Future Titles?

[sol_invictus]

I'm probably way ahead of myself; but do you have any ideas on what future titles you will be making using the CG engine. From the features list, CG seems like a dream come true and it would make for an excellent Wars of Frederick the Great or the Wars of German Unification. Are you sticking with gunpowder/musket era or maybe delving into Sword and Pike or even Ancients? I'm sure the Roman Republic could profit from the CG treatment. I realize that you probably can't give any specifics, but any tidbits would be greatly appreciated. Greatly anticipating the release of CG!

[ericbabe]

Hello Arinvald,

Thanks for the interest.

I must indeed be cryptic. Our plans are to stick with the gunpowder for a bit since so much of the engine is tailored to this era. There are a few things I'd like to add in the gunpowder sequels, such as a more detailed siege simulation.

One of the men on our design team is a professional classicist and is, naturally, pushing us to go ancient after gunpowder. But we have many design drafts to take it in a modern direction as well.


Thanks again,
Eric

[sol_invictus]

Sounds fine; exhaust the potential with the Gunpowder era and then dive into Ancients sometime down the road. Can you say whether you plan to go backward or forward in time for your next effort? Since your staying with Gunpowder for a bit, Frederick the Great has to make an appearance. Enlightened Despot of Glory anyone?[;)]

[Gil R.]

I'm the "professional classicist" to whom Eric refers. Those of you asking for games set in antiquity can count on me to prod him in that direction, but I also thoroughly approve of the more modern scenarios he is considering, so if I "lose" the argument it will by no means be a tragedy, and only those who EXCLUSIVELY play war games set in ancient times will be disappointed.

Of course, Eric has been known to disregard my suggestions: only just recently I was encouraging him to make a game based on the War of Jenkins' Ear, and he didn't seem too enthusiastic. Surely that would have some novelty appeal just for the name...

[Guderon]

I know I'll probably regret asking, [:D] but what is 'The War of Jenkins' ear'?

[sol_invictus]

Gil R., the only period of military history I like better than Ancient Greece/Rome is Napoleonics/Frederick, so you guys got me covered. I must agree with ericbabe's decision on Jenkins Ear since I don't think it would really WOW the crowd here in America. But after a few titles in the gunpowder era, keep on him for a Rise of Rome or Peloponnesian War game.

Guderon, Jenkin's Ear was the name given because the immediate cause of the war was the claim by a British merchant captain, named Jenkins, that a Spanish offical had cut off his ear during a scuffle. It was basicly the British and Spanish governments disagreement on the boundary of Florida and treaty obligations. It occured around 1739.

[Gil R.]

Arinvald,

Well, I didn't think that the War of Jenkins' Ear per se was worth simulating, but I thought instead we might make the point of the game be to find Jenkins' Ear. I had visions of people who had found it selling it on E-Bay for a small fortune. Since I would have access to insider information, I wanted a piece of that action.

Okay, since you don't know me personally and might not realize that I'm joking about the whole thing, I'll use an emoticon: [;)]

Getting back to ancient wars and the game-designers who love them, I think that both Rome's rise to power and the Peloponnesian War would make for excellent games. But there are also other periods and/or wars that are not as well known, and we have been working to conceptualize these other ideas as well. One thing I can guarantee you is that since I'm a "professional classicist" -- and not one of those who dreamily dwells on poetry all day, but rather an ancient historian (insert emoticon to show that I'm serious about ancient history: [:-]) -- whichever game(s) we produce will be as thoroughly accurate and well researched as anything on the market, and then some. My plan is to use the most recent scholarship and get the best possible information about warfare, politics, economics, etc.

I'm not sure how soon it will be before our gunpowder runs out and we have to turn to bronze and iron, but am sure that you will be pleased with the results.

[sol_invictus]

DOH! Now that kind of Jenkin's Ear game could certainly make a go at it! Well it sounds like we have a whole boatload of great games to look forward to in the future.[&o]

[Davegamer]

I like the idea of a game for the era of Alexander the Great. The various armies that Alexander had to face as well as the cities and the varied geographical scenarios that he and his army encounter would make such a game interesting.

