How many sides

[marek1978]

Hey guys – was wondering who would be playable in the game – will it be nation, by nation – like in PON (dream come true scenario) or whether it is going to be France plus satellites against Coalition – with the capital in London. (or two coalition – Eastern – led by Russia and Western – led by UK)

[PhilThib]

See response to other thread: 2 "sides" but each major country playable individually.

[BigDuke66]

I'm interested if each country is handled separately as far as possible.
I just play ROP and it's somehow a pity that all the conscript companies I get can be used to buy anything, from Hanoverian troops to Prussian troops and anything between it.
I have seen this also in other strategy games and it just does not work out because there must be an effect when I take parts of a certain country so that this country is now in a worse position with less option and less resources.
If everything lands in a big pool and the player can simply move these resources wherever he needs/wants them it's simply bad simulation especially in such a long game with the enemies a France again and again forming a coalition that often did not work out, it can't be that the resources of country X enables a player to buy troops for country Y, a counter limit alone does not help here.
What would be acceptable are events that enable a player to lets say shift money to Austria to support the Coalition like it really happened.

[Pocus]

Confirmed, as per Philippe sentence: 'individually'

[BigDuke66]

Does it go that far that lets say I can play Austria in the Coalition and have England, Prussia & Russia as my AI "partners" that I can't control except maybe for some attempts to influence them?
That would be nice and would divide the Coalition like it's needed.

[Pocus]

We are striving to do that but for now, until we are 100% sure on how works the grand campaign, I can't fully guarantee that. This is the aim though.

[Drake001]

See response to other thread: 2 "sides" but each major country playable individually.

wait...so does this mean it is France/Napoleon vs Coalition, no matter what? No other countries can voluntarily ally with the French?

I played 4 worthy pbems in another game of similiar scope and in only one of them was France (who was always the best player) able to form Confederation of Rhine. Players will be more prudent with historical hindsight. Prussian...as in all PBEMs I played...joined the coalition right away. They and Austria threatened the French north and south and waited for the Russians to arrive.

That is just an example...the larger issue is that the forced sides will be disappointing unless you can figure a way for events out of the player control that will mirror the disagreements and circumstances of the "allies" that kept them apart and uncooperative but in my opinion will make for a lesser game. A better game is every man for himself based on the self interest of the times and let the players choose.

[Durk]

Drake001 - this is not how I read the replies. Each country is played individually, not as a coalition. You make a good point, but do not actually address the explanations of the various individual nations.

[Drake001]

I suppose that is what I am trying to discern. The above made it seem like there would be two sides and within those sides, parameters, you would be allowed to play individual nations. That is the restriction I am wondering about. So you could play Austria, Prussia, Russia, etc but you would be constrained to be within a side? I sincerely hope that is not the case.

[Lysimaque]

I am totally agree with Drake. I will be also very disapointed if the game allow us to play each nations individually but without choice to choose wich country we want attack or be ally with. I mean it is something that i complain about Ageod despite i love their games. It is too scripted, you have too few choice on diplomacy and on events in general. The 1805-1815 is a period where each nations could be a war against each other. Russia was in war against Sweden and Austria, Ottoman with Russia, Austria upset with Prussia ect...

Yes, France should be a big threat but that doesnt mean you should force the player to fight them. The only things that should be scripted it is England always in war with France . I want to be free to attack Prussia with Austria on the goal to retake Silesia, or to launch a surprising attack with Ottoman against Russia when they fight versus Sweden. A free diplomacy with Athena Engine and all Ageod system (with some improvements on economy and diplomacy) would be awesome , imagine a 5 players PEBM with it.

[Field Marshal Hotzendorf]

I would like to see us have the option of a more scripted game or a realistic, make your own decisions kinda game. That way if you want the more historic way of playing your covered but you also have the option of taking the wars into your own hands and seeing where they go.

[Shri]

Philthib has already clarified in another thread-

Only 2 Major Factions (not sides) - One led by France and other by England.
Russia will be able to fight the Ottomans and Swedes with some factors in place (i guess- generic peace in Europe vs France is the criteria maybe)

But overall, AGEOD games are not pure Sand-box like Paradox, but tend to be Historical with attention to minutiae. So, Austria aligning with France and attacking Russia type scenarios and England and France aligning to conquer the continent type scenarios will not be possible (again my guess based on PhilThib's comments)


Q by me -
1[I]. The thing about Napoleonic Wars unlike the 7 year war or the Great War is "active European Style Diplomacy practised" (in short Back-Stabbing).
Eg: After Tilsit when Napoleon dismantled Prussia and reduced its territory by 45% and Population and Wealth by over 50%, the Russians did some small Land Grab, post 1807 they did even more at the expense of Ottomans, Swedish (Northern War) etc.
Will this system of alliance followed by land grabbing followed by alliance allowed?

The English fought a proxy war in the Baltics against Russia from 1807 to 1812 but from 1792 to 1807 were more or less always allied to Russia and again from 1812+ were allied to Russia and increasingly subsidised the Russian army in Europe.
Asking that- As i want to play as Russia and do all the 'Land Grab' possible but also defeat Nappy. Both goals are contradictory but were achieved by Alexander I.[/I]



A by PT - 1 - Point is covered by the diplomatic system of the game, major powers can have independant policies

[Drake001]

I suppose I would like them to clarify.

I don't think the choices of game style "must" be black and white opposites with no room for grey: that is, scripted to the nth degree or pure sandbox with no room in between. There are plenty of ways to make it so Britain and France are unlikely to see eye to eye - completely divergent and directly competing victory conditions for one. However, I imagine if Prussia were to have taken over the low countries and Hanover, etc (there are many, many examples) then it would be the Prussians that Britain would be at war with.

[Field Marshal Hotzendorf]

I second that Drake001. A little more clarity on the subject would be nice also.

[Shri]

Prussian Expansion -
Prussia gobbling the Low countries was quite impossible, they couldn't even manage to defend their own lands against the Napoleon-Davout onslaught in 1806. We are not playing the 7 year war, by this time instead of Frederick the Great they had an incompetent on the throne.
Even during the 7 year war, when faced with a common enemy- 3 diverse warring empires of France, Austria and Russia came together unsuccessfully to try and crush Frederick's Prussia.

Metternich based theories -
Metternich did not gain power till 1810 (before that he was an "also-ran" diplomat in the French, Russian etc embassies), even after that his power was quite limited as Franz II of HRE (who later became Franz I of Austria) was always the deciding arbitrator. From 1805 till 1809 (i am taking 1805, as the game starts in 1805) in Hapsburg domain- Archduke Charles von Teschen and Graf von Warthausen ran the Hapsburg empire militarily and diplomatically and both were extremely anti- Napoleon, though Charles post the collapse of the 3rd and 4th coalitions wanted to maintain armed neutrality rather than war. The 5th coalition was actually forced by Emperor Franz I's party and supported by Archduke Johann (younger brother of Charles) leading to disaster and the resignation of Charles von Teschen. The Emperor wanted revenge for the loss of the HRE.
Overall i have a very poor opinion of Metternich and AJP Taylor and several other Historians have confirmed the same, overall Austria's refusal to cripple France at the end of the Napoleonic Wars meant that soon, under Napoleon III Austria would be crippled with loss of Italian provinces.

Prussia-
The Prussians joined against the French not out of love for Austria but hate for the French following the formation of the Rhine Confederation in 1805-1806; this was formed from former HRE lands which were under Austria but were allied to all German speaking states. The Prussian King was against the war as he realised his army was outdated, the Queen and the War party led by younger officers practically forced the war (this fact cannot be changed as the King was a very weak character as seen from his later actions and easily swayed).

Anglo-French Peace -
As long as Pitt was alive there was no chance for England and France to sign a peace treaty, post 1806; there may have been some chances had Charles Fox lived longer and become PM but he died less than 6 months after Pitt and anyway the King hated Fox. Lord Portland, Lord Liverpool etc who succeeded Pitt were again staunch monarchists who would never have made a peace treaty with the "godless revolutionaries led by Nappy".


Austria attacking Prussia-
By 1805, circumstances over Silesia had changed. The loss of HRE was the biggest blow to Hapsburg morale since the 30 year war. Nothing till the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 comes close to it.


