Short scenarios

[Leinsdorf]

Besides through a possible enlargement of the scope of the campaigns, with an extension to the Silesian Wars (1740-45), I think that the appeal of ROP, really a noteworthy and refined game which I appreciate every time more, would be greatly increased with the inclusion of some shorter campaigns, added to the current only available, namely the 1756 one.
I would recommend (with a slight effort by the designers, being the historical research already accomplished) the creation of single scenarios and victory conditions for each of the following years (1757-1763) as it was the case for the SPI-AH boardgame Frederick the Great. As a matter of fact, the current large scenarios are rather cumbersome and somewhat difficult to manage, besides requiring a lot of time to be completed, especially for still unexperienced players

[Narwhal]

I agree with this remark !

[PhilThib]

Then it could be done if you define for each year which would be the year's objectives...as they need to be modified from the GC ones

[JacquesDeLalaing]

I have to say that I totally agree with the OP. I'd really love this game and this conflict. But unfortunately, everytime I start a game, I feel completely overwhelmed by the amount of armies and troops available. I've started a campaign at least five times, but I always ended giving up after 2-3 turns because of the oversized scenario. Then I usually revert to playing WiA and it's smaller and less time consuming scenarios.

I'm rather the type of player who cares about details and who wants to keep in mind how this or that army is composed. If you want to do this in RoP, you'll end up needing 1-1,5 hours per turn which totally destroys the flow of the game. When I press the end turn button and a battle occurs, it happens that I can't even assess/evaluate that battle because I've been planning the moves of the respective army hours or even days ago. Also, with the number of troops involved, I'm getting careless in handling them. I get the feeling that you don't need to think about any details for you've got so many corps and armies at hand. It doesn't feel rewarding and the loss of control strains my psyche. It feels as if the game engine and its pace does not fit the size of this one giant blob-scenario.

Either you have to micromanage everything - then it feels like working, not like playing: "Phew, today I've planned the French armies, tomorrow I'll do the Russians, the day after tomorrow, I'll scan the 7 military options pages and pick something, next week, I'll press "end turn"". Usually, I like to see how my plans work out without too much time-delay. But, instead of pressing "end turn" in suspense (which is where the gaming experience and joy really is! - seeing if and how your plans unfold), I have to plan another army, and another army, and yet another army...in the end I can't even remember my plans for the first army and the suspense is gone. So, I think it's not only a matter of my lack of time. It's really a pace-of-the-game-issue in my eyes. Even when I have enough time, I'm loosing interest.

The second alernative is that you're getting frustrated and just move the inumerous stacks around arbitrarily. This way, you'll loose, the game won't make any sense and you won't have any fun. I find myself fluctuating between those two approaches and both are rather frustrating.

So I really make a case for smaller scenarios to make this game accessible for me. WiA is perfect in this sense. In RoP, managing 2 armies/4-6 corps would be challenging enough for me. Even though it might not fit the "big picture" of the conflict, I could think of scenarios focusing on a single (thus managable) front (PRU-France/Hessia; PRU-Austria/Silesia/Bohemia/Saxony; PRU-Russia/Eastprussia). The Prussian player could get scripted events in order to receive reinforcements (to represent the "inner line" of operation for Prussia). We got a similar event in NCP as well with Napoleon and parts of the grande armée showing up on the Iberian peninsula.

A split-up of the allies (e.g. the human player plays Austria, whereas France, Russia and Prussia are controlled by the AI) would also be most interesting (and realistic), although I believe it can't be done easily? (But hey, there are several factions in RUS, right? )

PS: And I understand that you don't have any time right now and are all busy with PoN (which will be even bigger in scope? :confused . Nevertheless, concluding from the great support so far, I'm very confident that you don't forget about RoP in the future. Before then, I'll have to make do with WiA.

[Leinsdorf]

INevertheless, concluding from the great support so far, I'm very confident that you don't forget about RoP in the future.

I myself am confident. It needs really only a small effort still, to boost quality and playability of a game which is already very good, technically and aesthetically. Actually I (have the time to) play almost solely the short 1756 scenario "Invasion of Saxony" and that tells a lot

[Baris]

I disagree. Actually transporting fleets,concentrating militia in big cities was more owerwhelming for me in WIA.
Rop is actually more forgiving for mistakes.

