I would really appreciate more decisions during combat resolution. I'm not talking about tactical battles with hexes and such a la Crown of Glory, I'm more inclined towards a more Empire's In Arms-ish resolution, where you pick a style of attack or defense, select reinforcements, choose Guard comitment, that sort of thing.
It really really pains me to go through all this detailed construction and movement and organization and other minutia but when it comes to combat resolution all I can do is wait for the report. All that effort and then I get a screen that says my guys are all dead and running away and the reason why is that x units were out of command and y units opened fire at range z.
I know the rationale is that I am the strategic commander and the battle will be fought by the general commanding the troops, but then again I am given the ability to organize divisions, specifically by saying oh this brigade will go there and that supply unit needs to be attached there, and those are all decisions that the army commander would make, not me the mythical "strategic" guy. So on one hand I can make all kinds of decisions that would normally would be the domain of lesser commanders, but on the other hand I can't say outflank vs defend.
This is especially irritating just due to the nature of the fighting. It's not WW1 or WW2 where you go up and down the front and resolve a long series of 3-1 attacks or whatever. Instead it's a lot of maneuver and a lot of set up and a lot of effort to bring one big battle to bear, and I kind of feel like I have a little less control over that process than I should.
-
blackbellamy
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:18 pm
-
Jayavarman
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:31 pm
Ashbery76 wrote:So it's scenario based and will have no full grand campaign?
That seems to be the case, as there is no system in place to facilitate the diplomatic workings inbetween the campaigns.
However, since the game is being released in seperate "parts", perhaps it will be possible in the future.
"Sad fragility of human things! What riches and treasures of art will remain forever buried beneath these ruins; how many distinguished men - artists, sovereigns, and warriors - are now forgotten!"
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
Cette belle grande carte pourra ainsi abriter tous les théatres secondaires dont on ne parle pas souvent. Comme en 1805 le grand plan stratégique de la coalition contre la France avec des débarquements annexes Anglais et Russes en Italie et Hollande je crois. Là les joueurs pourront avoir une vision globale avec la menace d'intervention Prussienne si les choses tournent mal pour le joueur Français. Cela s'annonce passionnant.
-
Sol Invictus
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Kentucky
They have strongly hinted that a comprehensive game dealing with the entire Napoleonic War's is on their to do list. It will probably be a few years though until we see that.
I agree, I would also appreciate at least a little input into the tactical battles. Maybe if the battles were divided into a few rounds, with a tactical chit chosen for each round; like Avalon Hill's War and Peace; that would give us a an opportunity to influence the battle to some degree and achieve a better experience.
I agree, I would also appreciate at least a little input into the tactical battles. Maybe if the battles were divided into a few rounds, with a tactical chit chosen for each round; like Avalon Hill's War and Peace; that would give us a an opportunity to influence the battle to some degree and achieve a better experience.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
Florent wrote:Superbe!! C'est bien de commencer avec les campagnes individuelles. L'ordre de bataille est déjà fait et les points de victoire déterminés à l'avance. Une campagne entière de 1805 à 1815 doit être complexe à mettre en oeuvre.
Il y aura de quoi satisfaire tout le monde , entre des scénarios comme celui qui vit l'échec de la 3eme coalition (Boulogne-Ulm-Austerlitz) et celui , sorte de grande campagne sur plusieurs années, qui couvre la guerre d'Espagne par exemple. (peninsular war).
La mort est un mur, mourir est une brèche.
-
Sol Invictus
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Kentucky
I wouldn't worry Phil, everyone who frequents these forums, knows how attentive you guys are to the requests and opinions of your fans. I am sure that is why you have such a loyal following. AGEOD is without a doubt the best game developer that I have seen in over a decade of computer gaming.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
What I like most is the really clever & sopisticated evolution of your game line.
There is beauty behind it:
From war of Independance (basic game engine and small American map) to Civil War (expanded game engine and large American map) to NC (expanded game engine and large European map) to whatever European or even global conflict (hint! hint!)
Chapeaux!
There is beauty behind it:
From war of Independance (basic game engine and small American map) to Civil War (expanded game engine and large American map) to NC (expanded game engine and large European map) to whatever European or even global conflict (hint! hint!)
Chapeaux!
Don't you think that with this enourmous map and the resulting size of 'province' you will have difficulties to capture the essence of Napoleonic's operational warfare style (corps supporting each others, forced marches, line of supply, ...) ?
IMHO, I fear this scale is more adequate for a strategic game (i.e including diplomacy, ressource production and such).
In any case, keep the good work and thanks for your innovation and the 'gameplay' orientation of your game.
IMHO, I fear this scale is more adequate for a strategic game (i.e including diplomacy, ressource production and such).
In any case, keep the good work and thanks for your innovation and the 'gameplay' orientation of your game.
saintsup wrote:Don't you think that with this enourmous map and the resulting size of 'province' you will have difficulties to capture the essence of Napoleonic's operational warfare style (corps supporting each others, forced marches, line of supply, ...) ?
IMHO, I fear this scale is more adequate for a strategic game (i.e including diplomacy, ressource production and such).
In any case, keep the good work and thanks for your innovation and the 'gameplay' orientation of your game.
The regions are not much bigger than BOA. BOA is about 20 miles. Apparantly the Napoleonic map regions are only slightly larger.
You can see the regions in some areas of the portrayed Napoleonic map. So you should be able to calculate the size of regions if you look at an area you know.
I think we should still retain the feel of the grand tactical ops.
-
Sol Invictus
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Kentucky
For strengthenig the tactical element in battles I would like to see more rules of engagement (like "first arty barrage", "column attack", "attempt flanking" or what ever was used in Napoleonic warfare).
You could use little symbol buttons like in AACW (offensice, defensive etc.).
Concentrate these buttons in one place. (Not sure why the ambush option in AACW is hidden somewhere in a submenu).
Perhaps after turn resolution you could represent battles with a symbol on the map to click on for the details.
I'm not keen on player-interface interaction within the turn resolution (tactical rounds). Too tedious, esp. if/when turn resolution in the beginning is a bit slow.
But in the end that's a question about fundamental preferences: Should the game get a more tactical touch or a more strategic touch?
Personally I would opt for the latter: There are not half as many good strategic games out there then tactical games. And for the latter trend is realtime and/or 3d.
Ah, and for historical data I would recommend: Martin van Creveld: Supplying war. Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. (interesting data for the wargamer).
Regards
You could use little symbol buttons like in AACW (offensice, defensive etc.).
Concentrate these buttons in one place. (Not sure why the ambush option in AACW is hidden somewhere in a submenu).
Perhaps after turn resolution you could represent battles with a symbol on the map to click on for the details.
I'm not keen on player-interface interaction within the turn resolution (tactical rounds). Too tedious, esp. if/when turn resolution in the beginning is a bit slow.
But in the end that's a question about fundamental preferences: Should the game get a more tactical touch or a more strategic touch?
Personally I would opt for the latter: There are not half as many good strategic games out there then tactical games. And for the latter trend is realtime and/or 3d.
Ah, and for historical data I would recommend: Martin van Creveld: Supplying war. Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. (interesting data for the wargamer).
Regards
There will be one additional set of buttons under the Posture buttons. Depending of the posture (offensive or defensive) they will mean a slightly different meaning.
I'll let you ponder what can be their roles
I'll let you ponder what can be their roles
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
wosung wrote:Ah, and for historical data I would recommend: Martin van Creveld: Supplying war. Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. (interesting data for the wargamer).
Regards
That is already outdated, check the discussion in "Feeding Mars: Logistics in Warfare from the Middle Ages to the Present" edited by John A. Lynn
aryaman wrote:That is already outdated, check the discussion in "Feeding Mars: Logistics in Warfare from the Middle Ages to the Present" edited by John A. Lynn
Thanks for the title!
I didn't read it but checked the content:
Apparently the papers in "Feeding Mars" thematically were built around the Creveld book. To avoid doublettes?!
Louis XIV instead of Napoleon
American Civil War instead of Franco-Prussian War and Western Front 1914
US Army Trucks instead of Russo-German Front and D-Day in WW2.
Regards
"Feeding Mars" is a collective work, so with it goes the pros and cons about such books. I find it a bit tiresome that the central theme of the editor (i.e. John Lynn, the guys who put all these papers together) is a criticism of Creveld. True, Creveld books was biaised towards its central theme (that supply problems have been underestimated for years in the analysis of the success or failures of the most famous campaign) and contains several shortcuts in the argument (or the numbers) which have been explored since. But still, it is a much stronger reading than "Feeding Mars".
As you pointed out, they choose to poke at Creveld's work by choosing campaigns absolutely not related to the ones Creveld's study. A bit like comparing apples and oranges, really (although it helps being aware that Creveld didn't choose the campaigns he studied arbitrarily: He choosed the ones which suited best his thesis).
Also the quality of the articles in "Feeding Mars" varies greatly, from the very interesting to the atrociously uninformative and boring (the one about Byzantium supply system contains absolutely nothing, apart the fact nobody understands how the Byzantium supply system was supposed to work).
Cat
As you pointed out, they choose to poke at Creveld's work by choosing campaigns absolutely not related to the ones Creveld's study. A bit like comparing apples and oranges, really (although it helps being aware that Creveld didn't choose the campaigns he studied arbitrarily: He choosed the ones which suited best his thesis).
Also the quality of the articles in "Feeding Mars" varies greatly, from the very interesting to the atrociously uninformative and boring (the one about Byzantium supply system contains absolutely nothing, apart the fact nobody understands how the Byzantium supply system was supposed to work).
Cat
PhilThib wrote:Warning !!
There will be some description of the game's content in the coming weeks here (we have to tease you a bit!!)...but something you have to know is that the game covers "Campaigns"....it will handle each 'war' in a separate way, à la BOA, with almost no diplomacy except by events...
In essence, due to various obligations we have (and development constraints), the game will be more operationnal than grand-strategic, so forget (for the time being) diplomacy, constructions, technology or whatever else you could be dreaming on...not nowleure:
The full Napoleonic game with everything in it will come in a second step, once we have developed the key (and original) points of the diplomatic engine (among other things)...and with much more content too
Is a grand strategic Napoleonic game considered to be the next project after the operational Napoleonic game?
Cat Lord wrote:BTW, it would be nice if we could have a few Napoleonic theme smileys, now !
Cat
We already have this:
Nappy riding his horse "Marengo"
Murat with his newly designed hat, full of plumes and feathers
A grognard at camp during the 1812 Russian campaign
... you only need some imagination...
By the way... i know i´m gonna love this game!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Return to “Napoleon's Campaigns”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests