Great I love the addition of the "pause-it" thanks, I am eagerly eating up info on this game!!
-
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.
- Status
I agree with an earlier poster on this thread, I hate-hate-HATED the AGE engine. Tried to play Frederick and Pride of Nations and the terrible performance was an instant turn-off. Unlike some of the others, I feel Clausewitz allows for much more customization of the art and interface, whilst allowing for easy changes down the line. Big improvement. Turn-based has its niceties as well, but real-time pause is superior.
In regards to what someone said about unit-movement, I'm almost 100% sure the programmers can throw in a few paragraphs of code and suddenly units don't instantly appear back in their province if they cancel movement. The user mods out for Clausewitz are incredible. This is good, really good.
In regards to what someone said about unit-movement, I'm almost 100% sure the programmers can throw in a few paragraphs of code and suddenly units don't instantly appear back in their province if they cancel movement. The user mods out for Clausewitz are incredible. This is good, really good.
What were the performance issues you had with RoP (I assume that's what you mean with Frederick)? This is the first time I hear anything about performance issues in that or any other of the earlier Age games. PoN is another issue entirely...
I'm glad that AGEOD's future games will take advantage of a tried and true game engine. 
I will miss the beautiful look of AGEODs old style maps though. Napoleon's campaigns looked stunning in my opinion.
Hopefully AGEOD will be able to personalize the map to look more like this.
I will miss the beautiful look of AGEODs old style maps though. Napoleon's campaigns looked stunning in my opinion.
Hopefully AGEOD will be able to personalize the map to look more like this.
After thinking, i am surprised to see that Paradox thinks it can fully developp only a single game engine. I understand that "Paradox France" (AGEOD) cannot do it alone anymore but isn't the purpose to work together to increase the capacities? Why don't Paradox try to keep both engines on the top (one real-time and one turn-based)? There's a lot of synergies potential here (oh, it's the performance auditor talking again).
Having HOI style command chain indicators on the map will be worth the price alone. Trying to organise your corps and armies in NC1 was very frustrating.
I can see the logic with this, not least I think PoN pointed up the main issues with the AGEOD engine when it tried to simulate the events around a campaign. To me the AGEOD system shines when it took a detailed look at the campaign level (or a self-contained war like the European aspects of the Seven Years War). Now some of that was the game engine (order and watch, rather than be able to intervene - to me is a great way to emulate pre-modern communication problems), some of that was the personalised detail that AGEOD contained.
Having said that, I've come to really like both models. In truth if this is to be a EU3 trimmed and focussed to the 1805-1815 timeframe then I think this is a good choice. But I like the idea of a European based game on the Revolutionary & Napoleonic wars that is a focus on the main campaign events. They were mostly discrete with pauses etc. And for that, I'd have liked to have seen the conventional AGEOD game engine, but then one enduring complaint about NCP1 was that it was just the campaign scenarios.
Having said that, I've come to really like both models. In truth if this is to be a EU3 trimmed and focussed to the 1805-1815 timeframe then I think this is a good choice. But I like the idea of a European based game on the Revolutionary & Napoleonic wars that is a focus on the main campaign events. They were mostly discrete with pauses etc. And for that, I'd have liked to have seen the conventional AGEOD game engine, but then one enduring complaint about NCP1 was that it was just the campaign scenarios.
I can understand that you find the waiting times on PON "terrible" for your taste... but on ROP too?.. I have never heard that, really.
Maybe you just don't like TBS games?... that's not a bad thing, but don't blame ROP for that...
That's my personal opinion too... I always thought it was the BEST looking map for a 2d "board-style map".
But this is something different... we have a full 3D map now... with all the benefits from the change.
I think you make a lot of assumptions...
What kind of assumptions? I know that there will be a new Athena game but it won't be done by the "official" teams if this is what you mean (and obviously i look forward to it).
By looking at your posts, I guess you do not care... so, what's the problem?
If other people want to buy an AGE game and NCP2 too (or not)... it is their choice...
In here we are talking about NCP2... so, let's talk about that, not about "futurology"...
This is a project made in conjunction by Paradox France and Paradox Sweden staff... and we are all working on this right now.
What are we going to do next?... which engine will be used for the next project after this?... I do not know ... but people already talk about it, if it is going to be on AGE or on Clausewitz... if the AGE engine is dead... if this or that... :blink:
Really, let's concentrate on what we have here... a new Napoleon's game.
Who knows, maybe the mayans are right, and we do not need to worry about a new game after 2012... :rofl: :rofl:
Well, if they are right (lol), at least we'll end the year on an awesome note with NCP2
Well actually, you make a lot of assumptions on what the Mayans meant with their calendar
Interesting thoughts in this article.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/20/the-flare-path-moscow-or-bust/
So, there will be another Athena engine game apparently.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/20/the-flare-path-moscow-or-bust/
So, there will be another Athena engine game apparently.
Thus far my concern is not that this is a real-time game. Even as an avid Paradox gamer I like both real-time and turn-based strategy games - they both have their merits. No, what I see as a potential risk with this game is it being too short. If you have 10 years in a Clausewitz game with day-to-day progression, you need to pause a heck of a lot of times to get near normal playing times in games which have a larger timespan. If hours where added as in HoI3 the duration might not be an issue at all and it might make for more plausible results too.
I, too, like the idea of including the concept of hours in the progression of time.
If it can add longevity to HoI3's six years (I believe), it should work exceptionally well with ten (or so) years.
Would hours be the best time division for a Napoleonic game? Perhaps something like four hour blocks might be a better balance? I'd certainly like to see more detail than days, but if there are any processing power issues it wouldn't need to be quite as fluid as HoI.
- Status