(]. There was some nice movement from the AI at that precise moment. If I recall correctly, it moved to encircle me but failed when my second wave of troops came in.

Honestly, I think they would have encircled me if those troops did not show up by cheer luck. After all I never imagined that I would need 2/3 of my armies to take that city.

One more month before I have enough time to start a full campaign, the wait is killing me!!!