Tactical battles

[DEB]

One final point - I saw a screenshot which referred to the Earl of Essex as Robert Deveraux - real names were never used if you had a title.

Generally speaking - this is indeed correct...

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: theprisoner

I am very excited about this project, having tried to design an ECW high level simulation myself (using Microsoft Access / VBA). The frustrating part is the relation between time and distance - if you have a game turn of a week or more then armies can march from one key centre to another (such as London and Oxford) in a single move and all sense of the campaign is lost. If you have a more realistic timeframe such as daily moves, the games drag on for hundreds of turns.
There is also the problem that there were hundreds of fortified sites, such as castles, manor houses, country estates, even old iron age hill forts, that could block enemy movement and which had to be besieged, so that there were countless small engagements as part of any campaign. Many of the "regions" depicted on the maps in the screenshots would have had several major military centres. I don't expect this level of complexity to be reflected in the game but if there could be truly regional campaigns on bigger maps - such as the war in the west from Cornwall to Bristol - then it could get very interesting indeed without the level of detail becoming overwhelming.
One final point - I saw a screenshot which referred to the Earl of Essex as Robert Deveraux - real names were never used if you had a title.

I wish you had continued with your ECW project. You obviously have some understanding of the war. Your post makes some very good points. Welcome to the Matrix forums.

[theprisoner]

ORIGINAL: redcoat




I wish you had continued with your ECW project. You obviously have some understanding of the war. Your post makes some very good points. Welcome to the Matrix forums.

It is really hard to get the balance of gameplay right. I played with different ideas for about ten years and wrote a huge amount of code to handle things like battles, attrition, supply, recruitment and taxation. My sim has both "marching" and regional armies, with militia that would only fight in their home counties. Armies without the right command structure fought at a disadvantage. I had visions of naval conflicts and of blockades of the other side's attempts to buy supplies from the continent. And I did a lot of research on the cost of munitions and supplies so that the decisions made as to what to spend tax income on were realistic, even down to not paying your troops and facing desertions as a result.

I came across Rise of Prussia quite recently, bought it, and was amazed to see that the game design was really close to the way I had been designing (but they did the graphics about 1000 times better). I do hope the developers are open to suggestions before everything is locked down.

[Leibst]

ORIGINAL: theprisoner

.... I do hope the developers are open to suggestions before everything is locked down.

The game wil be released the 11th but nothing is closed. We have included a lot of features in the game but this war has a lot of stuff and details that can be added in its initial version.
I have a list of things to add, but after the release we will listen to players as many people have good ideas, suggestions and good knowledge of the war. The fact is that you cant add everything in a first version, you have to put a limit or you will never end its development.

We want to improve the game, be sure of that. [;)]

[julianbarker]

Some issues I have discovered in the first tutorial -

The tutorial text has typos including "Flee" for "Fleet".

There appear to be two General Hampdens. They have the same portrait, stats and seniority so presume it is a duplicate. One starts in Portsmouth, the other at London.

Map errors -

There is a Town called "Reading" in the Newbury region, and a region called "Reading" next door. Surely that can't be right. Maybe the region should be called "Windsor".

There is a region in Essex called "Shouthminster". I presume this is meant to be "Southminster". According to the game the region is forest. No trees are shown on thermap unlike the other forest regions. It should probably not be forest but marsh instead given the low lying nature of the area.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: theprisoner

ORIGINAL: redcoat




I wish you had continued with your ECW project. You obviously have some understanding of the war. Your post makes some very good points. Welcome to the Matrix forums.

It is really hard to get the balance of gameplay right. I played with different ideas for about ten years and wrote a huge amount of code to handle things like battles, attrition, supply, recruitment and taxation. My sim has both "marching" and regional armies, with militia that would only fight in their home counties. Armies without the right command structure fought at a disadvantage. I had visions of naval conflicts and of blockades of the other side's attempts to buy supplies from the continent. And I did a lot of research on the cost of munitions and supplies so that the decisions made as to what to spend tax income on were realistic, even down to not paying your troops and facing desertions as a result.

I came across Rise of Prussia quite recently, bought it, and was amazed to see that the game design was really close to the way I had been designing (but they did the graphics about 1000 times better). I do hope the developers are open to suggestions before everything is locked down.

Your game sounds like it might have been very good, but 10 years wow. A work of love obviously. I hope you can return to it and finish it.

