AGEOD Forums

I've been playing around with the 1805 Sun to Austerlitz scenario and it seems like there's a few problems with the scenario design. The historical campaign starts September 25th while the game's scenario starts October 1st.

The problem with this is that the scenario has the units pretty much starting in their 9/25 starting places instead of their 10/1 ones. Most of the French army that started behind the Rhine should actually be in areas east of the Rhine if the scenario uses a 10/1 starting date. This really puts the French player behind the historical eightball as far as the initial moves go for surrounding Mack at Ulm, despite Mack being fixed there. Either the scenario should start a week earlier on 9/25 or the French corps need to be moved to areas where they really were on 10/1.

The other big problem is the Italian theater where the situation is really what was happening on October 16th. Massena didn't cross the Adige and arrive in the Verona area until October 16th, yet we see him there with St. Cyr to start on 10/1. A more correct placement would have Charles at Mantua to start with Massena at Milan and St. Cyr probably at Piacenza. St. Cyr's historical role was to guard Naples against British intervention. Unfortunately details about this Italian campaign are rather thin since the main event around Ulm and then on to Vienna overshadow it's telling.

One big factor for getting the setup of units correct is the variable weather for turn 1. If the weather is bad on turn 1 the French player is really behind the eightball considering the setup snafu along the Rhine. Personally I think weather ought to be fixed to match history on turn 1 then let the weather be variable from turn 2 on. That way players aren't tempted to restart a game's start until they get the weather they like before actually commencing play.

It's probably too late to fix this scenario setup snafu for NCP but hopefully this will be corrected for NCP2.

Try to use the world/entire planet dating system (DD/MM/YYYY). when using dates, it's so much easier. You left me totally confused switching between numerics and long hand.

Moriety wrote:Try to use the world/entire planet dating system (DD/MM/YYYY). when using dates, it's so much easier. You left me totally confused switching between numerics and long hand.

DD/MM/YYYY is by no means universal.

We Dutch use DD-MM-YYYY, Germans use DD.MM.YYYY, Software systems prefer YYYY-MM-DD (for obvious ordering reasons).

But I agree that the Anglosaxon convention of MM/DD/YYYY is retarded.

Erik Springelkamp wrote:But I agree that the Anglosaxon convention of MM/DD/YYYY is retarded.

Hey, hey, less of the AngloSaxon retarded I think that should be USA. As an Englishman I use DD/MM/YYYY....

For reasons unfathomable, in Portugal someone decreed a few years ago that the official way should be MM/DD/YYYY (something to due with our masters in Bruxels I think)

In general everybody ignores it and still uses DD/MM/YYYY

Ebbingford wrote:Hey, hey, less of the AngloSaxon retarded I think that should be USA. As an Englishman I use DD/MM/YYYY....

I apologise to non-retarded AngloSaxons.

Franciscus wrote:For reasons unfathomable, in Portugal someone decreed a few years ago that the official way should be MM/DD/YYYY (something to due with our masters in Bruxels I think)

In general everybody ignores it and still uses DD/MM/YYYY

I doubt it comes from Bruxels. We in France use DD/MM/YYYY.

The US and some Commonwealth countries still use the Imperial system also, which is difficult to grasp for the rest of the world. And NASA apparently ...

back to the subject, thanks for the suggestions. It might serve, if we do NCP v2. Did we say officially we were doing it? Because I would like to see that

Pocus wrote: It might serve, if we do NCP v2. Did we say officially we were doing it? Because I would like to see that

Is that an official yes then?

Absolutely no! There is no official record that we are not doing unofficially a NCP2 version. That would be terribly in-unofficial to officially say that before announcing it publicly!

So that's a "maybe" then?

Back to dates. I thought DD/MM/YYYY was UK/Commonwealth and MM/DD/YYYY was US.

But for computers isn't YYYY/MM/DD/HH/MM/SS best because that sorts in sequence?

Taillebois wrote:So that's a "maybe" then?

Back to dates. I thought DD/MM/YYYY was UK/Commonwealth and MM/DD/YYYY was US.

But for computers isn't YYYY/MM/DD/HH/MM/SS best because that sorts in sequence?

Important software standards like those of the WWW tend to use other separators than the slash.

Usually it is yyyy-mm-dd and hh:mm:ss.nnn with sometimes a T to separate day and time and timezone parts.

See for instance http://www.hackcraft.net/web/datetime/

The MM/DD/YYYY has been out of date since I was a UK child, in fact since the Victorian era.

It is ether thus since at least then.

Us in the UK would welcome an end to the last nation on the planet to still use this illogical method. Its days are over.

The entire planet uses the logical system:

Smallest first to largest last.

The last nation on earth still having this system considers that the middle value (month) should be placed ahead of the lowest value (days).

The rest of the planet places them in order: Lowest/middle/last (D/M/Y).

I'll lock this thread, because I feel it might degenerate in a war about date format and suchlike...