Managing fronts,corps is not that complicated in ROP. Forming brigades straightforward with 1 skirmisher 3 line inf. As playing Prussia there are actually 2 real fronts to deal with. France and Austria. Player can try to defend könisberg or abondon. Russia is hardly a front even in Pbem.

Apart from Frederick main army, Prussia can form army in hannover with 40k. Also can bring 30k men from Könisberg.
For Austrian player:
- French concentrate all forces to invade Wesel, Minden,Hannover or send some to attack from Frankfurt to Kasel.
-Daun advance either to Silesia or Dresden.
-Swedish to threaten Berlin
-Russians loads all the artilery and all supply in one corps and advance to Kolberg.
After 1-2 playthrough of GP everything will be in shape.

IMHO rather then short scenarios to be implemented, it will be excellent to get rid of depot bns

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Well, but the game goes into much more detail than you're suggesting here. You're talking about the "grand strategy". Maybe I'm still trying to play this game the wrong way, but I still find myself scouting, trying to cut supply lines, taking account of leader abilities, thinking about combat postures and what-ifs (anticipating hostile actions, taking into account weather and terrain), force-marching to surprise the enemy, and trying to gain military control in the enemys' backfiled to pin him down and make battles count. For me, it's not a matter of "go there and see what happens". I'm the kind of guy who sends forward small groups of hussars to the next waypoint (or several potential waypoints) of the main army turns in advance, so that the trenches will be ready for the army when it arrives. I'm pretty sure this kind of tactic doesn't work against human players. And sometimes I even try to gain military control in advance so that I can have my armies move on defensive postures and without combat-penatlies for inactive leaders. Now you have a clue how long it takes me to spread all those cossacks units over Prussian territory every turn. There are lots of issues to consider each turn. E.g.: shall I move my corps seperated over 2 regions or together in one region? The enemy could slip away if I concentrate my army-movement in one region... but on the other hand, if you're planning to advance in two seperated columns, you're taking the risk of "marching to the sound of the guns"-failures... And when two enemy armies are camping very close to each other and you want to take the offensive, you have to decide the aggressiveness: do you move your stack in the enemy region? That's the conservative and indecisive approach. Do you move it to the enemy region and then (in the same turn) on to another region where you suspect the enemy to withdraw? If you're right, you can maul the enemy army pretty bad, if you're wrong you might be in a bad position. Or do you target the enemy stack, taking the risk that the AI splits up this force and your stack will go after the wrong stack?...There are so many decisions that make this game interesting if just there were smaller scenarios!

The big picture is clear, but still, to achieve my goals on each front, micromanagement is (and should be! otherwise it would be very boring!) required. I guess it's also a matter of playing style.

[Baris]

About use of leader abilities and movement I suggest you reading Narwhal's PBEM AAR.(Skip the introduction part, if you are familiar wih mechanics) What I think is especially "movement" "favourable terrain" and "cohesion" is much important then postures. In his AAR for the first 2 years armies were very cautious about engaging. It was full of movement.

About Military control it was very tiring job to gain MC near Prag everytime gain he approaches for not getting trapped in one region.

For your question I dont advocate seperate stacks. As when they are seperate even 3 regions away they dont get the benefits of "offense-defense" ratings of his commander(Very important for Austria). IMHO Austrian coaliton should better be using defensive posture and favorible terrain while engaging if possible.

When approaching to enemy controlled objective city it is crucial to have some troops in touch with supply producing city that they can march sound of the guns.

One stack(if there are no enemies nearby) full of artilery can be very useful if you want to create some distraction and take objective cities nearby.

As for cutting supply with cavalry: in my pbem game with Narwhal, it didnt happen. Actually map is designed around provinces at most 4 regions away with each other so it is difficult to be out of supply.

Buy I should say it never gets boring especially playing PBEM game.

Edit: Actually you micromanage once for the armies. Though French and Austria can take longer time but,when you set up armies and fronts you dont need to arrange them again. Built ships to transport troops from France quickly. France get reinforcements via options. As for swedish you also get some.

When they are depleted you just merge with the same type of elements. When not enemy nearby always move your troops with Passive posture(If you dont need MC in some areas)


But I hope in future there will be a better way to get replacements then depot bns

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Yes, my point was that there is a lot of micromanaging which makes this game so interesting. But I can't delve into all that detail because the scenario is too big. (if I ever want to play more than 4 turns, that is)