And Rise of Prussia was my first Ageod game I managed to play all the way through and realized I really, really liked it.

[theprisoner]

Because it was written in VBA, the graphical side was virtually non-existent and this is what Aegod do very well. I'm a bit older now and getting one's brains round some of the calculations is not as easy as it was. So I will let this project lie. Writing it was also a way of keeping my coding skills sharp in my job - as I am now retired, I am happy to let others do the heavy lifting.

[DEB]

The tutorial text has typos including "Flee" for "Fleet".

Oops...

There appear to be two General Hampdens. They have the same portrait, stats and seniority so presume it is a duplicate. One starts in Portsmouth, the other at London.

Very, very poor...

Map errors -

There is a Town called "Reading" in the Newbury region, and a region called "Reading" next door. Surely that can't be right. Maybe the region should be called "Windsor".

I think the appropriate county names should be used here.

[ NB: If regions are to be named after towns, then the said town should be in that region... ]

There is a region in Essex called "Shouthminster". I presume this is meant to be "Southminster". According to the game the region is forest. No trees are shown on thermap unlike the other forest regions. It should probably not be forest but marsh instead given the low lying nature of the area.

Spelling error, map type error, this is poor too...

[altipueri]

Blimey, the game was made by a Spaniard, even the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the English Civil War had grammar issues - e.g. its opening paragraph and paragraph/section 27 use "the Parliament" which seems to drive some people potty.

[DEB]

I am always complaining ( to my brother ) about the poor usage of the English language on TV these days ( even on the BBC )! They don't teach it properly at school these days ( they gave up on correct grammar years ago apparently )...

[xj900uk]

it seems that the Royalist have more options than the Parliamentarians, at least for the first couple of years of the war.
Also, Charles I is a better military leader than Essex? WTF? He was a blundering and tactless at the best of times!
And Rupert was, in Clarice's own words, 'The Greatest Cavalry Commander the world has ever known.' Rupert was so confident of victory, he would ride in at the head of his 'spear of horse' (as he so delicately called them!) wielding nothing but his pet poodle...

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

it seems that the Royalist have more options than the Parliamentarians, at least for the first couple of years of the war.

Reasonable ( IMHO ).

Also,Charles I is a better military leader than Essex?

He did have advisers. I think his effectiveness depends ( or should do ) on which ones are with him...

And Rupert was, in Clarice's own words, 'The Greatest Cavalry Commander the world has ever known.'

This was believed to be true by both sides in the ECW for some time...

[theprisoner]

One of the great what-if questions concerns the Earl of Lindsey, who by seniority was the commander of the King's army, who brought it from Shrewsbury to confront Essex at Edgehill and who, after a argument about battlefield tactics, resigned his command, fought with his infantry in the front and was killed.

We have no idea how things would have gone had Lindsey continued to command but it is likely that if he had, the King would have followed his lead and stayed out of day-to-day military decisions.

[xj900uk]

Agreed. Lindsey was definitely the brains behind the Royalist army, he was easily the equal of Essex.
The Royalists tended to do better on the battlefield if Charles didn't make any of the tactical decisions.
There should be a 'card option' for Lindsey resigning after arguing with Charles if particular circumstances or an important battle is about to be fought.

[Jabba]

Seeing as this appears to have become the thread where people point out various errors with a view to future improvements, may I point out that the possessive form from Essex is not "Essex'", as appears repeatedly throughout the tutorial, but "Essex's".

This repeated grammatical error in the introduction to the game immediately gives the impression that it has been sloppily and hastily put together - which may be unfair but this is the first impression. I also noticed that Wycombe was misspelt several times as "Wycombie".

[Leibst]

Jabba, that is my fault, I saw the error with Essex's and correcte it in a lot of places but as I see, not in all of them. WIll fix it. Same regarding Wycombe.

[altipueri]

To be fair to Leibst who made this game and is Spanish, he apparently asked some English friends to check the text for him and they would appear to have let him down.

Those who have bought Ageod games before and like them will have confidence that after some patches they will have a game that produces a lot of enjoyment and historical immersion.

To those who have not tried Ageod games and have been put off purchasing by reading some of the comments on this forum I would say that there is still available a free demonstration version of the Ageod game on the Russian Civil War - "Revolution Under Siege". This includes a tutorial and a short scenario that could give you an introduction to the Ageod system, albeit an earlier incarnation. It is available from this part of the Ageod site http://www.ageod.com/products/396/downloads/