Russo-Ottoman Wars
Already Devs have told that these wars are possible

Russo-Swedish Wars
Same as above


Austro-Ottoman Wars
I guess they are also probable, if not possible.

[DrPostman]

So basically we play one of the Coalitions, or the French and their allies.

[Drake001]

Shri, you seem to have a penchant for attempting to nuke discussions that don't fit the way you want your game to be.

And you often have your basic facts straight but your interpretation of them is either extremely narrow or even just plain wrong. Anyway....I really don't care to refute things again just to say that many, many, many, many things were possible (and very reasonably so) in this era despite your version...that is one of the best things about this era is that it is chock full of realistic "what-ifs" unlike, say the US Civil War where there are far, far fewer what ifs. (And I have both versions of Aegod's Civ War game).

And, even in hindsight, even if we take your calculus of what was possible or impossible as irrefutable, the people and leaders of the time did think things were possible. Prussia and others did have many ambitions, and did think things were possible.

Really though I would like to get back on thread and respectfully ask the devs to clarify please.

[Lysimaque]

So basically we play one of the Coalitions, or the French and their allies.

Sure about that? Bad news for me if it is true. I dont ask for a grand strategy game, but history should be not fixed. During this era many countries change of allegiance within the result on the ground(Russia after Friedland, Bavaria before Leizpig ...), it is sad that the game cannot picture it.

[DrPostman]

Sure about that? Bad news for me if it is true. I dont ask for a grand strategy game, but history should be not fixed. During this era many countries change of allegiance within the result on the ground(Russia after Friedland, Bavaria before Leizpig ...), it is sad that the game cannot picture it.

There is a lot of room for changes with Athena, for example in End All Wars
Italy can be a Central Powers ally (or it used to be possible, I haven't played
with the most recent patches) but essentially there really can only be 2 sides
during the game. I'm not sure about anything with this game so we need the
devs to drop in and clarify this. What say you Phils?

[Franciscus]

Hi
Technically Ageod games can have more than 2 players, each controlling a diferent nation or a faction.
Check AJE and RUS and of course PON.

That does not imply anything about WON, only the Phils know how they are designing the Grand Campaign.

Regards

[DrPostman]

Hi
Technically Ageod games can have more than 2 players, each controlling a diferent nation or a faction.
Check AJE and RUS and of course PON.

That does not imply anything about WON, only the Phils know how they are designing the Grand Campaign.

Regards

I cyber corrected. Hope they clarify things soon. I don't have the other
two games and didn't know that, but I do have PON. Never played against
anything but Athena with that monster of a game. That's great that more
than one other person can play. I might have to reconsider my shelving of
PON.

And now that I think about it you can have more than 2 play EAW, with one
playing the Entente, another the Centrals, and the 3rd playing Russia.

[Durk]

I am always waiting to add my 2 cents when something seems obvious. Two factions does not mean once a nation joins a faction it stays with that faction. It means this is a war between France and Britain with other nations joining one side or the other as circumstances offer. It also does not mean that a nation, such as Spain, could not be played by a player, even if only two factions are 'factions' and change sides as events dictate, if players choose to use share files for the same faction. Spain would simply share files with the other faction when it changes sides.
Just saying.

[Pocus]

There are more than two factions in the game, but Great Britain and France will always be enemy and head of their coalition. But you can be an independent Russia if you want.

[Drake001]

So as Prussia or Austria we can pursue an independent policy as well? Joining one coalition or the other as was well suggested above by Durk?

[nemethand]

There are more than two factions in the game, but Great Britain and France will always be enemy and head of their coalition. But you can be an independent Russia if you want.

Would that make any sense, Pocus (especially game wise)? I.e., are there victory conditions being able to be achieved by staying out of the major conflict?

[Field Marshal Hotzendorf]

So say you are Great Britain and you wanted to try to have a period of peace with France to stock up your forces or whatever, that would not be a possibility?

[ess1]

I think an ahistorical scenario - even as a DLS would be good. Quite a lot of pbmers like the what-if scns if only for a change

[Drake001]

Well, the historical game will become ahistorical once a player (or players) start the game. But I know what you mean.

I would like to be able to play Prussia and use the leverage they had before Austerlitz to try and do things they wanted to do, for example. Take Hanover (which had Russian support) and form a North German Confederation, which they wanted to do when Napoleon founded the Rhine Conferdation. Both options were on the table. Doing both would likely put them at war with Britain.

Caveat: That's just one example and is meant to be read in reference for enhanced game play and not for historical analysis.

[Shri]

@Drake and others-

I love it that people see war as a series of Tinpot soldiers meetings and not as something more. Economics is almost always ignored by many Historians leave alone non-professionals.
The reason, Prussia didn't do a fast and loose tactic in the Napoleonic Wars is simple economics.
When after Austerlitz, Napoleon sent his envoys to threaten Prussia to support Nappynomics (Napoleonic Economics, basically beggaring the subsidiaries, allies and clients) vs Scotnomics (Scot/English style Free Trade enforced by the Royal Navy), the Prussians agreed; soon within 3 months they turned volte-face... people give lots of examples but the most obvious one is this- over 700 Prussian and allied ships were interned in British ports and the remaining were forced to stay in port thus nearly bankrupting the Prussians. The Royal Navy was enforcing a close blockade.

Say- Prussia decides to enforce an independent policy, it should be able to but become bankrupt within 6 months and at that time all the players will cry foul/wolf at the game engine. The reason is economics is thought of as tertiary and martial finesse as primary.
Eg: The British Consul Bonds never crossed 6% Rate of Interest p.a. for nearly 300 years till the Great War (Yes, that includes Napoleonic Wars) - shows how easily the English bore the burden of war and how difficult it was for the other powers including France until and unless they Plundered. This was mainly because the Royal Navy held a Naval monopoly and enforced it strongly.

Money/Gold are the real sinews of War and the English understood this fact very well, the London Bond Market was worth a million soldiers or more, simply because no other country had that tool till New York in the 20th Century.

[MarshalJean]

@Drake and others-

I love it that people see war as a series of Tinpot soldiers meetings and not as something more. Economics is almost always ignored by many Historians leave alone non-professionals.
The reason, Prussia didn't do a fast and loose tactic in the Napoleonic Wars is simple economics.
When after Austerlitz, Napoleon sent his envoys to threaten Prussia to support Nappynomics (Napoleonic Economics, basically beggaring the subsidiaries, allies and clients) vs Scotnomics (Scot/English style Free Trade enforced by the Royal Navy), the Prussians agreed; soon within 3 months they turned volte-face... people give lots of examples but the most obvious one is this- over 700 Prussian and allied ships were interned in British ports and the remaining were forced to stay in port thus nearly bankrupting the Prussians. The Royal Navy was enforcing a close blockade.

Say- Prussia decides to enforce an independent policy, it should be able to but become bankrupt within 6 months and at that time all the players will cry foul/wolf at the game engine. The reason is economics is thought of as tertiary and martial finesse as primary.
Eg: The British Consul Bonds never crossed 6% Rate of Interest p.a. for nearly 300 years till the Great War (Yes, that includes Napoleonic Wars) - shows how easily the English bore the burden of war and how difficult it was for the other powers including France until and unless they Plundered. This was mainly because the Royal Navy held a Naval monopoly and enforced it strongly.

Money/Gold are the real sinews of War and the English understood this fact very well, the London Bond Market was worth a million soldiers or more, simply because no other country had that tool till New York in the 20th Century.

@Shri

You know, I've held myself back from commenting for quite some time, but I just can't take it anymore. You, sir, have to be one of the most arrogant posters I've ever read...and I read a lot of strategy game forums. Not only are your claims often quite contested among scholars (like half the things you have claimed about Russia, since you say you primarily use Lieven's work...which is highly debated among Napoleonic scholars in terms of its tendency towards revisionism), but even when you actually have something important and significant to say (like your above post about the British economy and blockade tactics), you just can't keep yourself from being insulting towards others. I guess I would just say that you are far from being the smartest and most learned person to post on these forums (despite your clear self-perception), and even if you were, you constantly risk alienating your audience by coming across as an insufferable know-it-all.

So, since you seem so keen to offer advice to others, receive some now yourself...learn how to communicate more generously, irenically, and--regardless of the great effort it may involve--assume that you might have things to learn from others when conversing with them...especially since these are all people none of us know personally, in the majority of cases.

Thank you.