Cool to see you are directly getting involved into this, Johan.
Looking forward to seeing how this one turns out.
Looking forward to seeing how this one turns out.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
:blink:
...and so we now know that Johan has either never played Ageod games or thinks they are not realistic wargames...
...I do not know which is worse...:angry:
I have played them, and they are good games.
But them being turnbased reduces their ability to be realistic.
Turnbased games are great games, and some are among the best ever, like Civilization, but they can never be more realistic than a realtime aspect.
I am sorry to disagree but unless we are dealing with 21st century command and control - the ability of a commander to reach out and give immediate orders to subunit elements is not 'realistic'. There was (and still is) a lot of small unit commander's abilities that played on the unit's reaction to orders.
This game will either forego the concepts of 'Unit Activation' and leader initiative as in the various defensive/offensive stances and call to arms from the original NCP, or you greatly risk RT players clicking on units to give them commands and cursing the game as broken because Unit A isn't doing (or can't do) what they wanted = which would certainly Be Realistic in 1800's warfare.
Turn based as in the WEGO - if you will forgive the term - is like a Dub-Step RT flow, everything stops, even the little electrons orbiting atoms - while the Commander makes decisions and send orders - then the 15-day time flows (outside the Dub-Step) which allows the variability of the unit commanders to either act, or not act, or even act different than - the orders give . A much more realistic representation of warfare of that period.
While both are problematic - the RT as more realistic needs some as yet undeveloped protocols to represent the problems of Unit Leadership and Comamnd and Control of warfare pre satellites (say 1990 and beyond)
That is not to say a RT format can't do this - maybe some of the underlings programming from Senduko might apply, I don't know and don't have the game. I am hoping you solve this problem. Good luck.
=== EDIT
Call to arms, I meant the game feature or 'March to the sound of guns'
This game will either forego the concepts of 'Unit Activation' and leader initiative as in the various defensive/offensive stances and call to arms from the original NCP, or you greatly risk RT players clicking on units to give them commands and cursing the game as broken because Unit A isn't doing (or can't do) what they wanted = which would certainly Be Realistic in 1800's warfare.
Turn based as in the WEGO - if you will forgive the term - is like a Dub-Step RT flow, everything stops, even the little electrons orbiting atoms - while the Commander makes decisions and send orders - then the 15-day time flows (outside the Dub-Step) which allows the variability of the unit commanders to either act, or not act, or even act different than - the orders give . A much more realistic representation of warfare of that period.
While both are problematic - the RT as more realistic needs some as yet undeveloped protocols to represent the problems of Unit Leadership and Comamnd and Control of warfare pre satellites (say 1990 and beyond)
That is not to say a RT format can't do this - maybe some of the underlings programming from Senduko might apply, I don't know and don't have the game. I am hoping you solve this problem. Good luck.
=== EDIT
Call to arms, I meant the game feature or 'March to the sound of guns'
Last edited:
I would just like to say I like the idea of real time that the game is going. I feel the added depth available and randomness this adds to the AI is well worth it. Turn based does make a little sense if only it was a war or battle simulator but with all the great added features real time to me is the way to go.
The same players probably curse equally loudly in AGE-engine turn-based games when they order a stack to move and it doesn't activate that turn.
In fact, this is a case where realtime games are more realistic. In AACW, every leader in the game is either active or inactive for exactly 15 days at a time, and they all change status on the same day. In NCP2, assuming they include the feature, then you could have one general inactive for 4 days, another inactive for 12 days, and another deciding to march off to a totally different province at random (hello, Marshal Bernadotte). The situation would be more chaotic, and hence more realistic than the artificial framework that a fixed turn length imposes on the game.
And for the record, HoI3 has attack delay, which works in a very similar fashion to leader activation in AGE games (except it's less random).
Excellent post. The attack as you move from ho I would be a great addition.
