The good, the bad and the ugly: Game overview and a suggestion for dynamic diplomacy

[Franz Ferdinand]

The good:

This is the best AGEOD game yet. It is also full of potential, and hopefully we will see a DLC that focuses on diplomacy (for multiplayer) and a DLC that has 1812 and 1809 starts (1812 start would be perfect for PBEMs).

The map is beautiful, the game is relatively smooth and new ledgers, national modifiers and history screen is something that should become staple of AGEOD games. Again, the devs and everyone involved, thank you so much for this gem. It just needs a tad bit of polishing to become hands down the best wargame I have ever seen (and most people will probably agree with this).

The ugly:

There is some balance issues (Prussia should not be able to join before 1806 without what if modifier), some bugs and missing strings, and some battle-related problems. For example, casualties are too high, but the devs are already working on this. I also think that NM gain/loss should be toned, especially for naval battles, because the gain/loss is too big at the moment, considering that the game is 500+ turns. All of this will be solved through patches, so no worry there, a bunch of people are working hard to spot all the bugs.

The bad:

Replacement system, as pointed out by Vicberg in another thread, is not very good. Can we please at least have an option to switch to the all system with separate unit types? As Britain, I do not have a lot of manpower, so I want to focus on only replacing my elites for example. I cannot do that with simplified system. Also, this system does not really work for captured ships, as far as I noticed. The system for previous games, like EAW, would make so much more sense and it is not any more complicated than the current system, so no fear for newbies (which can anyway turn on automated replacements). The units already have element designations (elite, regular, militia, light cav, cav, heavy cav, service, field arty, heavy arty, horse arty, supply, light warship, heavy warship, raider, etc. you have got the point). Why take away a perfectly good system and dumb it down, creating issues?

Finally, the one element that is truly lacking is diplomacy.

In the end, there can be only one winner, and while March of the Eagles simulated this quite well (if you have ever played multiplayer you will know of stabs in the back, trades and constant feeling of being on the edge), the diplomacy in WON is not on par with the rest of the game.

My suggestion is to at least have an option for an alternative system of diplomacy for PBEM, if people would be too opposed to non-historical outcomes for single-player. Again, I really appreciate how historical AGEOD is, especially in comparison with Paradox or the CA. Still, some sandbox is good for PBEMs, and it is not very much possible to do this now. For Ottomans and Prussia, there is not much to do right now due to limiting diplomacy.

My suggestion:

- To annex territory, one has to defeat 90% of their armies and occupy all their city provinces and have 10% loyalty in ones wishing to annex. This seems reasonable enough, open for balance. If the state is guaranteed, one has also to defeat the major guaranteeing it.

-Annexed provinces with low loyalty should rebel and have less production and supply, forcing a player decide between annexing small states or allying themselves with small states for better supply and to use them as buffer zone

-For Peace Treaties, associate non-structure provinces with city provinces (so you get all the associated non city provinces when you annex that city, i.e. Nassau comes with a province to the north and two provinces to the south), so only city provinces count (becoming regions in their own way)

- All the cities should have around 30 peace value (an average city), with modifier based on city size and the amount of remaining cities (for example, getting one Kiel from Denmark should be around 40, taking in consideration the size of Denmark and size of Kiel, while getting Nassau should be close to 90- 30x3 modifier, taking in consideration that it is Nassau’s only City)

-So, one or two city states could be annexed in one war (I have an excel table with the number of cities for each minor, there is 22 minors with 1 or 2 cities), while Sweden could not be annexed in less than 7 wars for example. Seems reasonable enough, especially when considering that most majors have around 50 cities

- Annexing a state would bring a diplomatic penalty, let’s say -10 with all majors, and -15 or -20 with majors with their sphere of influence there (ex. Prussia, France and Austria for German minors, Spain and Ottomans for North Africa, Russia and Ottoman for the Balkans and Caucasus, etc.) This would mean that a hawkish Prussia would be stopped by Austria and/or France. It seems historically plausible to me.

- The cost for puppeting should probably be half, and liberating nations can give some diplomatic bonus

- With the current objectives for every major (F9), this would make much more dynamic multiplayer games where people would have to be careful not to allow their allies to become too strong, and also have to choose between risking being DOW by a bigger major if annexing states, or simply make them satellites. PBEM would become just a bit more sandbox-y, but a lot more exciting.

[vicberg]

The good
- Beautiful game
- Tons of potential
- Attention to unit detail is incredible
- AGEOD is very responsive to problems and issues. I'm very impressed so far.

The bad
- Problems with basic combat mechanics that should have never made it out of beta
- Production system too reliant upon Regional Cards as the only means of production
- Replacement system is too simplified and not consistent
- Diplomacy system is lacking
- Events aren't working
- National Modifiers do not seem to be working

The ugly
- Currently unplayable, may be playable to some degree after next patch
- Lack of game mechanic testing assumes little play balance testing. Expect imbalances to show up 200 turns into game because it hasn't been tested past the first 50 and even the first 50 turns have some significant issues

I agree with your diplomacy options. I posted about being able to give something as part of treaties.

[UniversalSoldier]

[


-'' To annex territory, one has to defeat 90% of their armies and occupy all their city provinces and have 10% loyalty in ones wishing to annex. This seems reasonable enough, open for balance. If the state is guaranteed, one has also to defeat the major guaranteeing it''.

So you're saying that for example if i were to take a nations over seas province, i would have to defeat 90% percent of their forces? So basically i would have to induce confrontation with the enemies fleet/army and win the majority of battles? I dont think one should have to defeat 90% of an enemies military just for a few provinces. I may have misunderstood what you said so please correct me if im wrong.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Well, it was just a suggestion, the number is subjective of course. It might be only 50%. It depends on balance, but the point is that you would have to defeat enemy army in field in order to annex territory. That is how it worked during this period. You cannot simply occupy a province while they are fighting across the continent and annex it. Still, the bigger picture is more important, and that is that the game is in desperate need for more dynamic and multiplayer friendly diplomacy system. If you cannot annex territory, there is not a lot of reason to declare war, which is what happens to Prussia and the Ottomans.

I am really curious what the devs will have to say about all this.

[ajarnlance]

Still, the bigger picture is more important, and that is that the game is in desperate need for more dynamic and multiplayer friendly diplomacy system. If you cannot annex territory, there is not a lot of reason to declare war, which is what happens to Prussia and the Ottomans.

I am really curious what the devs will have to say about all this.

I totally agree. Providing a more dynamic diplomacy system would make this game a masterpiece, especially in multiplayer. I recommend that the developers look at providing more options, almost like a branching tree of decisions. For example, Prussia should have the option of making some type of treaty with France (neutrality/ defensive alliance etc..) in return for which France can give Prussia territory (Hannover for example). If both sides stick to their agreements this should branch to another decision to make a formal alliance later on. War goals and peace agreements need to be much more flexible ie being able to specify number of regions/ length of peace and when fighting as part of an alliance you should be able to divide the spoils according to terms agreed upon between players (in multiplayer).

With a dynamic diplomacy (read more sand box) approach this game would be awesome in multiplayer and also more interesting in single player. Perhaps the option to play with an 'historical approach' or a 'dynamic diplomacy' approach could be an option given in the menu at the start of a game.

I would pay extra for a "dynamic diplomacy" DLC as I realise this would involve a considerable investment of time for the developers. This would be a much better idea (IMHO) as a DLC than the usual short scenarios which never interest me anyway.

[Franz Ferdinand]

I would pay extra for a "dynamic diplomacy" DLC as I realise this would involve a considerable investment of time for the developers. This would be a much better idea (IMHO) as a DLC than the usual short scenarios which never interest me anyway.

I agree, I would be more than willing to pay for diplomacy DLC, and I am fine with having it as an option rather than the default setting to satisfy more historical minded people. March of the Eagles was really bad history-wise, combat-wise, well pretty much in every aspect (it was abandoned by Paradox in less than a few months: this is why AGEOD is a way better company than Paradox), but oh boy was it fun in multiplayer and it had almost perfect diplomacy. My dream game is an AGEOD title like WON with that sort of diplomacy.

As GB, offer concessions to Spain to stab the French in the back. As Ottomans, take over Croatia-Slavonia after the Austrians are crushed by the French. As Prussia, try to unify German minors and defend yourself from Austria and France once the relations get too negative. As Russia, make a defense treaty with the French and take East Prussia. The possibilities are endless and we would not be railed into the same old scenarios in PBEMs.

Finally, if the devs do not want to do this, I would then like to start a mod to redo the diplomacy and replacements. I never modded AGEOD games, but I am also a quick learner, and I played around with mods a lot for different games in the past. Would anyone else be interested in joining me or even just pointing me in the right direction (thus far I have been told about the ageod wiki)?

[Lysimaque]

Totally agree about diplomacy, the system is too much restricted and make Spain and Ottoman boring to play. It is possible to make the system of annexation more fun without reduce the historicity.

[lycortas2]

The diplomacy system cannot even come close to matching the scripted events like Pressburg and Tilsit.

[ajarnlance]

Finally, if the devs do not want to do this, I would then like to start a mod to redo the diplomacy and replacements. I never modded AGEOD games, but I am also a quick learner, and I played around with mods a lot for different games in the past. Would anyone else be interested in joining me or even just pointing me in the right direction (thus far I have been told about the ageod wiki)?

I wish I knew how to mod the game files because i would be happy to help. It also depends on how flexible the game engine is. I don't know if it is designed for the kind of diplomacy that is possible in the paradox games like EUIV. ageod seem to be trying to add diplomacy through scripted events and decisions. I think it will take more than that to really open up the game to all of the diplomatic options that many players would like to see. It may take some serious redesign which may not even be possible. I would be willing to pay for it as a DLC though as it would make multiplayer amazing to play. "Wars of Napoleon: dynamic diplomacy" DLC.

Let's hope this is something the devs will look into and let us know if it is possible or not. The paradox games don't even come close to ageod's excellent operational military design... for napoleonic war gaming WON is the best. If diplomacy could be made truly open and dynamic this game would become an instant classic.

[vicberg]

If your war score is high enough, you can offer peace and it gives a variety of options. Pay reparations, Claim Regions, Liberate and demobilize. This could be used as a basis for a more open diplomatic system.

[Franz Ferdinand]

If your war score is high enough, you can offer peace and it gives a variety of options. Pay reparations, Claim Regions, Liberate and demobilize. This could be used as a basis for a more open diplomatic system.

Agree, I do not suggest changing the diplomacy tab, but simply changing the values within it to allow for a more dynamic diplomacy. I am willing to pay for a DLC if that is what it takes, but something has to be done to unlock the true potential of the game in PBEMs. I really wonder if the devs will look into this thread or not.

[Pocus]

Are you saying peace options cost too much? Or you feel there are options that are missing and are vital to the game?

[vicberg]

Options missing. Ability to give money, regions etc. to another player for any reason. This is diff than demanding region, money, etc

[Boomer]

The good
- Beautiful game
- Tons of potential
- Attention to unit detail is incredible
- AGEOD is very responsive to problems and issues. I'm very impressed so far.

The bad
- Problems with basic combat mechanics that should have never made it out of beta
- Production system too reliant upon Regional Cards as the only means of production
- Replacement system is too simplified and not consistent
- Diplomacy system is lacking
- Events aren't working
- National Modifiers do not seem to be working

The ugly
- Currently unplayable, may be playable to some degree after next patch
- Lack of game mechanic testing assumes little play balance testing. Expect imbalances to show up 200 turns into game because it hasn't been tested past the first 50 and even the first 50 turns have some significant issues

I agree with your diplomacy options. I posted about being able to give something as part of treaties.

More or less agreed. A few things I'd list for improvement...

1 - Bring back leader redeployment. I know there's no rail system in the early 1800s, but with 7 day turns we can pretend. Makes army building much easier.

2 - Allow more freedom for unit production. Colonial unit building should be allowed, at least for local militia or colonial special units. Having to build everything in home provinces is restricting and makes deployment a marathon of tedium. the French and British built empires co-opting local forces to augment their own troops. Why can't we?

3 - Speaking of unit production, why the map shifting when clicking on units in the unit tab? I don't need to be reminded of rally points. I got it. Civil War II didn't do that. You just clicked what unit you wanted and dragged it to the city where you wanted it built. That's as complicated as it needs to be.

4 - Diplomacy seems tacked on and half baked. Most the time it seems like everything was tossed into an RNG and set on spin cycle. Many player choices are also undermined or outright canceled by scripted diplomacy events. I thought the diplomacy in TEAW was much better. Simpler, but at least it worked and had a logical risk vs reward system.

5 - Cohesion does indeed need some tweaks, especially for naval units. Hard to believe that Admiral Nelson couldn't have worked out a supply convoy system while besieging Cadiz. I usually put naval cohesion in the middle setting to allow for some historical management, but in WON it's tempting to put everything on automated.

6 - Turn processing. I know this is a large game with lots of AI players and files to sort through, but the turns in WON are BRUTAL. I've got a fairly average quad core with 4 gigs of RAM and my turns are so long it feels like I'm trying to play Call of Duty on a TRS-80. Seriously, I can go outside for a smoke, come inside and make another drink and come in to see the turn still processing.

[Pocus]

outside a peace treaty then?

[Franz Ferdinand]

Are you saying peace options cost too much? Or you feel there are options that are missing and are vital to the game?

Bit of both, with more focus on options that are missing. My ideal diplomacy system would allow the annexation of minors (1 to 2 cities) with a penalty in relations with everyone, but especially with countries in which sphere of influence the country is. Also, just ceding region/giving money so another country would not attack you, or would join your alliance. A system where you do not have to have loyalty at 20% to annex provinces, but they will be more rebellious an limit your supply. PBEM would become way more interesting. If this is a lot of work (I assume it is), maybe make it a part of DLC.

As I said, my ideal game is AGEOD Napoleonic game with a diplomacy system akin to the one in March of the Eagles.

[vicberg]

yup. in order to secure a defensive treaty, non-aggression. Prussia, I'll give you <fill in blank> so you don't attack. Could be used for Pressburg type Treaties. France gets 5 regions from <fill in blank> and then next turn gives 1 to Bavaria, 1 to Baden....

[Franz Ferdinand]

Also, is there any hope of having the old replacement system as an alternative option (which could be toggled off/on in game options as what if scenarios are now). In my opinion, this game is the masterpiece, the only two areas that feel like lacking are diplomacy (especially for PBEMs which is how I primarily plan to play this game) and replacement system.

[veji1]

yup. in order to secure a defensive treaty, non-aggression. Prussia, I'll give you <fill in blank> so you don't attack. Could be used for Pressburg type Treaties. France gets 5 regions from <fill in blank> and then next turn gives 1 to Bavaria, 1 to Baden....

Yes I must say the diplomatic engine looks a bit too limiting and limited. I am a fan of historical wargames, so I don't want it to go full EiA, but the simple mechanisms that existed in games like Europa Universalis II 15 years ago for example would be great to give it a bit more flexibility :
- Core Provinces was a great mechanism because it mean a nation could gain via events interest / legitimacy to conquer some provinces and this could be combined with the loyalty mechanism to annex some provinces already in game.
- receiving or annexing core provinces was seen as a lot less "bad" by the surrounding powers, they sort of recognised a form of legitimacy. Annexing non core provinces would drive all other countries crazy.
- A more dynamic peace diplomatic engine. In EUII iirc you could give countries (allies or not) money or provinces to buy their support. here the only instruments you have to gain support are state visits, which are tiny bit of chrome with no impact in the game.

To me the ideal model would be something akin to the EUII diplomatic model as a basis, but with many safeguards (such as limitation of outrights annexations or making "conservative" countries expansionnism a lot more costly : France was hated by many and annexing left and right, it didn't change the setting much. whereas if in 1805 Austria started annexing Bavaria or Prussia started annexing by force Saxony or Wurtemberg, it would have meant them departing from theri more conservative approach and becoming destabilizing forces as well, ie irking other powers (Russia and the other german power), making alliances against France harder.