-
Erik Springelkamp
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
- Location: Groningen, NL
This is excellent news. Plus it explains Pocus somewhat cryptic response when I mentioned CP2 a couple of weeks ago.
Let's give the AgeOD team some time to properly present the game before bombarding them with suggestions that they may have already taken into account.
One things that does worry me is the length of turns. I understand that during the Napoleonic era simulating 7 day turns may better represent movement of armies, however, this would turn the full length GC into a monster as big as PON. ROP has nice two-week turns and from my experience it works rather well.
Furthermore, while I don't know if the calculations will be more or less extensive, you really do need to create an engine that is capable of using multiple CPU cores, especially if PON and EAW are anything to go by, otherwise turn times will remain the biggest complaint your games will receive.
Let's give the AgeOD team some time to properly present the game before bombarding them with suggestions that they may have already taken into account.
One things that does worry me is the length of turns. I understand that during the Napoleonic era simulating 7 day turns may better represent movement of armies, however, this would turn the full length GC into a monster as big as PON. ROP has nice two-week turns and from my experience it works rather well.
Furthermore, while I don't know if the calculations will be more or less extensive, you really do need to create an engine that is capable of using multiple CPU cores, especially if PON and EAW are anything to go by, otherwise turn times will remain the biggest complaint your games will receive.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
One things that does worry me is the length of turns. I understand that during the Napoleonic era simulating 7 day turns may better represent movement of armies, however, this would turn the full length GC into a monster as big as PON. ROP has nice two-week turns and from my experience it works rather well.
You could make campaign scenarios with 7 day turns and multi-year scenarios with 15 day turns. Although you almost need two sets of models for the different timeframes. I converted a 15 day RUS scenario into a 7 day scenario and model cohesion loss, cohesion recovery and movement rates had to be adjusted to reflect the different turn time lengths. But it can be done and works nicely. Personally I really like the 7 day turns but it just isn't really feasible for multi-year timeframes. Way too many turns.
-
ajarnlance
- General of the Army
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm
Jagger2013 wrote:You could make campaign scenarios with 7 day turns and multi-year scenarios with 15 day turns. Although you almost need two sets of models for the different timeframes. I converted a 15 day RUS scenario into a 7 day scenario and model cohesion loss, cohesion recovery and movement rates had to be adjusted to reflect the different turn time lengths. But it can be done and works nicely. Personally I really like the 7 day turns but it just isn't really feasible for multi-year timeframes. Way too many turns.
I think 15 day turns are the way to go. After all, how fast can cavalry move.. I mean there were no steam trains for Napoleon to ride on! CW2 and EAW both have 15-day turns and multi-year campaigns.. surely this can work for NCP2 ??
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union... and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
ajarnlance wrote:I think 15 day turns are the way to go. After all, how fast can cavalry move.. I mean there were no steam trains for Napoleon to ride on! CW2 and EAW both have 15-day turns and multi-year campaigns.. surely this can work for NCP2 ??
disagree big time. Napoleon was able to move a lot faster relatively to the battlefield than ACW armies : The european battlefield was a lot more crammed, denser, with better roads. 15 days turn would mean that a Waterloo campaign would technically be 2 Turns long !
This is where Grand Campaign and a good operational game will be very hard to reconcile. I know that for me the choice would be easy, I'd rather have the latter than the former. I want NCP2 to be ROP on steroids (aka sameish scale but 1 week turn to emulate faster movement), not some EIA / March of the Eagles sandbox big thing.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
I think 15 day turns are the way to go. After all, how fast can cavalry move.. I mean there were no steam trains for Napoleon to ride on! CW2 and EAW both have 15-day turns and multi-year campaigns.. surely this can work for NCP2 ??
A lot depends on the size of the regions. For example, many of the western regions in the CW2 are so large than it makes 7 day turns impractical-unless you are happy to see infantry moving 1 region a turn. So IMO, making a short campaign with 7 day turns probably wouldn't work out well for a short Western Theater Mod but 15 day turns works out nicely. However in the CW2 east, with the much smaller regions, 7 or 8 or 10 day turns might work out very well.
