RE: Fatal Years 1.04

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Fatal Years 1.04

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Revolution Under Siege Gold >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fatal Years 1.04

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/21/2011 1:20:46 PM

SirGarnet

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline

quote:

They don't even realize FY could possibly one day be the reson for one or two customers to buy RUS

Reading the FY PDF decided me on purchase as as it was full of thoughtful ideas and good game-based and historical analysis.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 61

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/21/2011 8:57:59 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

I'm really not sure highly historical and carefully tested pure wargames will ever be business success. After all, any game even with an broken economic model, anear obscure GUI and a full can of bugs gets more audience than a pure wargame in the computer field ( Think...EU3 at its release...or...

).

What I feel on the contrary if the tool is created, and AGE 2.0 is such a tool, we must try to do it. If we fail, we will at least have done what we could.

But AGE 2.0 has been used mostly for delivering a copy of the most mediocre SPI boardgames design in the last days of this company, around 1980 ( yes , I 'm a very old wargamer

). Open the event files of the AGE offical games: 60 to 80 % of the events are just creating new units or giving replacements.

RUS example: foreign troops are coming by fixed events. They will appear and be removed at fixed dates. So not only replayability hasn't been a real concern, but you may find yourself in the strange situation where you're winning as Whites but French and Greeks will leave...Sorry, that's poor design. Place a RUS copy into the hands of a boardgamer having played TOC, or Reds, or any other boardgames. He will conclude computer wargames are just competing about the only question of the number of parameters into the definition of a unit...

Many computer games don't allow to create sort of modest substitutes to the bright and clever boardgames rules. AGE 2.0 is an exception, remaining largely unused by AGEOD. MAybe such refinements will give no more purchases as unfortunately the common wargamer on computer is just dreaming about pancake supplies features and alternative histories delivered by this Swedish Company (no, not Krapea

). Howver, why in this case having built such a tool?

AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/21/2011 9:02:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to SirGarnet)

Post #: 62

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/21/2011 9:32:19 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments

(Oh, and can you beat this: My wargaming goes as far back as Avalon Hill c. 1962. And, yes, of course SPI later on. At one point, I owned ~80 SPI games. Those were the days!)

< Message edited by berto -- 9/21/2011 9:34:31 PM >

_____________________________

Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, Civil War Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 63

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/21/2011 9:56:36 PM

oldspec4

Posts: 746
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
AGE 2.0 isn't an universal military simulator. For XIXth Century MILITARY games, it has no equivalent in depth and possibility, to the condition to learn it, use it fully. In the end, we will maybe remain a few hundreds only. However, we will have enjoyed great gaming moments

+1

(Oh, and can you beat this: My wargaming goes as far back as Avalon Hill c. 1962. And, yes, of course SPI later on. At one point, I owned ~80 SPI games. Those were the days!)

+2...and I also go back to the early sixties w/ a Milton Bradley (IIRC) version of the American Civil War (1961 or 2?)

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 64

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/21/2011 10:37:38 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

And the truth is current boardgames are better than a large part of the old, to a few exceptions. They work on design, they think about game mechanism, they discuss them, they fill real historical research, they try to simulate obscure subjects. They have to deal with strong limits ( at most 25 turns to be played in one or two seessions and the less counters possible) and so are forced to innovate.

Frankly, what are the real innovation for computer wargames? 1) Nicer gfx. 2) Enginr to produce Turtledove's novels (Paradox games) 3) 90 unit parameters in place for 80.

Caricature indeed. Large part of truth however. Maybe because a large part of computer strategy players aren't interested in strategy (

they want to fulfill their nationalistic or fantasy Role-playing desire, like changing Vanuatu in renaissance superpower). Maybe because a part of computerwargame devs aren't really interested in strategy, and they care more for the 90 parameters

_____________________________

(in reply to oldspec4)

Post #: 65

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 2:09:54 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Caricature indeed. Large part of truth however. Maybe because a large part of computer strategy players aren't interested in strategy ( they want to fulfill their nationalistic or fantasy Role-playing desire, like changing Vanuatu in renaissance superpower).

Yes Indeed.. It is very disappointing not to be able play Sanusiyya !

Unfortunately there is a worry in marketing terms to make everyone happy,content about playable nations when there is a game developed reflecting wider world conflicts in long time periods. But actually Ageod did it quite well that how playability is restricted when trying other nations.
Now.. When they will fix ammo bug? Whole age engine "out of order" with freeze and crush when they did try to fix it

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 66

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 2:30:01 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baris

Yes Indeed.. It is very disappointing not to be able play Sanusiyya !

Unfortunately there is a worry in marketing terms to make everyone happy,content about playable nations when there is a game developed reflecting wider world conflicts in long time periods. But actually Ageod did it quite well that how playability is restricted when trying other nations.

nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

1 and 2 are the largest groups. 4 is a dominant subspecies in computer strategy market, vocalizing much when the vast majority of players, having less time to play, are less present on the boards.

4 is the tiniest of the 4.

Any pure wargame with PON problems would have been fully forgotten now. Thansk to the 1, 2 and 4 categories, a small core of players is yet active. Until the next game.

_____________________________

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 67

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 3:08:17 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

Ansolutely true. I got that response when I was informing PON features in another forum. Is Sanusia playable?

Fifth category is amongs the players is: is the game stable ? I guess still 'legendary stable ACW'played more than RCW in that sense with mixed reasons with point one. RCW is İMHO far the best game age engine produced and better tuned with your mod. For myself Im very well interested in specific conflicts about independences or civil wars that occured in the past for intellectual and game play concerns. Gameplay concerns comes from the fact tha each country can not be simulated well enough that their existance in the game will be too shallow, when you are developing a game about era not specific theatre.But unfortunately it is not enough for most gamers as you categorized them well.

Edit: İt is a plus that age engine can simulate ACW,ROP, WIA and RUS conflicts so unique with music and graphic designs that each game reflect the era without needing further pancakes.

< Message edited by Baris -- 9/22/2011 3:22:39 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 68

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 6:18:59 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

I would just add we are all belonging to the 4 categories, at different level. For my own, I am (3), then (1), with remains of (4) and uninterested by (2). Now (1) is clearly related not only to your nationality buthistorical knowledge and interest too. And (2) is a potent factor explaining the unreasonable place in hearts for both CSA during ACW and Germany in WW2.

I precise I'm talking about Strategy games. Tactical ones aren't totally related to these categories, even if they share common points.

_____________________________

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 69

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 6:22:55 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

There are other sorts of players (perhaps smaller in number still).

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 70

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 7:47:51 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

To achieve on this subject, FY is (3) first and foremost, (4) because of the AGE 2.0 engine and (1) because of Whites .

PON was (3) and (4), but the real lasting core audience is more and more (1) and (2). WiTE is (3), (4) and (1) and its design has reached its intended audience.

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/22/2011 7:49:51 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 71

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 7:52:06 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

I would just add we are all belonging to the 4 categories, at different level. For my own, I am (3), then (1), with remains of (4) and uninterested by (2). Now (1) is clearly related not only to your nationality buthistorical knowledge and interest too. And (2) is a potent factor explaining the unreasonable place in hearts for both CSA during ACW and Germany in WW2.

I precise I'm talking about Strategy games. Tactical ones aren't totally related to these categories, even if they share common points.

Exactly also my priorities. But the thing is according to Maslov at least

, in order to climb the pyramid(For pure strategy) I have to see the independence/civil war for my country with an unbiased eye for the sake of historical knowledge and interest. So number 1 would be the priority for me but with a feeling there will be 'strategy elements' in it with age engine 2.

RUS gave me the perspective about what is told and what actually is about military history. Think about it when there are some lies told about history officially but the reality is somehow lacking or fake. That's why I like to see the story of the 'others' in the age engine.

Edit: Pon is number 4 indeed.

< Message edited by Baris -- 9/22/2011 7:55:54 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 72

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 8:33:01 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

There are other sorts of players (perhaps smaller in number still).

I mean to say: I fit into the (apparently) tiny category of gamers who are seeking

--deep immersion, deeper understanding of history
--realism (does not necessarily or at all equate to complexity; equates hardly at all to flashy graphics or multi-media experience)
--a sort of re-enactment of history in miniature (not exact recreation of history, but a recreation of historical circumstances, where I can experiment with different plausible outcomes)
--an intellectual puzzle (e.g., what are the best tactics/strategies?; how could I do better/worse than Real Life?)

Maybe, in short:

--more simulation than competitive (much less social) game

So I really don't care about (arbitrary) victory conditions, and I will play a game hot-seat solitaire, if the AI sucks; and I don't give one hoot about social interaction (not looking for a friend; won't do PBEM now or ever--for my own good, and many, reasons!). Usually I don't, but sometimes I will even try to recreate history more or less as it actually happened, just out of curiosity to understand Real History better. I appreciate and prefer a decent to good AI (rare), but without it, I can still find ways to enjoy the game/simulator.

