vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Mod Development Status

Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:53 pm

Folks,

As I stated before, I'm working on a mod. This mod will be expanded diplomacy, meaning full annexation, full liberation, mutually agreed upon transfer of regions between players, true satellite creation (control over satellite troops and small economic contribution from satellite to major based on dice rolls). This expanded diplomacy will be available within the next few weeks after I've seen what Pocus is working on in next patch and how I can possibly capitalize on it.

However, we ran into a problem in our PBEM game. Nelson and a Brit force engaged the Spanish with roughly equal forces off Gibraltar. Spain lost 29 ships (their entire force) and Britain 1 ship. We thought that was damn strange, so I did some digging.

1) 100 gun ships (120, 110, 100, 98) were set to range 5 and everything was set lesser ranges, meaning the large ships had an extra rounds of firing. All ships of that time period had the same cannons, just more of them. The range shouldn't be higher between ships.
2) 100 gun ships had higher initiative, meaning they shoot first. In truth, the large ships were more difficult to maneuver and should have a lower initiative than smaller ships.
3) 100 gun ships had higher rate of fire, meaning they shoot more. This makes sense at is reflects more guns and more damage
4) 100 gun ships had higher chance to hit. Higher ROF makes sense reflecting more guns, but the ship itself doesn't equate to higher to hit chances.
4) British 100 guns ships had further bump ups from the common ships (increased chance to hit, etc..)
5) British admirals were further increasing the to hit, causing the one sided battles

Naval battles in this period were characterized by losses on both sides. Nelson loved close in tactics (don't fire until you see the white's of their eyes). But he lost his life after Trafalgar. British have higher troop quality and better admirals. It was the crews and admirals that were the difference

I wrote a program to convert the ship and admiral scripts. What I've done is:
1) Reduced to hit to a standard 15 offense/15 defense for all ships
2) Changed ROF for 100+ guns (4), 50-74 (3), Frigate (2), Brig/Sloop (1)
3) Changed Range to 3 for all ships (they have the same cannons)
4) Reduced damage to 1, cohesion to 15 for any hits
5) Reduced ALL admirals by 1 for offense/defense
6) Left British Troop Quality higher than everyone else but removed British extra to hit/damage done bonuses
7) Changed initiative such that bigger ships have lower initiatives than smaller ships

In addition, land combat and naval combat use the same combat system. Making changes for one side will affect the other. What I'm experimenting with is:

6) Reduced to hit coefficient from 400 to 100 (it was supposed to be at 125 from AGEOD, but the settings I saw after last patch had it at 400 again)
7) Increased auto retreat to 35% losses from 20%. When losses equal 35%, one side will auto-retreat The effect of this is more rounds of combat (both land and naval).

Lastly, we found another problem. Income from merchant ships is firing every turn, though production from cities is every 4 turns. The amount of money from trade was set to 250% (meaning a huge bump each turn from merchant ships) and zero for War Supplies (WSU) and EP (Engagement Points). I noticed that Britain had 26 thousand money by May. Way too much. So I've changed the following

1) The coefficient for money has been reduced from 250 to 60 (1/4) to be in line with once/4 turn production.
2) I bumped WSU and EP from 0 to 15 for trade. A very small amount each turn and will give Britain a reason to use their fleet against the trade/commerce/blockade boxes. Money is never a problem for any player in our games. So British blockades of trade/commerce/merchant boxes is useless. This gives them a reason. We may adjust this up or down based on results for game balance

The above is being beta tested. Please let me know if you would like an advance copy understanding that we may make further changes.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13705
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:07 pm

A few comments about the naval warfare: it's not exact all ships had the same cannons...you have the large ones in the lower batteries (big SOLs) and smaller ones on the upper decks or bridge (especially on smaller vessels)...the main reason was that it was not possible to load big guns on the upper decks (or you had a Vasa-like capsizing issue).
Also the British (and Americans to a smaller extend) used extensively carronades on the upper deck, hence a serious punch value at close range (in fact we factored that in their higher 'assault' values).

BUT, it is a false assumption to assume bigger ship had a higher ROF...it took almost the same time to reload a gun, and most frequently it took longer for the bigger ones...so you don't need to increase the ROF at all, it should be the same for all..if you want to better represent the volley punch of the batteries of bigger ship, better increase the damage done.


