Page 1 of 1

Non-military aspects

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:58 am
by allan_boa
I would like to know how non-military aspects will be treated and if they will be an important part of the game:
Economics, research, politics, diplomacy.
Thanks

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:42 am
by Durk
Yes, economics, politics and diplomacy will be important. Research not so much.
Some of these details are evolving, but a diplomatic/political interface will be central to the game.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:22 am
by PhilThib
Technology by itself will be absent from the game (i.e. no "research") but new weapons, new military tactics and troops will appear nevertheless, via events or options

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:05 pm
by Delaware
so would you say this game is closer to PON than the first Napoleon's Campaigns?

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:42 am
by PhilThib
The main scenario will be a grand campaign, which aim is mostly military and diplomatic. There won't be research nor economy there.

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:22 am
by Pocus
There will be military reforms (and some others) but they are historical options, not free-form researches. As for economy, this is mostly about generating resources and then spending them in various means of destruction!

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:52 am
by bob.
Why no research system like in TEAW? Was there historically not enough new developments to warrant it?

I know very little about Napoleonic War military doctrine but didn't the Coalition armies especially implement significant changes in their armies?

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:58 am
by loki100
bob. wrote:Why no research system like in TEAW? Was there historically not enough new developments to warrant it?

I know very little about Napoleonic War military doctrine but didn't the Coalition armies especially implement significant changes in their armies?


if I understand correctly, I think it was more a case of copying. So first the Austrians (for the 1809 campaign) and then other anti-french armies adopted the structured corps format. This hugely eased order giving ... I recall reading that before his defeat at Ulm, Mack had had to write out individual orders for everyone of his battalions.

not sure that this period triggered many major technological advances, more a case of states slowly coming to make better use of what they had. An example is Britain's ability to expand domestic food production. When they did this again after 1940 they found they were ploughing fields that had lain fallow since the Napoleonic wars.

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:49 pm
by veji1
loki100 wrote:if I understand correctly, I think it was more a case of copying. So first the Austrians (for the 1809 campaign) and then other anti-french armies adopted the structured corps format. This hugely eased order giving ... I recall reading that before his defeat at Ulm, Mack had had to write out individual orders for everyone of his battalions.

not sure that this period triggered many major technological advances, more a case of states slowly coming to make better use of what they had. An example is Britain's ability to expand domestic food production. When they did this again after 1940 they found they were ploughing fields that had lain fallow since the Napoleonic wars.


You had lot's of practical improvements made during the course of the revolutionary and napoleonic wars, but in the end they still used about the same rifles and guns, combined arms each playing a role, etc.. Those 25 years of war had seen the end of that very strict "ancien régime" organisation for more flexible campaigning (corps structure) and fighting (tirailleurs, etc...). The success of the thin red line at the end of the period and the dominance of fire over shock it foreshadowed further developped in the wars of the 1860s and 1870s but really nothing warrants having technological ressearch in this game.

One could argue that the way one fought in 1864 Virginia was way way way more different than 1862 Virginia than the way a battle in 1815 Belgium differed from a battle in 1792 Belgium.