How many times have I read a military history, usually with deficient maps (certainly none of them animated or interactive; e-books, anyone?) and been confused and lost by the written description of battles and campaigns? A game (board or computer) gives me the nearest thing to the visual, interactive map/recreation, "living history book" I seek. (This does not mean I want a first-person shooter, or RTS, or fancy graphics/sounds! Even a 2D representation with NATO counters will do, so long as it is "realistic" (really meaning: plausible) and interactive.)

I suppose I am closest to (3), but not in the sense that I care about winning or losing -- completely arbitrary measures of the gaming experience; I will decide for myself what "winning" or "losing" the game means; most of all, I want to have "fun", however I peculiarly define it.

Am I weird or what?

< Message edited by berto -- 9/22/2011 8:49:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 73

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 9:16:15 PM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

To me, strategy games need three main components. First, there is a need for an history/story around it. Be it real history or a fictional one, this is a most as it will give a sort of script to it. I need a motivation to play a strategy game. This is why I am not a fan of RTS games on the Net, think of something like Starcraft which is a great game, it's just not for me. After that, a strategy game need a solid gameplay. This may have different form, more tactical or the other way around, like the AGEOD games. It those not have to be complexe, it may very well be simple yet great. Complexity is more an hassle to me as it often implies such a level of understanding that I need to dedicate alot of time to play a single game/campaign. I sadly don't have that much time. Last but not least, a strategy game need replayability. This implies a rich gameplay and a decent story. I won't buy a game if it's a single shot. I love to replay and try something new or play with a different style ( more aggressive then usual for exemple).

On a similar topic, I was lurking around the Hannibal forum. I am hesitant to buy the game even if everyone gives it great review. My reason is that I am unsure of the AI. After playing the demo a couple of time (it's only 4 turns sadly) I am not convince of what I a mseeing. I know that Chilperic appreciate the game's AI, considering what he did to RUS, that give alot of credit to Hannibal's developper IMO. The only problem I have is that the computer only seems to be good because of the different set of rules that apply to Rome and Carthage (Reinforcement/ Battle mechanics that I haven't fully grasp or that I simply don't appreciate enough). It the end, I will surely buy it when a discount comes around, after all the game do present itself with the three main points I search in a strategy game.

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 74

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 9:55:45 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

One of my pet feature in FY: internal infighting locking part of your forces for one turn

Here the Trokskyst camp locked for one turn, when the Siberian menace on Simbisrk is closing...

Line 10394: Event already referenced, current occurences 0 Max allowed: 99 <<Active>>
Line 10397: CheckIsPlayer: Checking if faction is under human player control 1000003 Communists True
Line 10398: Min date evaluated: 1918/07/01 converted to turn 4045 current turn 4046 True
Line 10399: Max date evaluated: 1921/12/30 converted to turn 4129 current turn 4046 True
Line 10401: Probability evaluated: Probability 5 rolled 4 True
Line 10403: Entering triggered actions for event evt_nam_Disgruntled_Trotskyst
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1002574 L. Trotsky added, List Count now at: 1
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1000580 I.I. Vatzetis added, List Count now at: 2
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1000563 M.N. Tukhachevsky added, List Count now at: 3
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits 1002415 Ghai-Khan added, List Count now at: 4
Line 10405: SelectSubUnits finished Regions Selected: 3 SubUnits Selected: 4
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Ukraine Front parent of: 1002574 L. Trotsky fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Tukhachevsky' Column parent of: 1000563 M.N. Tukhachevsky fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Ukraine Front parent of: 1000580 I.I. Vatzetis fixation type changed to 1
Line 10406: AlterCuSubUnit Unit Western Front parent of: 1002415 Ghai-Khan fixation type changed to 1
Line 10409: Finished processing event: evt_nam_Disgruntled_Trotskyst

Kamenev Army is grounded because of the prensence of Ghai-Khan into. I've chosen to lock entire stacks because of an element for strenghtening the effect of a rare event ( probability of 5/100 each turn) and for realism sake, dissensions in a military unit having direct consequence on movement and reaction capacities. A better solution would of course have been reducing let's say by 50% movement allowance, but that's IMO not possible.

Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/22/2011 9:57:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 75

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 10:10:32 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war

Not to mention increase replayability.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 76

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/22/2011 10:27:39 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Such a random event will force you to change your plans and to feel the hazzards of war

Not to mention increase replayability.

Of course

This isn't my idea, but the mere transcription in AGE scripting language of a rule of Triumh of Chaos, one of these rules which, without having 90 parameters and easy to understand because of a deliberate abstraction level, add flavor, realism, replayability, fun, surprise. In one word,the reason for which boardgames are so much better than most computer wargames designs. A lesson to learn IMO

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/22/2011 10:33:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 77

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 5:31:23 AM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

I agree with nearly all of Chilperic's posts on the philosophy of game design and how he has implemented them in his RUS mod. That being said, I'd pay 25 Engagement Points for a peace treaty with AGEOD that allows them to make enough money from whatever category of buyer to continue developing the engine so that outside developers or modders can use it to make more serious simulations.

Unfortunately, whatever the business reasons, with PON they seem to be moving in a Paradoxical direction.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 78

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 8:04:12 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

IMO the engine (AGE 2.0, AGE 3.0 being a whole other story) is achieved. There is no need to further improvements, new features, except the fixes for some bugs. If new commands are added , fine, but it isn't badly needed.

What's lacking is a real work on game design. A great engine doesn't produce great games. And a game is meant to be played, after release but also before, and tweaked.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 79

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 8:46:08 AM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

I think the same about Chilperic's work. He solved by himself (gonna speak like you're not there�

) many problems or simply unrealistic situation that were implanted in RUS. The RUS team is to be thanked for releasing the game but it's FY that make it into a gem that steal so much of my time. Yes it is not perfect, I have never found a single game to be so.

I think that you rightfully can present yourself as a Great Jedi Master, as you have not simply conquered the AGE 2.0, you have come to understand it and master it's subtil ways. I am eager to start a new SibW campaign to test that new feature. I hope that it will succeed it's mission. Really, those features seems so tied to the RCW that I don't understand how they could be disregarded ( AIL is included in that).

My last game ended in a nice victory when I jammed something like 80 000 troops at Moscow that held one and a half month

. There was some nice movement from the AI at that precise moment. If I recall correctly, it moved to encircle me but failed when my second wave of troops came in.

Honestly, I think they would have encircled me if those troops did not show up by cheer luck. After all I never imagined that I would need 2/3 of my armies to take that city.

One more month before I have enough time to start a full campaign, the wait is killing me!!!

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 80

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 10:41:10 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

Any good boardgame has atest phase lasting several months, with games played several times.In the computer field, this pahse is too often reduced to a couple weeks or months.

Of course, there are drastic business constraints ,as a computer program needs much more time to be built, at higher cost.

However, there are too the side effects of the "90 parameters by unit" trend: such a complexity is adding its full load of bugs, inconsistancies more abstarct and simple rules would avoid. Lei it be clear: a 1,680 turn game isn't testable. You may remove bugs, CTDs. In the end, blance and gameplay aren't, even for very large companies. Even with a very fast turn resolution, such monsters are more the pet work of people wanting to create an engine, not a game. they believe a game is an engine, and they're wrong.

FY has to share this trouble. The game is longer than a boardgame, with more details to assess. AGE 2.0 is certainly the highest which can be mastered and it's fair to recognize its bunch of features allows to solve many shortcoming in gameplay and simulation. Maybe only with free modding way, as the cost of such a fine tuning is too much for a commercial company.

The AGE 2.0 engine exists, so it would be silly to not use it

. I remain convinced however there are other designs type which could be both profitable and enjoyable in computer wargaming field than the race to Behemoth we're living.

FY isn't perfect. I hope it will be in the future

_____________________________

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 81

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 11:07:57 AM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
However, there are too the side effects of the "90 parameters by unit" trend: such a complexity is adding its full load of bugs, inconsistancies more abstarct and simple rules would avoid.

Sounds like WitE to me...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 82

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 11:29:16 AM

Nikel

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

nah. There are in computer strategy market 4 sorts of players:

- those moved by nationalism, wanting to play their nations and reverse history (1)
- those wanting to play an alternative history like a Turtledove novel (2)
- those interested really in strategy (3)
- those loving monster games because they grants for sure details mean complexity and strategy(4)

1 and 2 are the largest groups. 4 is a dominant subspecies in computer strategy market, vocalizing much when the vast majority of players, having less time to play, are less present on the boards.

4 is the tiniest of the 4.

Any pure wargame with PON problems would have been fully forgotten now. Thansk to the 1, 2 and 4 categories, a small core of players is yet active. Until the next game.

In my case the interest in wargames comes together with the interest in military history. I have played with soldiers since I can remember, plastic, cards,... and the interest in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Napoleon,... was also there.

To be interested in computer wargames as an adult is logical. I have also switched from tactical to strategical.

I think that the clue is feeling like a real military commander. To feel this way while playing a game, even just for a moment, is worthy enough

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 83

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 12:16:35 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

FY isn't perfect. I hope it will be in the future

When my AGElint QA/bug checking software is Ready for Prime Time (give me a few more weeks), after I release it publicly (as a community project) and we apply it to RUS/FY, especially together with your AI modding expertise, I believe that RUS/FY will be, if not "perfect", pretty d@mned good.

< Message edited by berto -- 9/23/2011 1:54:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 84

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 3:11:15 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Clovis, are you familiar with Advanced Tactics Gold? The name isn't very good because it is a game engine for operational and strategical level. It is very adaptive (I own it so I know). If one had enough time and energy I believe one could even reproduce Triumph of Chaos with it.

Check this design here (see the action cards): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2842432

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 85

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 3:22:26 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Clovis, are you familiar with Advanced Tactics Gold? The name isn't very good because it is a game engine for operational and strategical level. It is very adaptive (I own it so I know). If one had enough time and energy I believe one could even reproduce Triumph of Chaos with it.

Check this design here (see the action cards): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2842432

Yes, got it but I haven't yetreally dig into. I've played Vic other game about Poland 39 ( not yet France 40) but i was rather pleased with the system. After SVF and DNO, I will certainly really try it. I'm wrongly or not considering ATG more suite fro 1940 and beyond period but I must admit I didn't entred the ATG forum since a few months

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 86

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 4:06:13 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

I don't see a problem with pre 1940 scenarios. There are even acient war scens designed with it.

What it lacks is the real strength of computer wargames: simultaneous execution aka. wego-system...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 87

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 5:19:32 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

For this time, dasagreeing on you to both points: having a scneario done by someone on an engine doesn't prove the engine is suited for the period. I remember tOAW adapted to anything

That doesn't imply ATG isn't bale to handle ancients time, I just don't known by lack of knowledge.

Wego: yes...and no. TBS is sometimes as much suited than wego : first WW1 doesn't need wego, and I could add other XIXth Centuries periods, including RUS and AACW. Once again, TBS aren't on the contrarysuperior to wego. All depends on the rules, the scale. Let's take the PON example....

Frankly, they should have done PON with TBS, they would have had 1,680 *8 turns. More than 10,000 turns. What a feature

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 88

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 5:45:03 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

For this time, dasagreeing on you to both points: having a scneario done by someone on an engine doesn't prove the engine is suited for the period. I remember tOAW adapted to anything That doesn't imply ATG isn't bale to handle ancients time, I just don't known by lack of knowledge.

That is true, and I haven't checked any of the scens of earlier periods, but I do know that ATG is much, much more flexible than TOAW: basically everything is editable. So I see no reason why a scen of acient times or a sci-fi scen wouldn't work as long as it was properly designed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic
Wego: yes...and no. TBS is sometimes as much suited than wego : first WW1 doesn't need wego, and I could add other XIXth Centuries periods, including RUS and AACW. Once again, TBS aren't on the contrarysuperior to wego. All depends on the rules, the scale.

It may be my personal preference only but I do think that wego can add another layer of chaos, and feels more realistic. All depending on solid basic design, of course.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 89

RE: Fatal Years 1.04 - 9/23/2011 5:54:53 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

For this time, dasagreeing on you to both points: having a scneario done by someone on an engine doesn't prove the engine is suited for the period. I remember tOAW adapted to anything That doesn't imply ATG isn't bale to handle ancients time, I just don't known by lack of knowledge.

That is true, and I haven't checked any of the scens of earlier periods, but I do know that ATG is much, much more flexible than TOAW: basically everything is editable. So I see no reason why a scen of acient times or a sci-fi scen wouldn't work as long as it was properly designed.

So,it could become really interesting. One of my pet dream is porting to computer Roman war using some of the Miranda's design ideas in the Trajan system (not for tomorrow). There could be a choice between 2 engines , that would be great.

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 90