Welcome to Wars of Napoleon forums!

[marek1978]

Awesome! Looks great!.

2. How will the "inferior French line infantry(which basically forced Nappy to use Columns formations) but superior Guards units and total dominance of artillery in early years be showcased". (Grand Batteries) and also how will Russia be portrayed? Historically Russian Guards Corps and Russian Cossack Cavalry and Russian Artillery were the Best Infantry, Light Cavalry and Artillery but their main line Infantry, really was more like militia. So extreme experienced elite units, powerful light cavalry/scouts, Unicorns and plenty of Artillery but cannon fodder infantry
.

I strongly disagree with your opinion about column being used as a way of hiding french infantry inferior skills on the battlefield.

My opinion is based on recent read of series of osprey publishing books about napoleonic armies and their tactics, in particular french, british and prussian infrantry tactics.

http://www.amazon.com/French-Napoleonic-Infantry-Tactics-1792-1815/dp/1846032784
http://www.amazon.com/Prussian-Napoleonic-Tactics-1792-1815-Elite/dp/1846035090/ref=pd_sim_b_1/177-7116112-3787836?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZQ8208GFGFPQ02BTQ59

http://www.amazon.com/British-Napoleonic-Infantry-Tactics-1792-1815/dp/1846032229/ref=pd_sim_b_2/177-7116112-3787836?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZQ8208GFGFPQ02BTQ59

As well as on a reading of series of polish books about napoleon wars

What the authors points is that using of columns was widely discussed and train during late XVIII century in french royal army.

Basic idea was that the columns would be used as a way of maneuvering units on the battlefield while line would be used as a way of fighting.
Unit in column could fast pass heavy terrain, reach a battlefield, approach enemy line and then deploy in to line, deliver fire and then attack.
What happened during napoleonic wars was that some french commander were resigning from deploying in to line when facing shaken enemy - they would keep the column and smash through enemy line - but these would not be the case in all situation.
It was the line that was basic way of deploying for fire fight while column was for maneuver.

Other armies introduced columns in similar manner but they (especially British ) would be more keen to use line formation and would go for attack in column much more rarely.

The other thing is that Grandee Armee infantry of 1805-1807 was very well trained - it was based on units that had long training together during 1804 preparation for invading of England.
These units should be represented in game as having similar statistics as their opponents but higher experience and training.
As for Russian army - guard was very well trained elite force but Russian regulars performed well during 1805 campaign and especially during winter campaign of 1806/1807. They should not be presented as militia units.
Newly formed units during 1812 campaign were much lower quality as they really represented militia conscripts.

[Shri]

@marek1978-
I will have to check those things, maybe i am wrong.
But i clearly remember reading about the Prussian Campaign, about the Prussian infantry being much superior at fire & volley vs the French.
However, the old Geriatric command structure coupled with 'over-confidence', 'horribly bad war-declaration & timing' etc crippled them. It wasn't that the Prussians from the 'invincible Frederickian Armies had disintegrated into militia' but that their command structure collapsed just like French command structure collapsed in 1940 campaign, this needs to be modded. Maybe the Prussian leaders can have only (2/3) Strategic which means in PBEM they won't be 'ACTIVE' in 50% + turns. Thus easy to defeat.

As for the Russian army, it was always and has traditionally been excellent in defensive warfare. The Guards and Artillery were truly elite class and Cossacks were in another league as light/recon units. But generic 'line' infantry wasn't so successful in reaction on a fast scale or in offensive operations. Maybe this can be modded by using - Russian Commanders -- Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly, Bagration, Levinson etc having good strategic and Defensive numbers (4 or more) but low offensive (1 or 2).