StephenT,
I've read alot about and played alot of HoI3 - and attack delay is acutally a game interaction to prevent attacking units from overrunning defending units - I clearly remember early threads dissussing this. Also it applies equally to all units of a nation at the same rate regardless of leadership. There isn't even a trait for unit commanders to reduce attack delay, so your comparison falls apart on all those issues.
You could also think of it this way - They couldn't just let RT units run rampant and so had to devise a system, to install a "TurnBase" on the attackers as they have attacked once, this attack delay says -- now you must wait (a variable period, ie a turn) --
But lets look at your preferred situation. Imagine the management nightmare of having to watch all stacks, any group of units, as they flip in and out of "Activation" - which could change on a tick by tick bases. In a campaign mode with units from Spain to Russia - at the most, possibly a hundred stacks, but lets be modest in estimation, say 40.
And unless you get some kind of unrealistic message that General x will be acitvatied at x time, or Brigade y will be activated at y time (as in why would God tell you when a unit would become active) - you have no idea when or if that unit will ever move. Each Tick.
At least in the WEGO situation, I check once a turn (instead of 15 times if 1 tick of the Real Time Clock = 1 day), and then catch a unit in its moment of "Activation". In the previous situation I would check 40 units, in this preferred situation, I would have to check untis 600 times.
And just the base of 40 is going to be hard to check in a Real Time (between ticks of the clock), That's not going to work well so I will either need a pop-up, that will stop the game, or I will have to run the game speed so slowly that the game is in effect turn based as I am forced to repeatedly hit the pause button - at some points of the game to be sure for each tick - to get fresh activation updates.
The other possibility is to juice up the HoI3 Command AI so that it is the only way to move and command troops (not allow micro management of units). Have the AI move and order units and deal with the hidden activation penalties. The player only set goals and deal with the politics and build units, but I predict that idea would be about as popular as a boiled egg and cabbage fart in a space suit for some of the war gammers.
I personally don't use the HoI3 AI to control my troops and myself and many other HoI3 players world rather not play the game at all if that were the only way/option the game allowed.
But truthfully, I am hoping they solve the command and control problem - great minds can rise to the challenge and surprise us. I am just raising the question.
I've read alot about and played alot of HoI3 - and attack delay is acutally a game interaction to prevent attacking units from overrunning defending units - I clearly remember early threads dissussing this. Also it applies equally to all units of a nation at the same rate regardless of leadership. There isn't even a trait for unit commanders to reduce attack delay, so your comparison falls apart on all those issues.
You could also think of it this way - They couldn't just let RT units run rampant and so had to devise a system, to install a "TurnBase" on the attackers as they have attacked once, this attack delay says -- now you must wait (a variable period, ie a turn) --
But lets look at your preferred situation. Imagine the management nightmare of having to watch all stacks, any group of units, as they flip in and out of "Activation" - which could change on a tick by tick bases. In a campaign mode with units from Spain to Russia - at the most, possibly a hundred stacks, but lets be modest in estimation, say 40.
And unless you get some kind of unrealistic message that General x will be acitvatied at x time, or Brigade y will be activated at y time (as in why would God tell you when a unit would become active) - you have no idea when or if that unit will ever move. Each Tick.
At least in the WEGO situation, I check once a turn (instead of 15 times if 1 tick of the Real Time Clock = 1 day), and then catch a unit in its moment of "Activation". In the previous situation I would check 40 units, in this preferred situation, I would have to check untis 600 times.
And just the base of 40 is going to be hard to check in a Real Time (between ticks of the clock), That's not going to work well so I will either need a pop-up, that will stop the game, or I will have to run the game speed so slowly that the game is in effect turn based as I am forced to repeatedly hit the pause button - at some points of the game to be sure for each tick - to get fresh activation updates.
The other possibility is to juice up the HoI3 Command AI so that it is the only way to move and command troops (not allow micro management of units). Have the AI move and order units and deal with the hidden activation penalties. The player only set goals and deal with the politics and build units, but I predict that idea would be about as popular as a boiled egg and cabbage fart in a space suit for some of the war gammers.
