ORIGINAL: Nikel
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
I've appreciated the summary of Freikorps history, and I 'm proud FY is assessing much more rightly this than the official game [:)]
Regarding the Freikorps there area a lot of info in this link
http://pygmy-wars.50megs.com/history/la ... intro.html
Smele considers
Vanguard of Nazism as excellent, though the author of pygmy-wars site doestn't think the same
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vanguard-Nazism ... 016&sr=1-2
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
I should advise AGEOD to take a step back by reading these ( and others) to learn again how to design a game. They have lost the secret. [:(]
But you enjoy a lot their games [;)]
Thanks; I will take a look. [:)]
I like the AGE engine, especially the 2.0 version. The 3.0 (PON) is promising but buggy at present and diplomacy is far from being perfect.
The AGE engine is marvelous for creating games between let's say 1600 to 1870, with some exceptions ike RCW [:)] ( After 1870, only wars with low density troops may be used, like Boer wars and RCW).
But the engine itself doesn't create magically great games by just assembling the data about regions and units. Ageod has a great engine, is very good at collecting and putting the data, but incredibly gifted to create poor scenarios since AACW.
NCP? AGEOD forgot their engine is suited for large operational/strategic affaires and released scenarios about too small campaigns to be interesting. They forgot too AI should be able to put some sort of real fight, but the AI wasn't able to give some sort of opposition , because they underestimated how much more units would reinforce AI weaknesses AACW and BOA masked by low density situations.
WIA? The good came from the BOA design. Critics has showed the new features weren't tailored to fit with the BOA legacy. AI had diificulties with unit cohesion, options haven't renewed game interest, etc.
ROP? Business failure. In part because before I worked a bit on the 1.03 patch, AI was helpless and game won after 10 turns. The Pirna event has never delivered correct results for AI or PBEM. Options were too cheap to be a choice rather than a no brainer click.
PON? Some great design ideas, a myriad of details. Between a full lack of thinking about gameplay. What is the interest of having 30 sorts of production types if in the end , "for simplicity sake", your pop ulation just considers goods in 3 large categories? Why having a gazillion units if the German/French frontier is 2 regions wide? Why having 15 days turns in a game where any colonization effort is needing 5 to 10 years to be achieved? Is there really a need to have a mission policy and a Trade one, when effects are about the same?
AGEOD error is here: having a great engine and a full wagon of details and accurate data don't produce in themselves a good game. They have lost the focus, one dev being focalized on the engine, the second on the data. between, there is nothing. Most has been said about prematurate releases and bugs. IMHO, the most capital point is this unfinished state shows first scenario aren't really tested before release. Without test, a real work on gamaplay can't occur and in the end, the gamplay itself is boring or unchallenging, or boresome like no brainer options you have to choose as soon as possible.
I don't want to be harsh with AGEOD. They do their best, and they are certainly too friendly to clean a little their volunteer team, or to rethink their design process by integrating AI consideration and other points. But, when you have collected a serie of business failures and when regularly the team is showing its weaknesses, bey changing nothing you're responsible of your fate. That's a shame, but they are in charge of. I wish them good luck, especially when you're reading the last aberration of their "coordinator" who is the main culprit of the destruction of the AACW volunteer team and is today achieving his carrer at AGEOD the same manner he has acted in the backdoor. I Know you know what I mean [:)]
