First Impressions?

[Forezjohn]

500 hours...thats nothing for you guys . Seriously that would make us all happy, IF it can be done...PLEASE...PLEASE...

Yep' 3 weeks of work for two people. Sleeping is a waste of time anyway...

[Sol Invictus]

Sounds like a plan Pocus. Hop to it.

[Reiryc]

The engine is not ready. But suppose we find clever work-arounds, like a GC where you play France against the British, and the others nations activate according to some elaborated events (and join one or the other side)... Then it 'just' remains something like 500 hours of work to add the data, script the events and then check everything.

Precisely what I suggest in the campaign thread...

I'd love this as an interim option until napoleon's campaigns 2 that contains a great diplomatic/economic module from von.

[kev9000]

A classic!!!

[Le Tondu]

My first impression is taken over with a profound and overwhelming sense of gratitude. I have been waiting for more than I care to remember for a good Napoleonic game to make its appearance.

AACW was great. Napoleon's Campaigns is terrific.

Thank you AGEod. Thank you VERY much.

[Amaury]

I eagerly bought the game on the 16 Nov, and I am very disappointed.

Generally speaking I have no clue what's happening to my troops, why I win or lose battles (sometimes with "interesting odds").

It took me ages to create corps or recreate them once they're all gathered as a mass - like if you click on the star of the corps you can move the unit to that corps. If you drag it on the corps tag it doesn't work!!!! You have to move the corps commander to then bring units to him!! Surely there must be easier ways to organize your troops.

I'm lost in the manual. I spent hours trying to understand this organisation issues. It doesn't help. Some of you guys may have played their previous games and are more at ease with the GUI, personally it's a real headache.

the map is cool but not very clear. it's hard to see where your units go in terms of zones.

the icons on the generals need changing or removing altogether. some of the generals don't even have a face..

i had technical issues in the installation as I explain in the technical thread.

I'm used to napoleonic wargames and this game looked very appealing but right now i'm seriously p** off as you can guess from my post. I thnik I will "work" on it to understand it further, but first approach is very disappointing and unsettling.

Sorry to say all this as you have worked hours on your game..

[Ashbery76]

Sounds like you didn't play the tutorial.

[Sol Invictus]

It can be a bit overwhelming if you are not familiar with the engine, but once everything clicks, it is not difficult at all. Stick with it, re-read the manual, play the tutorials again, and it will eventually come together. The game is well worth the effort.

[dinsdale]

Generally speaking I have no clue what's happening to my troops, why I win or lose battles (sometimes with "interesting odds").

That can definately be cryptic. One of the most important factors is to avoid command penalties.

I'm lost in the manual. I spent hours trying to understand this organisation issues. It doesn't help. Some of you guys may have played their previous games and are more at ease with the GUI, personally it's a real headache.

Try the Austerklitz or Jena scenarios as France, the army should pretty much be organized. All you need to understand from army command is when corps will move with the army.

If you get used to the other mechanics and ignore command for now, it should help assimilate the game.

I'm used to napoleonic wargames and this game looked very appealing but right now i'm seriously p** off as you can guess from my post. I thnik I will "work" on it to understand it further, but first approach is very disappointing and unsettling.

I would definatelty advise trying it a little more. There are things which take some getting used to, and trying to get everything at once might be tough. For those of us who have been gradually introduced to the rules through the previous games, it's fairly intuitive, though I have been getting a lot more "how did that happen" moments than the previous two.

[tevans6220]

As with all other AGEOD games, I find this game very enjoyable. My only problem is that I'm not really well versed in Napoleonic history and so some of the battle results I'm getting seem a little illogical. In one battle I caused over 30k Coalition casualties at the expense of less than 500 French troops (1805 campaign). Was Napoleon and the French really that good or do the battle results need to be tweaked? Since I'm not familiar with the history I don't really know. I've never got results like that in BOA or ACW so it was a little suprising. Could someone recommend a good book on the Napoleonic era? I feel as lost here as some of you Europeans did with the ACW. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Reiryc]

As with all other AGEOD games, I find this game very enjoyable. My only problem is that I'm not really well versed in Napoleonic history and so some of the battle results I'm getting seem a little illogical. In one battle I caused over 30k Coalition casualties at the expense of less than 500 French troops (1805 campaign). Was Napoleon and the French really that good or do the battle results need to be tweaked? Since I'm not familiar with the history I don't really know. I've never got results like that in BOA or ACW so it was a little suprising. Could someone recommend a good book on the Napoleonic era? I feel as lost here as some of you Europeans did with the ACW. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Probably the best single volume on napoleons campaigns would be The Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler.

http://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-Napoleon-David-G-Chandler/dp/0025236601/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195336280&sr=8-1

[Le Tondu]

I eagerly bought the game on the 16 Nov, and I am very disappointed.

Generally speaking I have no clue what's happening to my troops, why I win or lose battles (sometimes with "interesting odds").

It took me ages to create corps or recreate them once they're all gathered as a mass - like if you click on the star of the corps you can move the unit to that corps. If you drag it on the corps tag it doesn't work!!!! You have to move the corps commander to then bring units to him!! Surely there must be easier ways to organize your troops.

I'm lost in the manual. I spent hours trying to understand this organisation issues. It doesn't help. Some of you guys may have played their previous games and are more at ease with the GUI, personally it's a real headache.

the map is cool but not very clear. it's hard to see where your units go in terms of zones.

the icons on the generals need changing or removing altogether. some of the generals don't even have a face..

i had technical issues in the installation as I explain in the technical thread.

I'm used to napoleonic wargames and this game looked very appealing but right now i'm seriously p** off as you can guess from my post. I thnik I will "work" on it to understand it further, but first approach is very disappointing and unsettling.

Sorry to say all this as you have worked hours on your game..

Napoleon's Campaigns is not like any other Napoleonic game. There is a learning curve involved. Its not because it is hard to learn, but because it is different. That's all.

Please try the tutorials and just keep at it. Don't give up. Before long, it will all fall into place and your comments above will be a barely remembered memory.

[FatalMad]

As with all other AGEOD games, I find this game very enjoyable. My only problem is that I'm not really well versed in Napoleonic history and so some of the battle results I'm getting seem a little illogical. In one battle I caused over 30k Coalition casualties at the expense of less than 500 French troops (1805 campaign). Was Napoleon and the French really that good or do the battle results need to be tweaked?

Most of the Austrians troops should have surrender at Ulm and not be destroyed. In my 1805 campaign playing as the Austrians, the French did an all out attack on Ulm causing 50k casualties on the Austrians for a loss of 2k on the French. Now this is not far from what happen in history, except that in history most of the Austrians surrender at Ulm, in the game they are destroyed. Nevertheless, the results are the same. It would nice thou if they did show up surrendering.

[Adam the VIth]

Yep' 3 weeks of work for two people. Sleeping is a waste of time anyway...

Yeah Pocus -- sleep is overrated like Forezjohn noted!

Seriously, it is a challenge to come up with an approach -- they were called the Napoleonic WARS for a reason -- there were numerous and not really linked except by the French and British (hence the choice of the two playable nations).

"Activating nations" is not a bad idea -- earning diplomatic points based upon how many capital, or large cities you control, points are gained almost like money, or any resource -- then like the military options you get, you can have options to influence neutral powers. (I guess you could just use money as the resource required for influencing....that way you don't need to create another resource -- just another tab in the ledger, that way it fits the interface).

The default settings for Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden should be pro-British, those for Denmark, Italy, Bavaria, should be pro-french. Minor German states neutral, can go either way. I guess Holland, Naples, Spain all depend upon when the campaign starts I guess. By 1805, all three of those were in France's corner (or, were cornered into France's corner!).

Another quick thought -- in a long campaign, a military option to "form new division/unit" should come up when you have too many replacements. I always hated playing the French in BOA and having so many replacements, but could not get them onto the battlefield to replace completely destroyed regiments.

I'll sleep on the idea....oh jeez, never mind -- I'll ponder it with my eyes open....

...in all seriousness -- I'd be happy to conceptualize as much of this as you need help with -- unfortunately, that's all I can do, but hey, I don't want to be listed as totally useless.

[saintsup]

Another quick thought -- in a long campaign, a military option to "form new division/unit" should come up when you have too many replacements. I always hated playing the French in BOA and having so many replacements, but could not get them onto the battlefield to replace completely destroyed regiments.

A good point here ... for BOA gold ...

[Hell Patrol]

Probably the best single volume on napoleons campaigns would be The Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler.

http://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-Napoleon-David-G-Chandler/dp/0025236601/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195336280&sr=8-1

Great choice, also "The War of Wars" by Robert Harvey...puts everything into perspective during that time period

[Marcelo]

Very good entertainment so far. Won the Austerlitz Campaign as the French, and will now try the Peninsular War as the Spanish/Brits. Guess it won´t be easy.

I did notice some important campaigns missing, i.e. Italy and Egypt in the 1790s, and Austria (1800) although I guess these could be added via a patch later if required. Starting with the 3rd coalition I think they are all here. Good work. Marcelo

[DennyWright]

I have a slight problem with the portrait of Marechal Soult - he looks just like Rodney Trotter (Nicholas Lyndhurst) from BBC's Only Fools and Horses.

It is such a good likeness that I keep mentally referring to Soult as Rodney.

[Adlertag]

I have a slight problem with the portrait of Marechal Soult - he looks just like Rodney Trotter (Nicholas Lyndhurst) from BBC's Only Fools and Horses.

It is such a good likeness that I keep mentally referring to Soult as Rodney.

Do you prefer this one ?

[DennyWright]

Definitely. Now THAT's Soult!

[Quitch]

First impressions are... a little negative. The art style, though similar to the previous games, just feels like a bit of a step back. Can't really put my finger on it, though there are some obvious points, such as blue command icons on blue French commanders being nigh on impossible to see. BoA was, to my eyes, absolutely gorgeous. I don't get that feeling here. The change to the base of the counters is part of it, but also the leader portraits look a little odd, and the terrain seems too green and bland.

This brings me neatly to my second point, the lack of improvement in the interface. Even in BoA it was clunky, and very little has changed. Why am I still battling tiny, non-scaling text? Why can I not mouse over abilities on a commander counter? Where are my control and loyalty ON MAP toggles (and I'm talking numbers, not colours)? Why do I click through check boxes in the options? etc. etc.

I suspect this is going to be a hit with fans of the period, but each new game feels like a baby-step over the last.

I'll give it a bit longer, since I'm a fan of BoA, but I'm disappointed to see so little has changed in the areas where change is so desperately needed.

[saintsup]

BoA was, to my eyes, absolutely gorgeous. I don't get that feeling here. The change to the base of the counters is part of it, but also the leader portraits look a little odd, and the terrain seems too green and bland.

As much as I love the two AGEOD's previous games, I'm sorry to feel the same way ... as first impression. Hopefully, I will get used to it and start to apreciate the gameplay.

[Le Ricain]

Definitely. Now THAT's Soult!

Rodney Trotter



Marechal Soult

For non-British members, it will be impossible to understand who the character Rodney Trotter is. There is a supeficial resemblance between the two.

[DennyWright]

It would be better to have included the portrait used in the game - which looks far more like the former than the latter.

[Clovis]

First impressions are... a little negative. The art style, though similar to the previous games, just feels like a bit of a step back. Can't really put my finger on it, though there are some obvious points, such as blue command icons on blue French commanders being nigh on impossible to see. BoA was, to my eyes, absolutely gorgeous. I don't get that feeling here. The change to the base of the counters is part of it, but also the leader portraits look a little odd, and the terrain seems too green and bland.

This brings me neatly to my second point, the lack of improvement in the interface. Even in BoA it was clunky, and very little has changed. Why am I still battling tiny, non-scaling text? Why can I not mouse over abilities on a commander counter? Where are my control and loyalty ON MAP toggles (and I'm talking numbers, not colours)? Why do I click through check boxes in the options? etc. etc.

I suspect this is going to be a hit with fans of the period, but each new game feels like a baby-step over the last.

I'll give it a bit longer, since I'm a fan of BoA, but I'm disappointed to see so little has changed in the areas where change is so desperately needed.

AACW has not yet all the leader portraits. NCP has almost all.

I suspect interface being yet much more user-friendly than for other games ( and especially wargames) development choices have prioritized AI and new features.

Your remarks are valid but I would point out they remain details and we can't ask for the very small AGEOD crew to do all at once. Once again Ageod interface is as it is one of the best for wargame at disposal now ( Guns of August anyone).

Graphically, there some real improvment to do, yes ( There's too much green on this map). I'm sure this european map will be used in some of the next games and it should be improved too.

[archita]

I wish a full napoleonic champaign from 1804...

American Civil War has the full champagn !!!

Why NPC not?

I hope a next full champaign

great game!!!!

[Clovis]

I wish a full napoleonic champaign from 1804...

American Civil War has the full champagn !!!

Why NPC not?

I hope a next full champaign

great game!!!!

Because the diplomatic module ( with an AI able to use it) is yet to be done in 2008.

[DennyWright]

And because ACW didn't need a diplomatic module. This would need a massive one to simulate the politics of the time.

[pablius]

I´ve been playing the game for a few days, most scenarios, not the longest one though, this are my first impressions:

The game "feels" great, the looks, the map, it´s fantastic, it reminds me of the level of detail and beauty of Talonsoft´s Battleground series, something rarely seen in wargames...The music selection is great too but I wish higher quality tracks would have been used, it sounds more like radio than cd quality, maybe it´s just me, maybe it would have made the file much bigger for no good reason.

Regarding the gameplay, conducting the campaign is similar to AACW wich is great, but I do miss some things. I understand there was no single conflict and that engine can´t handle diplomacy as of now, but given the lenght of the scenarios you can´t really manage the organization of your army without sacrificing too much turns.

The bottom line is that, although the "create your own army" part is understandable out of the game, the "organize your own army" side is almost out too, wich cuts part of the gameplay the made AACW so fun.

Still it is a great game, I´m sure I´ll keep playing it, and if I feel the need for a somewhat deeper/different experience...I just switch to AACW!

And I´m already looking foward for the next one!

[archita]

the diplomatic module will be used for NPC 1 or a new NPC 2?

it's possible patch for NPC 1 ?

when 2008? spring or summer?