So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Victory and Glory: Napoleon



Message

Alikchi2 -> So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (12/12/2015 11:23:26 AM)

http://slitherine.com/games/victory_glory_napoleon

A few things... this is extremely reminiscent of Hannibal: Rome & Carthage in the Second Punic War developed by Forced March Games. I assume there's a connection?

I'm really excited to see this, as H:R&C etc was a genuinely fantastic game.

Three initial concerns:
- It seems like only France is playable, which kind of stinks. I want to be an obscure power like Bavaria or Poland or the Batavian Republic. Not a dealbreaker, as H:R&C was great even with just Carthage playable.
- Speaking of the Batavians, it'd be good to have a scenario in the Republican era. Let me be Robespierre sending Jourdan around! How about a scenario dealing with the invasion of Ireland?
- Meaning no disrespect, the map graphics as shown in the screenshots available are not great. This is surprising, given how wonderful H:R&C's graphics were. My advice: get rid of the faux-stained map style, choose a more legible font, and remember that the primary visual of a "map game" should convey useful information about terrain, politics, weather, etc. Ditch the "pirate treasure map" sepia tone crap.



digital_pariah -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (12/12/2015 11:45:17 AM)

Agreed, it's a shame it looks like you can only play as Nappy himself. Though I do appreciate that it's a lot more work to make other countries playable.

As for the artwork, I agree that the map could use some work, but the units & cards look pretty lovely!



pzgndr -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (12/13/2015 1:47:45 PM)

V&G:N is a boardgame update for the previous boardgame Napoleon in Europe, and this is a PC version of the new boardgame. Only 7 major powers, no obscure powers. I agree it would be nice to have AI play both sides and not just one. Otherwise looks good.



TomBombadil711 -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (1/27/2016 3:18:36 PM)

Why no multiplayer? [:(]



Agathosdaimon -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (1/28/2016 2:42:26 AM)

the overall art of the game is very good - i am fortunate to just be in the beta at the moment, and these issues are all being raised, at the moment the player just plays as napoleon and can do so starting from points in the period. I believe something will happen in some way to make GB playable but i am not sure what is happening there and will leave that for the developer to flesh out in time.



gdrover -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/2/2016 8:14:20 PM)

Hi guys,

Thanks for your interest!
The starting point (the engine) for Victory & Glory: Napoleon was the Hannibal game by Forced March Games.

The engine has come a long way though on many fronts. We're very excited about how the game is playing right now.
James (from Forced March) is a genius with AI. The AI is playing a very sharp and competitive game now on the medium difficulty level and in the 1805 campaign (the main campaign). On the Hard difficulty level, and in a more challenging campaign like 1813, the player will have their hands full.

The initial offering will only allow the player to play as the French. This was to allow us to maximize the AI and balance the game properly within the development window we had (18 months).
If the game is successful and it makes sense, we plan to look at adding a DLC with new game features and that will allow the player to play as Britain.



gdrover -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/2/2016 8:17:15 PM)

As for the links to Napoleon in Europe: Yes, that is also a spiritual predecessor for this game (and both use the same map), however, this game plays very differently than NiE. (Much better in my opinion).




gdrover -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/2/2016 8:18:08 PM)

http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1885/Victory.and.Glory.Card.System




pzgndr -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/3/2016 12:02:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gdrover
The starting point (the engine) for Victory & Glory: Napoleon was the Hannibal game by Forced March Games.

[As for the links to Napoleon in Europe: Yes, that is also a spiritual predecessor for this game (and both use the same map), however, this game plays very differently than NiE. (Much better in my opinion).]

The engine has come a long way though on many fronts. We're very excited about how the game is playing right now.
James (from Forced March) is a genius with AI. The AI is playing a very sharp and competitive game now on the medium difficulty level and in the 1805 campaign (the main campaign). On the Hard difficulty level, and in a more challenging campaign like 1813, the player will have their hands full.

The initial offering will only allow the player to play as the French. This was to allow us to maximize the AI and balance the game properly within the development window we had (18 months).
If the game is successful and it makes sense, we plan to look at adding a DLC with new game features and that will allow the player to play as Britain.


These are insightful comments. I assumed the V&G:N boardgame came first as the successor to NIE and then the computer adaptation was developed, but it sounds like the other way around? Interesting. [8D]

Very good to hear that a British/Allied AI is under consideration. That would be great! [&o]



EdinHouston -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/15/2016 2:22:23 PM)

Just wanted to say that the "Hannibal" game was outstanding. Looked simplistic at first glance, which can sometimes be a negative for us hex and counter wargamers from the 70s and 80s, but the game was full of flavor, and relatively easy to learn and quick to play, but difficult to win at high difficulty. The AI for the most part was one of the best I have encountered in a strategy game, especially a smaller market wargame. Just awesome. Yes, you could only play Carthage, but that allowed the developers to script the AI to some extent, which really made for a challenging, fun game. I imagine it's so much easy to design an AI to play defense vs offense. Besides, if humans could play Rome, knowing what happened in history would make it foolish to attack Hannibal, and quickly every player would do what it took Rome years to do: the Fabian strategy of not engaging Hannibal in open combat, but attacking where he wasn't (Spain, then Africa), which would result in totally a-historical events ("Hannibal crossed the Alps! Quick, get behind the walls and let's go invade Spain!").

In many ways, the Napoleonic era is similar, especially 1800-1806. I mean, in hindsight, its incredible to think that Prussia declared war in 1806 and tried to fight Napoleon by itself before Russian troops could arrive; only an idiot human player would do that. Hopefully, a human played Napoleon with a scripted AI will make it possible to have a challenging game that can proceed along (roughly) historical lines.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to the game, and want to thank the developers!



VegasOZ -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/22/2016 7:30:28 PM)

I just watched the tutorial on the battle system for this game and it looks like a fun system. I will now probably be buying this game when released.



stolypin -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/23/2016 3:02:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

I just watched the tutorial on the battle system for this game and it looks like a fun system. I will now probably be buying this game when released.


I watched the tutorial as well and I'm ready to jump in. It reminds me of Dan Verssen's solitaire boardgame, Field Commander Napoleon which I enjoyed playing 3 years ago.



bssybeep -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/26/2016 9:13:09 AM)

The tactical battles look like fun. One concern I have is it appears the opponent with the most numbers would more than likely win. Given this battle system, is it possible for a leader with a higher rating but lower number of troops have a chance against an opponent with a lower rating, but larger army?



Tamas -> RE: So this looks pretty good! Some questions... (2/29/2016 11:05:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bssybeep

The tactical battles look like fun. One concern I have is it appears the opponent with the most numbers would more than likely win. Given this battle system, is it possible for a leader with a higher rating but lower number of troops have a chance against an opponent with a lower rating, but larger army?


Yes, definitely. A big factor of course is the quality of the units. In the early years that favours the French but it is a diminshing advantage as other countries enact military reform (via card plays), as it happened historically.

Having a better general commanding your forces than the enemy is also a big help: between combat rounds, you can (attempt to) bring back previously routed units, at the cost of temporary reducing your general's rating.

The higher rating of your leader has over the enemy's, the more "legroom" you have to spend effort on rallying your routed units, thus compensating for the numerical disadvantage.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.90625