[Malagant]

I would love to see an American Civil War game using this engine!!

[Guderon]

Yup, I started an ACW thread here awhile back...I agree with you 100%. It's the obvious next choice. And while I know that there are people who like Frank Hunter's ACW game, I still maintain that there's never been a strategic level ACW game worth playing. This engine and this design team are the best hope for that to be rectified in a LONG time.

[jchastain]

ACW seems the most logical choice to me as well. Any European based game in roughly the same period would have too much of the same look and feel. If you are staying with the age of gunpowder then you need a new map to really make the sequel fresh and compelling. N America seems like the obvious answer.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ACW seems the most logical choice to me as well. Any European based game in roughly the same period would have too much of the same look and feel. If you are staying with the age of gunpowder then you need a new map to really make the sequel fresh and compelling. N America seems like the obvious answer.

Yes Yes Yes!!! [:D]

[Alaric_31]

greetings, one game about american civil war with this engine and the same treatment of all details on morale, troop quality from diferent nations and english naval superiority, well, one game in this way can be the dream of american civil war serious players, i play on boardgame "victory games" "American Civil War" but as "war and peace" (this about napoleonic wars) is much abstract, Crown of Glory is the first game that acomplish the difficult work of mixed strategy and tactical in one engine, all turn based, i love play american civil war, and will love see a game with this team and this engine for that war,

with regards,

alaric.

[Kipper]

Folks, if you are interested in sales, go ACW if you can get it out before the Gary Grigsby World at War sequel. And don't assume that Europe isn't interested in Civil War - it is - hugely (I'm Irish).

On second thoughts - Matrix would hardly want two strategic Civil War titles competing with each other? I'd buy 'em both!

Kipper

[rich12545]

I would also like to see the ACW. Civil War Generals 2 is getting kind of old. Problem is I don't see any way you could fit it into the strategic level with only the north and south and they're already at each other to start.

[siRkid]

I would like to see a game on the early years of gunpowder. No one has done a computer game in that era. How about the Thirty Years War? Plenty of material there![&o]

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: rich12545
I would also like to see the ACW. Civil War Generals 2 is getting kind of old. Problem is I don't see any way you could fit it into the strategic level with only the north and south and they're already at each other to start.

The entire political and trade system would still be greatly beneficial to the title as historically both sides in the war were competing for trade and relations with Europe. The South is outmanned militarily and industrially, but if you model the diplomatic efforts of the South to gain recognition and perhaps even assistance from the European powers then you have a game with a very interesting twist. It shouldn't be easy to bring Europe into the ACW mind you, but allowing it to be a strategic possibility is a great balancing tool. Enhance trade just a bit to allow more robust treatment of privateers and blockades and then make the North balance between the economic benefits of cutting the south off with the diplomatic pressure from Europe not to be overly aggressive and you start to have some very interesting aspects. You could even model some of the border states such as Kentucky to be pseudo-protectorates that have to potential to join the confederacy under certain circumstances. Again, I am not saying that these types of things should be the focus of the game, but rather that they could be some of the flavoring that extends the game beyond just my army fights your army and that could be accomplished with reasonable effort by leveraging some of the features within the current engine.

[rich12545]

I can see your points, but imo there wouldn't be enough to make it interesting the way COG is. It would be fine as a war long campaign with detailed battles but wouldn't be as good and of course you wouldn't have any of the historical battles which is what makes most acw games.

[Reg Pither]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

I can see your points, but imo there wouldn't be enough to make it interesting the way COG is.

I'd have to agree with that. Having basically only two sides to play would negate much of the appeal for me, and be a waste of many of the features in CoG. An ACW version would, in effect, be a step backwards as the game engine would be restricted rather than expanded. I'd rather see games set in earlier periods with far more scope - Thirty Years War, or even the Hundred Years War! [:)]