I personally don't use the HoI3 AI to control my troops and myself and many other HoI3 players world rather not play the game at all if that were the only way/option the game allowed.
But truthfully, I am hoping they solve the command and control problem - great minds can rise to the challenge and surprise us. I am just raising the question.
StephenT Sez:
The same players probably curse equally loudly in AGE-engine turn-based games when they order a stack to move and it doesn't activate that turn.
If I am not mistaken, you can't give orders to units that are not activated. Some AGE-engined games are a little different than others but I do recall, the game setup does have the option to remove the activation feature entirely. In the ones I have played, if it is enabled, you can easily see who is active or not and the unit will not move, so no surprise, just disappointment in that General x is too busy having tea or entertaining his camp followers to be bothered with orders from the supreme command.
So yes I guess if you say "the same player" as referring to my example of some poor exasperated RT player rushing around a map trying to move units into position for his Waterloo and one powerful stack never seems to move - I agree that is frustrating and my point was that this needs to be
Defined so the player understands what is going on
Displayed on the map so the player can recognize the situation quickly
Managed in a method to assist in game flow toward those important battles which will decide the winner and loser of the campaign.
I will be honest to say that some of the ways the AGE games gave you information was not clear or effecient. The switching to another interface/engine is a grand opportunity to redress those issues. Improving the transfer of information will help both of the confused players we are speaking of.
The same players probably curse equally loudly in AGE-engine turn-based games when they order a stack to move and it doesn't activate that turn.
If I am not mistaken, you can't give orders to units that are not activated. Some AGE-engined games are a little different than others but I do recall, the game setup does have the option to remove the activation feature entirely. In the ones I have played, if it is enabled, you can easily see who is active or not and the unit will not move, so no surprise, just disappointment in that General x is too busy having tea or entertaining his camp followers to be bothered with orders from the supreme command.
So yes I guess if you say "the same player" as referring to my example of some poor exasperated RT player rushing around a map trying to move units into position for his Waterloo and one powerful stack never seems to move - I agree that is frustrating and my point was that this needs to be
Defined so the player understands what is going on
Displayed on the map so the player can recognize the situation quickly
Managed in a method to assist in game flow toward those important battles which will decide the winner and loser of the campaign.
I will be honest to say that some of the ways the AGE games gave you information was not clear or effecient. The switching to another interface/engine is a grand opportunity to redress those issues. Improving the transfer of information will help both of the confused players we are speaking of.
Attack delay is similar to the Activation check, not identical. It performs the same function of removing some units from the player's control on a temporary basis, to represent command and control confusion. It would only be a minor change to the game mechanics to have the delay reduced by leader traits for NCP2 as opposed to military doctrine research as in HoI3. (Or maybe both - certainly there's a case to argue that the Grande Armée should suffer less command delay than, for example, the 1805-vintage Austrian army, due to its doctrine as well as its commanders' skill.)
The way it works, you can give a unit orders at any time, but it will remain stationary (with a red cross on its unit display) until the delay has worn off, then it starts moving. You don't need to micromanage it unless you're trying to do something really complex like synchronise converging attacks from multiple directions - which I doubt will be that common, since this is a strategic not a tactical game. It'll be up to the Phils whether we're actually told how long the unit will be inactive, or if it will be checked randomly - either would work from a design perspective.
The beauty of the Clauswitz engine is that when you're doing complex things, you can play it as essentially turn-based, pausing every time something happens; but when less is going on, you can turn the speed up higher and just let time flow by. As opposed to the paradigm of "End turn - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - actually give orders to a unit!! - press end turn again" that can happen in the slower moments of turn-based games.