Regarding 6), it's an oversight in the 1.02 patch, it should have been implemented to 125%

Regarding income, it needs to be tested, just to make sure that Britain has enough money to "loan" to allied nations (via options).
Image

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:16 pm

PhilThib wrote:A few comments about the naval warfare: it's not exact all ships had the same cannons...you have the large ones in the lower batteries (big SOLs) and smaller ones on the upper decks or bridge (especially on smaller vessels)...the main reason was that it was not possible to load big guns on the upper decks (or you had a Vasa-like capsizing issue).
Also the British (and Americans to a smaller extend) used extensively carronades on the upper deck, hence a serious punch value at close range (in fact we factored that in their higher 'assault' values).

BUT, it is a false assumption to assume bigger ship had a higher ROF...it took almost the same time to reload a gun, and most frequently it took longer for the bigger ones...so you don't need to increase the ROF at all, it should be the same for all..if you want to better represent the volley punch of the batteries of bigger ship, better increase the damage done.


Regarding 6), it's an oversight in the 1.02 patch, it should have been implemented to 125%

Regarding income, it needs to be tested, just to make sure that Britain has enough money to "loan" to allied nations (via options).


Yes, but you somewhat answered it above. Bigger guns in LOWER decks. The entire ship didn't have the greater range. By standardizing the to hit rolls. range and using ROF as the differential, that provides in an abstracted manner the greater firepower of the larger ships. It also prevents the one sided battles that were not characteristic of the period. This combat mechanics are abstracted. If you want losses on both sides, then you must have the same range for both sides, otherwise, you will have one sided (lose 29 ships to 1 ship) battles. By standardizing to hit/range, TQ and Admiral Quality then become the major factors in victory.

Assaults weren't touched. The US ships have higher TQ and higher Assaults. I didn't touch those. I didn't touch Brit higher assault either.

Consider the income "tested". We are into May and England has 26K. More than enough to loan money. But if the loans are the same as French Loans, and I haven't looked yet, then War Supplies are part of the loans. None of us have extra War Supplies to lend currently. So the money becomes useless.

EDIT: Loaning money (only) to other majors isn't worth the effort. The RGD Cards plus city income is more than enough money for almost everyone. Arsenals produce 1 WSU. Foundries produce 10. There aren't many foundries rolling around. WSU is the limiting factor for everyone.

Arne
Corporal
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:43 pm

Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:40 pm

You're correct about the British Cash. I played a few years as the Brits and accumulated an huge hoard of Cash. Your adjustment seems sound.

TC271
Sergeant
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:58 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:55 pm

Vic,

Do you want any testers or even help with the game. I am increasingly convinced the game needs a complete overhaul to be playable!

Taillebois
General
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:06 pm

TC271 wrote:Vic,

Do you want any testers or even help with the game. I am increasingly convinced the game needs a complete overhaul to be playable!


The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues. :)

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:25 pm

Taillebois wrote:The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues. :)


The game is indee playable and fun, but it could become very good with some changes, which all players would benefit from right ? ;)

TC271
Sergeant
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:58 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:31 pm

Taillebois wrote:The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues. :)


The game is on its forth beta patch - the big scripted events (Pressburg, HRE disolution, Rhine Confederact, Saxon changing sides, Duchy Of Warsaw ETC ETC) that are pretty much core to the game were all broken on release and although some have being fixed now this is till an ongoing issue - this leaves aside AI microstack issues, bat-shit weird diplomacy ETC)

Those encountering problem and trying to help fix them are evidently not nit pickers. I am a day one buyer who is trying to be constructive (and overhelmingly positive about the scope and beauty of this game) but am also effectively a paying beta tester.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:57 pm

Taillebois wrote:The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues. :)


Folks are making some really constructive progress on identifying, not only the problems, but the reasons and potential fixes for them. But that only happens when people pull their heads out of the sand and see things as they really are. The designers never will if we don't.

User avatar
lukasberger
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:59 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:08 pm

vicberg wrote:However, we ran into a problem in our PBEM game. Nelson and a Brit force engaged the Spanish with roughly equal forces off Gibraltar. Spain lost 29 ships (their entire force) and Britain 1 ship. We thought that was damn strange, so I did some digging.


I guess I don't see why this is strange or a problem?

Seems quite accurate to me.

At Trafalagar the Franco/Spanish fleet lost 22 ships and the British none.

At The Nile the French lost 13 ships and the British none.

At Copenhagen the Danes lost 15 ships and the British none.

You get the idea. All of those battles were between roughly equal fleets or with the British being heavily outnumbered.

What would be a pity is if you somehow modified the system so that the British don't wipe the floor with other fleets.

Just my opinion for what it's worth (nothing!).