Basically a lot depends on whether a region represents 20 square miles, 100 square miles or whatever. And then relating those distances with marching speeds. IMO, if you can't justify a minimum infantry marching speed in good weather, clear terrain of 3 regions a turn within a particular timeframe, a scenario won't play out very well.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
And you can have the reverse. Say you have regions which average 10 square miles. With a 15 day turn, a marching infantry unit can cover 30 regions a turn. Since the turns are simultaneous execution, the defender can't possibly react to the attackers moves. So the time frame should match the average region size and allow for each player to react to opponents moves. IMO, 3 regions a turn for marching infantry in good weather and good terrain works out pretty well for allowing reaction in a simultaneous movement game like AGEOD.
Of course, you have to look at the whole picture. For example, an Africa Corps game with sparse unit density, large distances and limited movement routes, might work nicely with 15 day turns regardless of moving far more than 3 regions a turn. Exceptions to general rules are always out there.
Of course, you have to look at the whole picture. For example, an Africa Corps game with sparse unit density, large distances and limited movement routes, might work nicely with 15 day turns regardless of moving far more than 3 regions a turn. Exceptions to general rules are always out there.
If turns are 15 days long the game becomes a grand strategic game à la EIA, ie, most of the operational campaigning (corps marching, fanning, concentrating, etc...) would become abstracted and basically it would become a game of diplomacy / recruiting / and big stack pushing.
7 days turns + ROP size provinces are the way to go if you want to have fun campaigns : then you can emulate movement, you can emulate the troop movement problems faced at the time : big armies staying together move slower because of traffic jams, need more impedimenta because they can't forage, etc, whereas Napoleonic corps can move faster along parallel roads, need less supplies because they forage, etc... allowing them to cover more ground during the campaign until they concentrate at the very end for the battle.
I like EIA and such games, but this is not what I hope for in a good NCP2. I hope they don't get too carried away in the diplomatic / grand campaign / recruiting thingie and forget that the key for success will be operational. Just fit in EAW's diplomatic engine (somewhat simplified), make a simple recruiting module where the key isn't to stack up more and more troops, but to cleverly manage succession of campaigning season and rest (via the cadres / disband feature and upkeep cost for troops), and focus on the operational game with 7 days turn and ROP size provinces (even if it means not covering parts of europe like southern balkans, or even all the south and east mediterranean). That would be my blue print.
7 days turns + ROP size provinces are the way to go if you want to have fun campaigns : then you can emulate movement, you can emulate the troop movement problems faced at the time : big armies staying together move slower because of traffic jams, need more impedimenta because they can't forage, etc, whereas Napoleonic corps can move faster along parallel roads, need less supplies because they forage, etc... allowing them to cover more ground during the campaign until they concentrate at the very end for the battle.
I like EIA and such games, but this is not what I hope for in a good NCP2. I hope they don't get too carried away in the diplomatic / grand campaign / recruiting thingie and forget that the key for success will be operational. Just fit in EAW's diplomatic engine (somewhat simplified), make a simple recruiting module where the key isn't to stack up more and more troops, but to cleverly manage succession of campaigning season and rest (via the cadres / disband feature and upkeep cost for troops), and focus on the operational game with 7 days turn and ROP size provinces (even if it means not covering parts of europe like southern balkans, or even all the south and east mediterranean). That would be my blue print.
-
MarshalJean
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm
veji1 wrote:If turns are 15 days long the game becomes a grand strategic game à la EIA, ie, most of the operational campaigning (corps marching, fanning, concentrating, etc...) would become abstracted and basically it would become a game of diplomacy / recruiting / and big stack pushing.
7 days turns + ROP size provinces are the way to go if you want to have fun campaigns : then you can emulate movement, you can emulate the troop movement problems faced at the time : big armies staying together move slower because of traffic jams, need more impedimenta because they can't forage, etc, whereas Napoleonic corps can move faster along parallel roads, need less supplies because they forage, etc... allowing them to cover more ground during the campaign until they concentrate at the very end for the battle.