It performs the same function of removing some units from the player's control on a temporary basis, to represent command and control confusion. It would only be a minor change to the game mechanics to have the delay reduced by leader traits for NCP2 as opposed to military doctrine research as in HoI3. (Or maybe both - certainly there's a case to argue that the Grande Armée should suffer less command delay than, for example, the 1805-vintage Austrian army, due to its doctrine as well as its commanders' skill.)The way it works, you can give a unit orders at any time, but it will remain stationary (with a red cross on its unit display) until the delay has worn off, then it starts moving. You don't need to micromanage it unless you're trying to do something really complex like synchronise converging attacks from multiple directions - which I doubt will be that common, since this is a strategic not a tactical game. It'll be up to the Phils whether we're actually told how long the unit will be inactive, or if it will be checked randomly - either would work from a design perspective.
I thought you liked turn-based games?
The beauty of the Clauswitz engine is that when you're doing complex things, you can play it as essentially turn-based, pausing every time something happens; but when less is going on, you can turn the speed up higher and just let time flow by. As opposed to the paradigm of "End turn - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - press end turn again - wait - read the log - actually give orders to a unit!! - press end turn again" that can happen in the slower moments of turn-based games.What you can do in AGE games, however, is order an activated stack to move and attack, but it takes more than a turn to reach its destination and when it does get there, it's become inactive.
You and DanSez are both right and wrong about this. Since WiA (iirc) you can determine how activation works in an Age game. Essentially you have three choices. Deactivate this system entirely (all commanders will be active azll the time), use the standard rule (inactive units can perform activities but move slower than active ones and cannot be manually set to offensive stance), or the more strict variant (inactive commanders and all their units become fixed until the next turn)...
Note, in Age games it's individual commanders that are active or inactive, not units per se, or entire forces. That is if you play by the standard rule, you could have the highest ranking commander in a force inactive, but several of his assistants active, you could then detach those assistants and form a separate force that will continue offensive operations, obviously this splitting of forces will be more risky than keeping the larger one intact. Of course with the harsher activation rule where an entire becomes fixed if it's commander is inactive this can't be done...
Can I safely say = We are all in agreement that this function should be seriously considered and continued in the NCP2 game design?
Thanks for the discussion.
Thanks for the discussion.
Have you played EU3? Personally, I'm a strategy game (not generally a wargamer but I'm a big fan of a lot of strategy sub-genres: tactics, 4x. grand strategy, mixed, RT, TB, etc.) and board game fan who got into the series with EU2. For years it was still my favorite, even if I also loved Victoria. EU3 came out, and I was sort of disappointed. Then the first expansion came out. Then the second. Then the third. Then the fourth. Honestly, EU3 right now is easily the single best product Paradox has ever released. Polish, graphics, performance, depth, character, motivation, UI, etc., are, honestly, sterling. This comes from a guy who found CK to have problems, EU:R to be basically broken, and who, despite loving Victoria, has been rather disappointed by V2. (Still, here's hoping AHD fixes that).
The cool thing about it is that the game is rather less dependent on fixed events than during the EU2 days, but they finally have the event count, the mechanics, and the choices to keep things interesting and to maintain some sort of narrative -without- those fixed events. So you get a lot of the good points of both aspects. It's ace.
Next time EU3 Chronicles (not Complete.. Chronicles) goes on sale on Steam, I highly recommend anyone to get it.
I tried EU3, not sure I played it much. I believe my major disapointment there was that it was too much sandbox and too little history. I also played Eu3-Rome (Rome is a derivative of EU3, right?) and enjoyed that some more, but still nothing to get me hooked like earlier games had done...
Like I said, I think the most up-to-date version of EU3 manages to get a sort of historical feel without rigidly following the exact course of history. The first release was a little too empty and heartless, but, with missions, decisions, expanded building options, more diplomatic options, rebels with a cause, better casus belli system, more diplomatic options, more trade options, deeper HRE, etc., it really has filled that gap. I barely got into EU3 at release. However, now, I'm playing the game about as much as I played EU2. Good stuff.
However, if you want something a little less sandbox, you may want to check out Magna Mundi. It should be out this year.