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:20 pm

TC271 wrote:The game is on its forth beta patch - the big scripted events (Pressburg, HRE disolution, Rhine Confederact, Saxon changing sides, Duchy Of Warsaw ETC ETC) that are pretty much core to the game were all broken on release and although some have being fixed now this is till an ongoing issue - this leaves aside AI microstack issues, bat-shit weird diplomacy ETC)

Those encountering problem and trying to help fix them are evidently not nit pickers. I am a day one buyer who is trying to be constructive (and overhelmingly positive about the scope and beauty of this game) but am also effectively a paying beta tester.


+1. I don't feel like a hater or someone just gratuitously bashing the game. I play it and just drool at the possibilities, at what it reminds me of my childhood and teenagehood dreaming of Napoleonic battles and playing the battleground series to death. But it is well within my rights as a customer to say that there have been quite a few issues that just shouldn't have been there. Long term issues that need 150 turns to arise, fair enough, AI that can be sometimes be weird (the small stack crisis and the artillery tourism), I can understand it's fine tuning. But Having the Pressburg sequence not working or the british fleets decaying within the first 6 months of the game, these were not acceptable issues and it reflected poorly (sorry to say so) on the devs and the betatesters because these are key elements of the first 6 months of the game, basically the first 5% of the game ! This was just not acceptable. I am happy it is getting sorted and command the team and some very dedicated players for their work.

I support Ageod, buy their games, was crazy in love with AACW and still think what they do right (the historicity, the rules, all the boardgame spirit) they do super right. But god would they gain from breaking free from some bad habits and updating the way they work in terms of database, engine adapted for multicores, etc.

I don't think I have OCD by the way.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:47 pm

lukasberger wrote:I guess I don't see why this is strange or a problem?

Seems quite accurate to me.

At Trafalagar the Franco/Spanish fleet lost 22 ships and the British none.

At The Nile the French lost 13 ships and the British none.

At Copenhagen the Danes lost 15 ships and the British none.

You get the idea. All of those battles were between roughly equal fleets or with the British being heavily outnumbered.

What would be a pity is if you somehow modified the system so that the British don't wipe the floor with other fleets.

Just my opinion for what it's worth (nothing!).


The problem was only 1 hit caused to the 29 ships lost. Didn't mention that. The Spanish caused only a single hit. No way. The battles of this period where characterized by being fairly close and damage to both sides. The British may not have lost ships during these engagements, but their ships took hits during the battles.

The problem lies with the combat mechanics. Start at range 5. Everything that can fire will fire and chooses a target based on CBT signature (a percent chance) on opposing side. After range 5 is done, go to range 4 and down to range 0 (assault or boarding combat). The big ships had range 5 versus 4 range or 3 range for smaller ships (74s on down). British have higher initiative and were getting first shot. The damage and cohesion caused were at levels where one hit meant an opposing ship would attempt to disengage. Disengaging ships become easier to hit. A vicious circle that were causing 29 ships lost and only causing a single hit. Give big ships first shot and initiative and battles will be heavily lopsided. No way you can convince me that was historical.

User avatar
lukasberger
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:59 pm

Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:14 pm

vicberg wrote:The problem was only 1 hit caused to the 29 ships lost. Didn't mention that. The Spanish caused only a single hit. No way. The battles of this period where characterized by being fairly close and damage to both sides. The British may not have lost ships during these engagements, but their ships took hits during the battles.

The problem lies with the combat mechanics. Start at range 5. Everything that can fire will fire and chooses a target based on CBT signature (a percent chance) on opposing side. After range 5 is done, go to range 4 and down to range 0 (assault or boarding combat). The big ships had range 5 versus 4 range or 3 range for smaller ships (74s on down). British have higher initiative and were getting first shot. The damage and cohesion caused were at levels where one hit meant an opposing ship would attempt to disengage. Disengaging ships become easier to hit. A vicious circle that were causing 29 ships lost and only causing a single hit. Give big ships first shot and initiative and battles will be heavily lopsided. No way you can convince me that was historical.


Hmm, interesting. Yeah, the one hit thing seems crazy.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:02 am

vicberg wrote:Give big ships first shot and initiative and battles will be heavily lopsided. No way you can convince me that was historical.


I don't know whether or how the engine takes wind into account, but the British at Trafalgar took a terrific pounding from the French/Spanish fleet just closing to engage. So initiative and first shot shouldn't depend on ship size - it should depend more on the weather gauge, leadersip and experience/training.

And no big ship, of whatever nation, should try to disengage after even a series of broadsides, absent a critical hit. That's just not the way naval combat worked. A big SOL typically couldn't "run away" once heavily engaged anyway - they weren't agile enough. Once committed they tended to stay committed.

lycortas2
Captain
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:57 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:02 am

I wish we had a way to represent that; two or three British admirals have 'break the line' as traits, it gives a +2 to the opponents initiative on the first round but the following British fire is conducted with a large bonus.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:22 am

They have a close fighter attribute on some Brit admirals. not sure what it is or what it does but Nelson (who almost invented the tactic) doesn't have it. Also Brits have a first shot bonus also, which is somewhat representative. I've also seen something like desired range, again not sure what it does. These could be tweaked to create the desired affect.

User avatar
murat
Lieutenant
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: ITALY - NAPLES

Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:04 pm

Is this mod in progress?

typhoon
Corporal
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:45 pm

Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:46 pm

I applaud this mod and many of the sentiments put on this thread the same as I applaud Ageod for putting this game out there for us to enjoy. It is the constant posts concerning unfinished and broken products that I cannot reconcile. Sure as with every game this game could have used more time to evolve before release but the trouble with that is it would end up as so many do a pipe dream that never saw the light of day. The way Ageod have gone about things is correct it's out there they fix the criticism work with those willing to help and give us the Napoleonic game we all so crave. As I say I in general applaud all that is currently happening to help this game evolve and grow yet still feel we all could all do more in supporting those that have given it to us. There ears should be ringing with praise for what they have done instead wargammers being what they are they take a lot of grief for not giving us perfection. A thing that would be different for each individual player anyway. This is and will continue to be the Napoleonic game to own today tomorrow and for many years to come lets help get the game we want and make that help like this mod in a positive way

User avatar
Khanti
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Poland

Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:20 pm

TC271 wrote:Vic,
Do you want any testers or even help with the game. I am increasingly convinced the game needs a complete overhaul to be playable!
The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues.


Taillebois wrote:The game is perfectly playable by normal human beings. Experts, nit pickers, and OCD types may experience life threatening issues. :)


The game is very playable unless you need to fight against British fleet ;)
I am very pleased to see someone thinks about re-writing naval combat mechanic.
I hope this mod will be done or better some of its suggestions will be put into game officially.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:45 pm

Beta testing right now. Finding a few units missed in the conversion, working through economic balance. Adjusting peace events so that there's more options. Satellite creation is done. Soon will be creating peace events between non-scripted powers. RHC is done. Working on Pressburg/Tilsit right now (not much needed, but removing date dependency to open strategic options). Then Westphalia. Will review Spanish options so that a DOW isn't required (again for flexibility).

It's going to be a while before this is ready for public. I might throw out a pre-release for people to start playing with, if there's interest. PM if interested with your email and I need feedback if you are playing it.

Big changes

1) Ranged combat greatly reduced in both damage and cohesion to reflect the inaccuracy of the period and greater reliance upon assaults
2) Naval combat adjusted so big ships have lower initiative and ranged combat damage/cohesion done reduced. Greater chance for navies to retreat. Brits nerfed a bit as they were over the top in terms of initiative, to hit and leaders. Was making for some extremely lopsided combats.
3) Brit ability to build land units greatly reduced as Britain never drafted. Drafts reduced to 4 a year and affect NM rather than local economy. Russia and France have exceptional drafts, everyone else major drafts. Britain, none. It makes the long term economic projections for game balancing more predictable. Though Britain only had 50k worth of disposable troops for the continent, I haven't touched the 5000 CBT that they have available. Britain should be a bit fun to play, but they won't have the replacements for extended campaigns.
4) RHC is now multiple countries (BAD,BAV,BER,HES,NAS,HRE) in complete control by France. Tilsit can fire before Pressburg. RCH can fire without either (not historical, but again opens up game play).
5) Westphalia will be OLD, HAN, BRU, and parts of Western Prussia. Saxony will go to RHC.
6) Satellites created by conquering minor power (or via Event like RHC). Complete control given to conquering power. Liberation created by conquering a conquered minor power. AI is removed from the equaltion for a great part of central Europe. France becomes the super power it was and why everyone ganged up on it.

MarshalJean
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm

Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:33 pm

Sounds fantastic! Can't wait for it! Thanks for all of your work, vicberg. Not just on this, but on fixing various parts of the whole game since release.

MJ

zooter
Captain
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:27 pm

Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:16 pm

what about the supply problem?

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:33 pm

What supply problem?

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:42 pm

vicberg wrote:What supply problem?


Will Franc be able to build depots in the RHC for example ? I assume not as this is an engine issue.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:44 pm

It's not an engine issue. There's build supply depot cards. I'm going to remove restrictions on them so they may be placed on friendly regions. RHC will be considered part of France. Full control. That means that either troops can build depots or the cards may be played.

zooter
Captain
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:27 pm

Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:59 pm

very good

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:42 pm

vicberg wrote:It's not an engine issue. There's build supply depot cards. I'm going to remove restrictions on them so they may be placed on friendly regions. RHC will be considered part of France. Full control. That means that either troops can build depots or the cards may be played.


I am not sure this is going to work. Depot building (whether RGD or via the units which is what I always use, why pay the RGD card ???) is linked to MC as far as I have been told on the beta patch thread.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:07 pm

It's linked to Military control because the card has a restriction in it:

MinControl = ?
MustBeOwned = 1

Remove that and instead force the card to look for home or friends by adding this.

SpecialInputCost_OwnKind = 0

Troops can't build in allied regions because there's a troop build restriction that it must be an owned region. That's in the engine and there's nothing I can do about it. When building in a Satellite IN THIS MOD, the Satellite is 100% Military Control by the conquering power and 75% loyalty. So enough for troops to build.

Using RGD cards to build depots will be in places like Spain.

AGEOD knows this is an issue which is why they attempted to solve it via an EVENT that builds depots through Spain for France. This is a solid approach except it won't work for anyone else. Everyone else is dependent upon where the Depots are in other countries. So Russia becomes dependent upon Austrian and Prussian depots and you can't tell the AI to build depots.

Even the special input cost restriction may be too much, and it might become wide open. Russia needs to build depots in Prussia without having to declare war. Prussia might not be a friend meeting the above restriction. So open the card, enable play, build depots.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7580
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:16 pm

I don't see any region ownership requirement on the Depot RGD?

Alias = rgdBuildDepot
Name = $rgd_nam_BuildDepot
ShortName = $rgd_shortnam_BuildDepot
Text = $rgd_txt_BuildDepot
Kind = $rgdSocial
Subtype = $dstMilControl
SoundsPlayed = $snd_RGD_BuildDepot
ImageMap = RgnDecision_OnMap_BuildDepot.png
ImagePanel = RgnDecision_BuildDepot.png
ImageFlavor = NGC_MCIncr.png
MinControl = 75
MustHaveInThisSUFamily = $famElite|$famLine|$famcavalry|$famMilitia
MustHaveNumQualify = 1
MustNotBePillaged = 1
Duration = 3
Inp_Abs_Money = 300
Inp_Abs_Conscript = 5
Effect_PostponeEnd = 1
Effect_RemoveFromFP = 1
Effect_StartStructure = $Depot
Effect_DevLevelMod = 3
Effect_Str_Ongoing = str_Msg_CMN_ongoing_BuildDepot
Effect_Str_Success = str_CMN_rgd_BuildDepot
AIImprovedCalc = 1
AIModChanceMoneyLevel = 2


Bt you need combat troops, 75% control, and 300 Money and 5 Conscripts.....

..as there is no defined SpecialInputCost_OwnKind it shouldn't matter.....

...and the cost of Depots using "units building"
MoneyCost = 10
WSUCost = 0
DayCost = 13
MiniCityLevel = 0
....
EltSubType0 = $SupplyType
EltAmount0 = 0
EltSubType1 = $OnFieldConscript
EltAmount1 = 5


indicates 10 money and 5 conscripts....

...hehe, we should probably get the Mony to be consistent..... :bonk:
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:41 pm

lodilefty wrote:I don't see any region ownership requirement on the Depot RGD?



Bt you need combat troops, 75% control, and 300 Money and 5 Conscripts.....

..as there is no defined SpecialInputCost_OwnKind it shouldn't matter.....



indicates 10 money and 5 conscripts....

...hehe, we should probably get the Mony to be consistent..... :bonk:


MinControl=75 is preventing RGD from being used in allied territories. You can't change MC as France when going to Spain unless you are at war. You can't build depots in minors either because you don't and will not have 75 MC.

EDIT: This needs a bit of clarification.

1) You have foreign access through a minor
2) You will have little to no military control and sitting the region will not build up military control because you are not at war.
3) You will be totally reliant upon the depots in the minors because you can't build any because you don't have mincontrol = 75 and you have no ability to get MC up to 75
4) Mincontrol = 75 needs to be removed. Specialinputcost_OwnKind, I *believe* will limit the available regions you can build in to home and friends.

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests