Napoleon's Campaigns

[Gibbon]

Will Napoleon's Campaigns be distributed by Matrix? When? Can we expect a boxed version?

[:D][:D][:D]

[Erik Rutins]

We can't discuss this yet, sorry.

[Gibbon]

OK, fingers crossed [;)]

[Reiryc]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't released by matrix.  

[JudgeDredd]

Well, I certainly hope so....Matrix are my favourite wargame publisher and the support is there...and this game is a great game.

[Missouri_Rebel]

The map is the best I have ever seen by far! Unfortunately for me, the battles leave much to be desired as far as immersion goes so it will be something I only see in screenshots.

Many others do enjoy the engine though. I know I certainly wanted to.


mo reb

[Pocus]

Immersion... a so evasive concept [:D]
We never wanted to add a tactical engine into our games. This detract from the other focus, which is acting at the strategical and operationnal level. This also mean for the dev team to pour a good amount of resources to make even an average tac engine, so less AI coding time and less sophisticated map, OOBs, events and chrome rules. No, we prefer to focus on one thing and do it right! [:'(]

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

Immersion... a so evasive concept [:D]
We never wanted to add a tactical engine into our games. This detract from the other focus, which is acting at the strategical and operationnal level. This also mean for the dev team to pour a good amount of resources to make even an average tac engine, so less AI coding time and less sophisticated map, OOBs, events and chrome rules. No, we prefer to focus on one thing and do it right! [:'(]

Here are four things to increase the battle immersiveness, and give the player more emotional payoff for his many hours/minutes of advance, pre-battle planning and maneuvering:

--Show total forces engaged as actual head counts, not just the casualties. And give a casualy breakdown. (For example: "Union 68,419 engaged, 1,288 killed, 5,492 wounded, 992 captured, 573 missing, 8,345 total casualties. Confederate ...")
--Play a greater variety of battle sounds, especially the cries (more than just the same old, same old "Charrrrrge!" or "Retreat!").
--Leave the player in suspense a while longer. That is, play the battle sounds, and delay displaying the battle results, for 30 seconds to a minute (varies by the size of the battle), not just after 2-10 seconds.
--And most importantly: Give a textual running commentary on the battle, with a second or two between comments. (For example: "General Jackson's forces attack... Union 2nd corps panic and route... King's division arrives as reinforcements... Fierce hand-to-hand combat in the center... Gibbon's brigade mauled...") Make this moddable, so that your user community can add variety and spice up the in-battle comments to their heart's content. (That is, make an endlessly expandable database of battle comments, with hooks to the underlying statistics.)

Without going tactical/graphical (which I agree is besides the point in a game like this), how really hard would the above be to add (for all your games, not just AACW)?

[HobbesACW]

I certainly think you are on to something with the running commentary idea berto. I would like to see that one day.
There are many pieces of information that could be given in that format including leader influence and performance, troop morale, fatigue,
the timings for troops entering battle - if reserves can be seen approaching etc
Cheers, Chris
 

[James Ward]

For Liberty uses this in their automatic battle. You see what unit fired at who, the morale and manpower loss, who got initiative, who routed, what reinforcements arrived etc. It's kind of neat to watch it though for large battles it can take a while to get through.

[Shawkhan]

...Wow, a tactical feel in a stategic game. Since the computer is already simulating various tactical events 'under the hood', having a simple explanation of what is going on seems a great way to understand the ebb and flow of a battle.  

[Skeleton]

I have said this since BoA came out and I could not agree more on each point. I also say this as one who absolutely loves what AGEOD has done with each of their games. I would love the combat aspect (forgive the comparsion as I loathe the game) to mirrior what Hearts of Iron does; by not only drawing out the actual combat phase, but by possibly allowing you to make one or two decisions during battle. As an example, using AACW, giving you an option to allow a Division/Army in an adjacent territory to join in the combat or perform a flanking action against an enemy, therefore adding a bonus modifier or allowing you the ability to withdraw at some point to minimise your losses. Anything to take away from the "Whaw" what just happened feel I get now. Again, I say this as one who fully intends to purchase everything AGEOD puts out until they give me a reason not to.

[barbarossa2]

I LOVE this system. And I agree with the AGEOD strategy of being good at STRATEGY and not going into tactics.

However, I do agree that the battle resolution needs to be spiced up somewhat. The hearts are too abstract. Tell us how MANY troops are involved on each side. How many regulars. How many irregulars. How many cavalry. Then tell us the losses in terms of men. Not in hearts.

As in love as I am with this system now, if AGEOD decided to turn battles into a 3 phased affair (the combat rounds per day) and give the players a choice of 4 to 6 tactics to pursue the battle phase with (flank, assault, bombard, etc), I would be happy with that. But not more. Please don't start anything with "battle maps" in the near future. This would probably drive me out of the market. I enjoy these games because they are playable in a long weekend. More is too much (for me).

Oh yeah. And the number of men and casualties doesn't have to be a precise affair. Just an approximation will do!

The sounds of battle could be somewhat upgraded. A couple of firing muskets isn't too exciting. Maybe a few "sampled" sounds from big movies all chopped up and mixed together (so no one could tell if it was theirs or not! [:D]) would be the best! (not being totally serious about this last point)

Thanks for a great game!

A new fan,

Chris

[denisonh]

I like the strategic feel of the games. Not that a little more detail on the battle outcomes wouldn't be welcome, but I like the simple and rather elegant command and control that keeps the player out of the tactical decision making.

[HobbesACW]

There is always the problem with PBEM when you start to give players decisions to make during a tactical battle but it could be made optional.
My personal preference (as a PBEM only player) would be to make the tactical battles as tense as possible with the text ideas above. You could
be told things like a certain commander is moving up to reinforce only to hear that he has then turned tail and retreated - that sort of thing (but it would have to reflect what is actually going on in the game engine and also be optional).

I also like Berto's suggestion of opening this text to modders to keep it interesting (under the supervision of a trusted modder).

Chris

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

... No, we prefer to focus on one thing and do it right! [:'(]

Did anyone notice that focus ryhmes w/Pocus?

Many new war games try to do everything to appeal to a broad spectrum of players, but these games end up appealing to no one because you can't get in all to work in the same box.

WEGO w/operational control and maybe a running (battle) commentary would be welcomed as AGEOD's "Battle Meter" does leave something to be desired. Otherwise, don't mess w/success.

[HobbesACW]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Pocus

... No, we prefer to focus on one thing and do it right! [:'(]

Did anyone notice that focus ryhmes w/Pocus?

Many new war games try to do everything to appeal to a broad spectrum of players, but these games end up appealing to no one because you can't get in all to work in the same box.

WEGO w/operational control and maybe a running (battle) commentary would be welcomed as AGEOD's "Battle Meter" does leave something to be desired. Otherwise, don't mess w/success.

I can't remember a single game that I have enjoyed that has both strategic and tactical combat. I think it could be done, but you would need a lot of time and money and the right developers to pull it off. (Somebody like Pocus working for Microsoft without interference - well if I win the lottery ....).

Cheers, Chris

[Mayenne]

Pocus has announced today that the game will be released November 15th, but the demo shall be available before. [8D]

[Skeleton]

Great! So that means it will be approximately 2 months before we can download it here, correct?!?![:D]

[PunkReaper]

Any news of a Matrix release for napoleon's campaign...game comes out on 15th November but I would prefer to download it from here as I've never had any problems with the games I've bought from here.