I like EIA and such games, but this is not what I hope for in a good NCP2. I hope they don't get too carried away in the diplomatic / grand campaign / recruiting thingie and forget that the key for success will be operational. Just fit in EAW's diplomatic engine (somewhat simplified), make a simple recruiting module where the key isn't to stack up more and more troops, but to cleverly manage succession of campaigning season and rest (via the cadres / disband feature and upkeep cost for troops), and focus on the operational game with 7 days turn and ROP size provinces (even if it means not covering parts of europe like southern balkans, or even all the south and east mediterranean). That would be my blue print.
I respectfully disagree with Veji1. In my view, what he wants is already essentially there in the first NCP. I think it should be clear to the Devs that the community doesn't want just a better NCP. Rather, the community has generally voiced a strong opinion in favor of a good Napoleonic Grand Campaign. I think it is very possible to have this, with realistic movement, supply, and combat with space-time issues sorted out. Even if it means very long campaigns, with a lot of turns, the success of PoN has proven that the community is fine with this. A lot of turns has not been the problem with PoN, but rather longer processing time...which, to be fair, has diminished considerably with the many patches. I know the two issues are somewhat linked, but I think the Napoleonic AGEOD community will be disappointed if NCP2 is basically an updated ROP or NCP. We have these games already. What we don't have is an AGEOD Napoleonic Grand Campaign, with a decent diplomatic and recruitment side to an era known for both of these factors, as much as battlefield dynamics.
Thanks!
MJ
-
ajarnlance
- General of the Army
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm
MarshalJean wrote:I respectfully disagree with Veji1. In my view, what he wants is already essentially there in the first NCP. I think it should be clear to the Devs that the community doesn't want just a better NCP. Rather, the community has generally voiced a strong opinion in favor of a good Napoleonic Grand Campaign. I think it is very possible to have this, with realistic movement, supply, and combat with space-time issues sorted out. Even if it means very long campaigns, with a lot of turns, the success of PoN has proven that the community is fine with this. A lot of turns has not been the problem with PoN, but rather longer processing time...which, to be fair, has diminished considerably with the many patches. I know the two issues are somewhat linked, but I think the Napoleonic AGEOD community will be disappointed if NCP2 is basically an updated ROP or NCP. We have these games already. What we don't have is an AGEOD Napoleonic Grand Campaign, with a decent diplomatic and recruitment side to an era known for both of these factors, as much as battlefield dynamics.
Thanks!
MJ
+1. Totally agree... the Grand Campaign is a must. It's all about setting your actions in a wider more meaningful context. I don't care if I win my campaign on the Danube if the game stops there. I want to conquer Europe!! I want to know if Napoleon can win the war... not just the battles. Lots of turns are fine with me... and I don't see why 15-day turns won't work... I think Stonewall Jackson's 'Foot cavalry' could have given Napoleon a few headaches....
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union... and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
MarshalJean wrote:I respectfully disagree with Veji1. In my view, what he wants is already essentially there in the first NCP. I think it should be clear to the Devs that the community doesn't want just a better NCP. Rather, the community has generally voiced a strong opinion in favor of a good Napoleonic Grand Campaign. I think it is very possible to have this, with realistic movement, supply, and combat with space-time issues sorted out. Even if it means very long campaigns, with a lot of turns, the success of PoN has proven that the community is fine with this. A lot of turns has not been the problem with PoN, but rather longer processing time...which, to be fair, has diminished considerably with the many patches. I know the two issues are somewhat linked, but I think the Napoleonic AGEOD community will be disappointed if NCP2 is basically an updated ROP or NCP. We have these games already. What we don't have is an AGEOD Napoleonic Grand Campaign, with a decent diplomatic and recruitment side to an era known for both of these factors, as much as battlefield dynamics.
Thanks!