The RUSH that you mention can be given by "Fast Mover" or "Logistic Wizard" trait to French commanders, thus quick cohesion regain and quick marches on the countryside.
Coupled with high strategic Ratings, this will mean- they will be ACTIVE for combat almost always in the early period of the War.
Basically, if you divide the Wars from 1793 onwards till 1801 it was a stalemate in favor of France.
From 1801, when Napoleon more or less assumed total command till about 1806-07, His forces were invincible on Land and useless at Sea.
From 1807-1812 it was a phase of transition, Allies steadily got better, Nappy and his troops stagnated.
Post 1812, the heavy losses in Spain and Russia due to Attrition, Warfare, Desertion meant that by 1814 the Allies were Supreme and Nappy was defeated.
So, what you suggested about the 1805-06 armies being equal in stats but with 'irreplaceable experienced troops' seems right. As you fight more, experience is gained, but if you lose and especially if you lose big (entire elements are gone), then you gain "raw recruits". Thus negating the advantage.
The French corps can have a 20% more chance of MTSG or else, they can have "NO-DELAY" in MTSG with rest having "MEDIUM DELAY" gradually reducing to "SMALL DELAY" by 1810 and "NO DELAY by 1813-1814".
Further, Nappy can start at 6-6-6, but should steadily lose stats every 3 years so that by 1814 he ends up as 5-4-4 or so. This will ensure Historicity is maintained.
Further, the bonus to Corps commanders from Nappy's presence on the Battlefield should decline over the years. This will ensure blunders like NEY are committed late in war.

[Pocus]

About player controlling allies, we are aiming to provide 2 tools, one is direct control of a few troops, the other is requesting your allied AI to do a specific thing. This is still in development.

[Lindi]

About player controlling allies, we are aiming to provide 2 tools, one is direct control of a few troops, the other is requesting your allied AI to do a specific thing. This is still in development.

good for few troop, but plz same with malus for go out from area (the malus in Rop ). I prefer to control, me and IA are not friend same if a war against is fun.

I really love in your last game about Napoléon you controle Polond/Italy troop and all other that is very good!

I love the big malus when go out from area or the officer can command this nation troop, but I not really love give troop to ia same a friend IA.

In "To end of all wars" you have the total control about each nation when is enter war that is really funny, just If I can only use conscrit from a country in this country are more good.

[Carnium]

About player controlling allies, we are aiming to provide 2 tools, one is direct control of a few troops, the other is requesting your allied AI to do a specific thing. This is still in development.

This is a small step for AGEOD, but could be BIG for some upcoming titles. How would this work? Like telling the AI to defend its territory only or even to simulate "expedition" corps that could follow the human player's armies into offensive campaigns (Russian one by example)?
Well anyway a really nice one
Hopefully the AI will be able to handle it

[veji1]

About player controlling allies, we are aiming to provide 2 tools, one is direct control of a few troops, the other is requesting your allied AI to do a specific thing. This is still in development.

It would make sense : if Bavaria or Saxony are allied with France, they might lend 15 000 troops to be embedded in the french campaign plan whereas the main 30/40 000 guys or so are mainly protecting the country, garisonning or so.

[ess1]

England giving financial assistance?

[James D Burns]

Too dependant on the condition. The 100 days is a scenario material.

The notion that there will be no exile mechanic in game to try and simulate the 100 days return has been bugging me and after mulling it over I think there may be a way to simulate the exile in game without requiring players to play a shorter separate scenario. You can make it that if Paris falls for the first time, Napoleon goes into exile for x number of turns. X being anywhere from six months to a year and a half or so decided randomly. The player would not be allowed to control France during these exiled turns, instead the House of Bourbon would control France as an AI power.

On the turn Napoleon goes into exile, a percentage of on map French units would get disbanded (roughly 50%). The remainder of the units stay on map under control of the House of Bourbon. Then the AI can build units normally, and when Napoleon finally returns, any units he meets (ends his turn in the same region) that were part of the original empire would convert to his control. New units built by the House of Bourbon during his exile would remain loyal to the House of Bourbon and the possibility for a semi-civil war would exist until Napoleon fights his way north and finally arrives at Paris.

For added drama you can keep the original French Army units that will switch loyalties hidden from players until the loyalty test has already been made.

The second time Paris falls would be total defeat for Napoleon, only one exile allowed.

Anyway just some food for thought.

Jim

[Fouche]

An interesting idea Mr. Burns.

[Fouche]

A thought..what if the AI after the Napoleon controlled AI or the player is forced to a situation of being exiled for the first time...just moves the time period...(since a player controlling Napoleon to sit for 6 months or longer of turns and not do anything might be difficult. Also my assumption is that in the game the Napoleon controlled AI or player would always be moving first)...and starts on the next turn with the Napoleon player being given a list of options to pick from (each with a plus and minus for the option picked). After the player picks the one he/she likes the AI then goes through its routines making various changes to the map/units before the player controlling Napoleon makes his/her moves. Of course if the Napoleon player is controlled by an AI all other player(s) would only see that Napoleon has been forced into exile and now the AI is going through it's calculations. Besides changes to map/units the date would be updated to a new start date.

[James D Burns]

...just moves the time period...

Won't work, too many other nations in game may be fighting wars and other things. You'd have to continue executing turns so you don't mess with the rest of the map, not to mention the House of Bourbon needs the ability to build up a small loyal army to make the return interesting. Just look at the boring exile as punishment for losing Paris lol.

Jim

[Pocus]

Problem with France reverting to neutrality while the House of Bourbon (the AI) do its stuff, is that if the player was not French, but say British, he knows what's coming, and will furbish his weapons during this time of 'white peace', which is not historical, because nobody expected Napoleon to return probably (or only a very few thought it was realistic).

So if there is such major turn of event, it would probably be better to do as you say about troops, but have the game make a time ellipse of a random number of turns in one hosting process and have Napoleon placed back in an harbor in south France. i.e the player don't play any of these turns, but the mapboard is reshuffled... It would mean placing back all others troops too also... That's starting to resemble a Pandora box of problems...

[James D Burns]

You could de-mobilize all nations not just France and cut their armies and conscript incomes by 50% while demobilized. So then they all get to try and rebuild some while he’s in exile but won’t be too far ahead when he returns. But they will be far enough ahead that the pressure to rearm quickly that he felt historically will be felt in game. I think he had some 70,000 men left behind in France still training when he left on his Waterloo campaign, so he hadn’t reached his armies full potential when he had to react and move into Belgium.

I understand the need to keep it simple, but personally I think an exile feature in game even if it wasn’t perfect would be far better than not to include one, even if it does feel like it has some warts.

Jim

[csiemers]

My feeling is that I'm playing the game to get a feel for the history of Napoleonic warfare, not recreate every nuance that actually happened. If I wanted that I could just read a book.

Maybe the "100 Days" could be a scenario, and not necessarily programmed into the campaign games as it does seem to possibly add much complexity to the code.

[BBBD316]

I agree that the best way to handle the 100 days is a DLC stand alone campaign, I just want to make sure that we are provided enough turns to restore French hegemony.

[AustSaint]

I just wanted to say that I am really excited to hear this news, I think the guys at AGEOD will be able to do justice to the period. I have liked what I have read so far, especially to the minor campaigns, Great Britain's squandered a lot of her forces in colonial campaigns, especially in the West Indies. That is the main reason that they could never have such a strong continental presence, the need for garrisons and for expeditions to capture her enemies colonies. I worked briefly on the BETA for March of the Eagles when the Phil's were doing it, and I really liked their vision for the game, unfortunately PI changed the game and in many ways ruined it. I will look forward to the historical accuracy that AGEOD is renowned for to make it to my favourite historical time period.

[ERISS]

on the BETA for March of the Eagles, unfortunately Paradox Interactive changed the game and in many ways ruined it.

I precise for who doesn't remember/know.

[PhilThib]

IMHO the Waterloo campaigns will be a standalone scenario in that release, if only to have a small scenario and a remembrance of the 200 years anniversary (and kick Br... a....:mdr

Now, the whole Restauration and 100 Days is an extremely complex situation to handle in terms of gameplay balance in a grand campaign. But there are ways to do a semblance of it while keeping the game flow

* The Coalition could have 'Napoleon in Exile' as a one-shot-only peace term in certain circumstances (à la 1814) ...it would give it lots of VP if obtained in peace, but would place strong coercition on them, especially in troop levels (and major VP loss if exceeded). For instance, some kind of 'Congress of Vienna' options could popup and place strong effects on that situation
* The French would suddenly become 'Bourbon' and would also be paid for keeping his forces low or reasonable (so no pre-planning of Boney's return), a balance is too be found
* Napy would return via an option, at the French player choice. The option would be rare or impossible if the Bourbon are too strong (to prevent build up) but would be cheap, frequent and advantageous for France (NM and VP bonuses) if the Coalition builds up (so if a coalition player increases his forces, he will shoot himself in the feet and lose the game)
* France endgame VPs would take into consideration the way both France and Coalition played the 'interim' period, and of course Napy's presence (or not) on the throne by end of game.

These are the scheme and ideas on which to build up the process.
My 2 cents, this is going to take time to prepare... ... Help will be required

[Smitzer52]

So there will be some sort of "leader of the nation" mechanic in the game? Or it will be abstracted? (like in CW2,TEAW).

Just taking this from those Bourbon/Bony throne switching.

[BigDuke66]

I know that it's very early to ask for but could we get more insight into the game before it reaches beta status?
It seems that some new things are tried here not to speak of the long time that is covered compared to the previous title, so I would recommend to give the player base a deeper look into it as soon as possible, simply to give a chance for feedback before the game gets so far that nothing can be changed anymore.

[veji1]

I hope this game models one key element of those wars well : the lack of an industrial and well oiled capacity building plan. With such a long time period, too many options in terms of force building could lead to a building/assembling/force optimizing fest that would rapidly become overwhelming. For example I loved AACW but I must say that one thing I dislike about CW2 that I am playing now is that it has become too complicated in terms of force building and planning an requires too much foresight : How many guys and which ones do I build in the Far West to maximize efficiency in a supply deprived environment ? Where do I go for such or such regional decision to give me more conscripts without hurting too much production (loyalty in high producing places), how do I recruit and organize my forces all the way from 1861 so that I am as efficient as possible in early 62, etc... Some of those travails where already there in AACW but I have the feeling that they have become more burdensome in CW2 because of the bigger map, more units, regional and national decisions, etc....

For NCP2 to be great the devs must be very careful not to succumb to the "more is better" temptation : the game needs to have a clever but not too complicated diplomatic engine, a funny "puppet state / Satellite armies" system a bit like in the boardgame EiA, and then focus on the operational aspect. Recruitment shouldn't be too specific and click intensive. In a sense Napoleon said he required as many line regiments, cavalry squadrons and batteries, and the ministry of war provided.

I don't want to spend half an hour each turn pondering whether I recruit a light infantry regiment in Lorraine or Auvergne, and then analyse whether I should play an "undermine local ruler" card in Hessen or a " build better roads in Languedoc" one before I start having fun with the operational and campaigning aspect of the game.

I don't say this to be critical, I eventually bought CW2 a few weeks ago now that I have a decent laptop, and I just want to raise the dangers of the classic "sequel" trap : more units, more diplomacy, more capacity building, more industry/infrastructure choices, bigger map, etc... I fully support the more detailed map, but I hope the devs keep in mind what is important : That the player have an enjoyable experience recreating the campaigns of the time, This should be 70 to 80% of the game, not get crowded by all the other options. That's also why I raised the possibilities the map offers in terms of giving river crossing cities or forts (Maastricht, Regensburg, Alessandria on the Po, etc...) the importance they deserve so that the campaigning can be fun and realistic. I would like for the operational aspect of the game to be rich and multilayered, not for it to be drowned in a monster diplomatic/force building/empire optimizing game.

just my two cents and I fullly support you guys !

[MarshalJean]

I have the impression that this game is far enough along that major design decisions have been made. But, I just want to continue to encourage this game along the lines that have been seemingly communicated to the community. NCP was a great operational game, and the patches have only made it better. But I'm glad that AGEOD is seeing the great historical potential for developing this version to have a more robust diplomatic/event/economic system, because these elements were crucial to the era (and littered with historically rich personalities). I have no doubts that operational warfare will remain central to the game, because, well, you're AGEOD and that's what you do! But thank you for giving to the community something grander, something more like a true Grand Strategy game that's not so arcade-like (Napoleon TW) and maintains AGEOD's traditional attention given to aesthetics. For Napoleonic enthusiasts, building historical OoBs with historical units and leaders is as much fun as throwing them into the pell-mell of battle. Looking forward to this!

MJ

[veji1]

I have the impression that this game is far enough along that major design decisions have been made. But, I just want to continue to encourage this game along the lines that have been seemingly communicated to the community. NCP was a great operational game, and the patches have only made it better. But I'm glad that AGEOD is seeing the great historical potential for developing this version to have a more robust diplomatic/event/economic system, because these elements were crucial to the era (and littered with historically rich personalities). I have no doubts that operational warfare will remain central to the game, because, well, you're AGEOD and that's what you do! But thank you for giving to the community something grander, something more like a true Grand Strategy game that's not so arcade-like (Napoleon TW) and maintains AGEOD's traditional attention given to aesthetics. For Napoleonic enthusiasts, building historical OoBs with historical units and leaders is as much fun as throwing them into the pell-mell of battle. Looking forward to this!

MJ

Ah well fair enough. My fear is that the game will become too crowded and fall in the "more of everything" trap where it becomes overwhelming for all but the most motivated. We will see. I suppose the game can't cater to all and choices have to be made, but personally I would much rather enjoy fun campaigning in Germany against an austro-prussian coalition rather than spending hours building troops, and factories, and upgrading infrastructure, and sending spies to Hessen and Lisbon, etc.

I hope this game is a success And I will most probably buy it, but I'll probably wait a bit to see what transpires. If it is a cross between PON and CW2 with little operational progress, I might pass. To me the key is the AGEOD campaigning engine developped for BOA and magnified in AACW. This is where I want the focus to be, to make it even better and funnier to play. All the other options are if not chrome (a good diplomatic/vassalisation/troop loan system is needed) secondary to that goal.

If waging war in NGC is fun, than I'll love it. Simple as that.

[Emx77]

I hope this game models one key element of those wars well : the lack of an industrial and well oiled capacity building plan. With such a long time period, too many options in terms of force building could lead to a building/assembling/force optimizing fest that would rapidly become overwhelming. For example I loved AACW but I must say that one thing I dislike about CW2 that I am playing now is that it has become too complicated in terms of force building and planning an requires too much foresight : How many guys and which ones do I build in the Far West to maximize efficiency in a supply deprived environment ? Where do I go for such or such regional decision to give me more conscripts without hurting too much production (loyalty in high producing places), how do I recruit and organize my forces all the way from 1861 so that I am as efficient as possible in early 62, etc... Some of those travails where already there in AACW but I have the feeling that they have become more burdensome in CW2 because of the bigger map, more units, regional and national decisions, etc....

For NCP2 to be great the devs must be very careful not to succumb to the "more is better" temptation : the game needs to have a clever but not too complicated diplomatic engine, a funny "puppet state / Satellite armies" system a bit like in the boardgame EiA, and then focus on the operational aspect. Recruitment shouldn't be too specific and click intensive. In a sense Napoleon said he required as many line regiments, cavalry squadrons and batteries, and the ministry of war provided.

I don't want to spend half an hour each turn pondering whether I recruit a light infantry regiment in Lorraine or Auvergne, and then analyse whether I should play an "undermine local ruler" card in Hessen or a " build better roads in Languedoc" one before I start having fun with the operational and campaigning aspect of the game.

I don't say this to be critical, I eventually bought CW2 a few weeks ago now that I have a decent laptop, and I just want to raise the dangers of the classic "sequel" trap : more units, more diplomacy, more capacity building, more industry/infrastructure choices, bigger map, etc... I fully support the more detailed map, but I hope the devs keep in mind what is important : That the player have an enjoyable experience recreating the campaigns of the time, This should be 70 to 80% of the game, not get crowded by all the other options. That's also why I raised the possibilities the map offers in terms of giving river crossing cities or forts (Maastricht, Regensburg, Alessandria on the Po, etc...) the importance they deserve so that the campaigning can be fun and realistic. I would like for the operational aspect of the game to be rich and multilayered, not for it to be drowned in a monster diplomatic/force building/empire optimizing game.

just my two cents and I fullly support you guys !

I have very similar feelings while playing CW II.

[veji1]

I have very similar feelings while playing CW II.

Yep, I hope they keep this in mind. PON was an overwhelming monster game while ROP was actually a very enjoyable wargame. For a long time what I wanted was a bigger ROP adapted to the Napoleonic wars, and nothing much more. But I am sure after PON and CW2 the devs have this issue of balance in minde too. I have faith !

[MarshalJean]

Yep, I hope they keep this in mind. PON was an overwhelming monster game while ROP was actually a very enjoyable wargame. For a long time what I wanted was a bigger ROP adapted to the Napoleonic wars, and nothing much more. But I am sure after PON and CW2 the devs have this issue of balance in minde too. I have faith !

Sorry to disagree again, but PON is a fantastic game, and one of the only games made several years ago that still maintains a strong fan base and forum activity. This should prove to the devs that the AGEOD system is a platform that can handle more than just operational warfare. Economics and diplomacy are handled well in that game, although the latter could always be better. The question really comes down to what players want. Some want just a better NCP2 (which is how I am interpreting your comments, generally). And some want a grand strategy game set in the Napoleonic period (which is what the majority of the community has been asking for ever since the release of NCP). The AGEOD system can handle it, and I actually think PON has gone a long way to prove that. I don't think this debate is a matter of what the AGEOD system can do well or not, but rather what AGEOD gamers want. I'm glad that the devs have seen that so many actually do want a Grand Strategy title, without compromising warfare (and I think the released pics of the map have given strong evidence that this won't happen). Nothing makes operational warfare more fun than having consequences for victory or defeat...consequences that are modeled in a fun and interactive way through Grand Strategy elements (diplomacy, economy, recruiting, etc.). Defeating the enemy on the battlefield by a pre-set time limit in order to achieve a "major" or "minor" victory loses its luster rather quickly, in my opinion. Grand Strategy creates a believable and immersive narrative for operational warfare to actually matter on a greater level.

Thanks for the friendly debate!

MJ

[veji1]

Sorry to disagree again, but PON is a fantastic game, and one of the only games made several years ago that still maintains a strong fan base and forum activity. This should prove to the devs that the AGEOD system is a platform that can handle more than just operational warfare. Economics and diplomacy are handled well in that game, although the latter could always be better. The question really comes down to what players want. Some want just a better NCP2 (which is how I am interpreting your comments, generally). And some want a grand strategy game set in the Napoleonic period (which is what the majority of the community has been asking for ever since the release of NCP). The AGEOD system can handle it, and I actually think PON has gone a long way to prove that. I don't think this debate is a matter of what the AGEOD system can do well or not, but rather what AGEOD gamers want. I'm glad that the devs have seen that so many actually do want a Grand Strategy title, without compromising warfare (and I think the released pics of the map have given strong evidence that this won't happen). Nothing makes operational warfare more fun than having consequences for victory or defeat...consequences that are modeled in a fun and interactive way through Grand Strategy elements (diplomacy, economy, recruiting, etc.). Defeating the enemy on the battlefield by a pre-set time limit in order to achieve a "major" or "minor" victory loses its luster rather quickly, in my opinion. Grand Strategy creates a believable and immersive narrative for operational warfare to actually matter on a greater level.

Thanks for the friendly debate!

MJ

As you say, it's a matter of philosophy as well as of fan base. I think part of the original success of AGEOD with BOA came from the fantastic wargaming experience these games provided. Grand strategy games are something else. If NGC is a grand strategy game where operational warfare plays a central role of course, but among other things I won't enjoy it as much, but I sure hope any fans do and AGEOD makes tons of money !

[wosung]

Amongst all Ageod games AACW 1+2 are hitting my sweet spot. Perfect balance between number of counters and space, operational and grand strategic gaming, game length and turn length. I'd wish Nappy 2 is going to have it all.

Plus, there are a lot of people who love the building aspect in grand strategy games as least as much as mere counter pushing. So successful game design is about balancing building and destroying. Sandbox all over again. W/o making it ahistorically.

[Duke76]

Any plans to improve tha battle report screen? For ex. I'd really appreciate too know how many casualties (and also cohesion hit-points ) did my entire infantry/cavalry/artillery not just the single data for each division/brigade. It would not be an impossible request...

Another great addition would be to know which exact units fight in the battle.
In general I have to say the battle report screen in every Ageod game gives you tons of info but lacks of the some of the most important ones....

[JWW]

Speaking in general, a way to try to please more people is to offer options to automate some of the functions being discussed. That is already done with some functions in some AGEOD games. Give players the option to allow the AI to handle more phases of the game, while allowing those who choose to the option of handling every detail manually.