MJ
To each his own. My issue is that NCP was broken because its scale (in terms of space and time) couldn't work in a Napoleonic setting : It needed smaller provinces + 7 days turns. Because of the scale issue + the Hyper Napoleon and french leaders effect, the game would snowball into a french deathstar in all campaigns except Russia and Waterloo. What I want is an operational wargame that works, just like AACW. If I can have a grand campaign, great. But a grand campaign won"t make it a great game if the wargame aspect of it remains too imprecise. Doing diplomacy to get the kingdom of Naples to join you and recruiting the 222nd "régiment d'infantrie de ligne" in Angers is all fine and dandy, but if when you end up just walking your 250 000 men Grande Armee straight through the 5 provinces that separate Strasbourg from Wien to wack that Austrian stack... well no thanks, I have EiA for this already.
Let's see what stew is cooking. I am pretty confident there is room to concile those two goals, this is what they had managed to do in AACW.
-
ajarnlance
- General of the Army
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm
veji1 wrote:To each his own. My issue is that NCP was broken because its scale (in terms of space and time) couldn't work in a Napoleonic setting : It needed smaller provinces + 7 days turns. Because of the scale issue + the Hyper Napoleon and french leaders effect, the game would snowball into a french deathstar in all campaigns except Russia and Waterloo. What I want is an operational wargame that works, just like AACW. If I can have a grand campaign, great. But a grand campaign won"t make it a great game if the wargame aspect of it remains too imprecise. Doing diplomacy to get the kingdom of Naples to join you and recruiting the 222nd "régiment d'infantrie de ligne" in Angers is all fine and dandy, but if when you end up just walking your 250 000 men Grande Armee straight through the 5 provinces that separate Strasbourg from Wien to wack that Austrian stack... well no thanks, I have EiA for this already.
Let's see what stew is cooking. I am pretty confident there is room to concile those two goals, this is what they had managed to do in AACW.
Yes, it will be a delicate balancing act to remain true to both the strategic and operational games. I feel like they have done this in CW2 amd EAW. Some sacrifices inevitably have to made though.. for example it is impossible to recreate Jackson's valley campaigns on the scale of the map in CW2.. but I think the fun and challenge of fighting the whole war outweigh the few drawbacks. Game mechanics can be put in place to discourage the stack of doom tendency that we have all seen in NCP.. one of them is this new traffic rule... another could be to make supply more difficult when the number of troops to feed gets too big. I can't wait to play an entire campaign in NCP2... to see if Napoleon can achieve total European domination and hold on to it... there will also be potential to model the other important diplomatic and economic aspects of the game as they have done in CW2 and EAW. It's gonna be awesome.... especially in PBEM multi-player... and if they can allow separate order files to be generated for each of the five main nations... wow!
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union... and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
-
beuckelssen
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:16 pm
- Location: Galicia caníbal
veji1 wrote: What I want is an operational wargame that works, just like AACW. If I can have a grand campaign, great. But a grand campaign won"t make it a great game if the wargame aspect of it remains too imprecise. Doing diplomacy to get the kingdom of Naples to join you and recruiting the 222nd "régiment d'infantrie de ligne" in Angers is all fine and dandy, but if when you end up just walking your 250 000 men Grande Armee straight through the 5 provinces that separate Strasbourg from Wien to wack that Austrian stack..
I totally agree with this.
PhilThib wrote:There will be 14 regions in between, that's more than enough for good Napoleonic warfare in 7-days turns
This is simply what I was longing for! Thank you very much
Personally I'm not particulary excited about a GC feature and I hope we will get several scenarios/mini campaigns similar to the first NC .
I also would like more battle plan options and most of all, a battle result box more "descriptive" , something that could give you more the dynamics of the battle, maybe some "word" more and some "number" less
-
moonwatcher
- Conscript
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:24 pm
-
moonwatcher
- Conscript
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:24 pm
-
Bernadotte
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:34 pm
- Location: south of munich (germany)
ompom: Return to “Napoleon's Campaigns”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests