Satellite Nations and Expeditionary Forces

[Tyr]

Why does every satellite nations I create always refuse to send any Expeditionary Forces? I formed the satellite, which is why they exist, and they refuse to act as a subject nation and send the forces called upon. This is counter to actual history during this period. Furthermore, with satellites like the RHC - which is ruled by Joachim Murat, you know, Napoleon's Cavalry expert - refuse early diplomatic offers: state visit, access/supply rights, expeditionary forces (especially when I am fighting against a major power that is at war with said satellite), and commercial agreement. This makes absolutely zero sense.

[Drake001]

It's not formed properly, or at least to how it formed and worked historically. Also, wish that the whole expeditionary forces wasn't part of the diplomacy model...better if it worked like Civ War series

[Pocus]

Have you tried latest public beta patch, as it should improve on that significantly.

[Tyr]

I have not tried the new beta Pocus. I am a Steam owner and not sure how to get the patch working properly in my system. I have a Steamapps/WON and a Program Files: Matrix Games/WON. So where does the patch go if I am using Steam to run WON? I prefer to wait for the official patches that get pushed to steam to avoid that hassle. Though I am interested in giving vicsburg's mod a go after this up-coming weekend. So I am going to have to figure it out eventually.

Edit: I am very much enjoying the game (even if it is very slow). And I'd like to contribute comments to make it better. I made a post about EP loss and ships (Merchants) not unlocking when attacked. Another thing is in the options for use of memory allocation. I allow the game to use 75% (max) processor power; however, this seems to reset every turn. Can we fix that be locked?

[Philsavory]

When the installer asks, install it to the Steamapps/WON folder; for example my installation path is D:\Steam\SteamApps\common\Wars of Napoleon. The beta patch works fine with Steam.

[Tyr]

Thank you very much Phil. I will give that try when I install Vicburg's mod and the beta patch.

[Philsavory]

Thank you very much Phil. I will give that try when I install Vicburg's mod and the beta patch.

No problem, glad to help

[elxaime]

Unfortunately, I am finding the French satellite navies more burden than boon. Unless you can manage to get them under your control as expeditionary fleets, they will take off to sail the high seas for little purpose other than to get themselves sunk by the British. Not only is this free NM to the British, it is the gift that keeps on giving since the AI-controlled satellites will keeping producing more ships and sending them to their destruction.

I realize this is old ground, but a future DLC really needs to include a 2-player version of the campaign game, with full player control of all satellites. And the diplomacy system for the neutrals should be heavily scripted. The current AI-driven wild free for all bears little resemblance to history.

[PhilThib]

I realize this is old ground, but a future DLC really needs to include a 2-player version of the campaign game, with full player control of all satellites. And the diplomacy system for the neutrals should be heavily scripted. The current AI-driven wild free for all bears little resemblance to history.

This is one of the plans, among others, for future expansions

[elxaime]

This is one of the plans, among others, for future expansions

That is wonderful news and I would certainly purchase such a DLC. A two player campaign would result in many more games getting started - and finished. Scripted diplomacy, with various decision trees, could replicate some of the historical choices and allow flexibility within reasonable parameters. Having satellite and neutral forces fixed/locked and/or areas inaccessible unless mobilized would likely speed up turn processing immensely, since you wouldn't have AI processing for the tons of smaller powers to worry about. Satellite and neutral forces could be properly organized initially by the game designer and, if mobilized, reinforced according to a logical plan by the player himself using more historical force pool choices.

[vaalen]

This is one of the plans, among others, for future expansions

I would rush to buy such a DLC. It would greatly improve the game, and remove many small annoyances, while providing a more immersive historical experience.

[Dortmund]

We have another doubt about the use of expeditionary forces in our current campaign. France (me) wants to send a expeditionary force to Spain (another human player), but Spain can't choose the request expeditionary forces option in the diplomacy menu. Why? Have the low stats of the spanish monarch something to do with that? In that case, should'nt a human player have all the freedom of choosing all diplomatic options?

[elxaime]

We have another doubt about the use of expeditionary forces in our current campaign. France (me) wants to send a expeditionary force to Spain (another human player), but Spain can't choose the request expeditionary forces option in the diplomacy menu. Why? Have the low stats of the spanish monarch something to do with that? In that case, should'nt a human player have all the freedom of choosing all diplomatic options?

Even with the patch, expeditionary forces don't seem to really be working. I had four French satellites at 100 relations all refuse to grant expeditionary forces this turn. The sad reality is that, instead of being a boon to you, AI-controlled satellites are a net minus.

As mentioned above, this is particularly true as to any that have navies, as they simply sail these into the seas where they get destroyed. British morale in the campaign game I am in is at 129 and steadily climbing due to the small French satellite fleets it steadily feeds on. The French player can do nothing to prevent this. (EDIT - British morale now up to 141 - the entire Dutch navy has destroyed itself, except for one almost-sunk vessel that is sailing around the Atlantic...meanwhile, the Dutch shipyards are a hotbed of activity as they build more sloops which they can then send out singly to be destroyed, one suspects). The greatest terror of Napoleon is that the Danish may become his ally - their fleet will then sail into the Atlantic to destruction as well.

The satellites also seem to lavish their production piling up things they do not need and which their French ally definitely does not want - like tons of barges or position batteries for the minor satellites cities. As far as the minor land forces, it is common to see them either in stacks that lack command, or as many separate units in a single region, in varying non-sensical postures. Although we haven't gotten that far, I suspect the AI-controlled minor land forces operate more or less like the fleets - a mindless gaggle that are basically experience and morale gifts for whichever enemy has the fortune to oppose them (along with captured artillery and supply wagons).

In 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia, a decent chunk of his army was German satellite forces. There is no way to replicate that contribution under the current system of how minors are handled. I imagine the British will have the same issues with the Portuguese in the Peninsula. Yes, minors sometimes didn't do as asked. But that is a long way from the present madness.

Hopefully the two-player DLC mentioned above will address these issues. By the way, when AGEOD is ready, they should make a thread to solicit suggestions on the two-player campaign DLC. Players should have enough experience with the campaign by then to offer informed thoughts. So much of the game is a work of art and has so much promise.

[veji1]

Even with the patch, expeditionary forces don't seem to really be working. I had four French satellites at 100 relations all refuse to grant expeditionary forces this turn. The sad reality is that, instead of being a boon to you, AI-controlled satellites are a net minus.

As mentioned above, this is particularly true as to any that have navies, as they simply sail these into the seas where they get destroyed. British morale in the campaign game I am in is at 129 and steadily climbing due to the small French satellite fleets it steadily feeds on. The French player can do nothing to prevent this. (EDIT - British morale now up to 141 - the entire Dutch navy has destroyed itself, except for one almost-sunk vessel that is sailing around the Atlantic...meanwhile, the Dutch shipyards are a hotbed of activity as they build more sloops which they can then send out singly to be destroyed, one suspects). The greatest terror of Napoleon is that the Danish may become his ally - their fleet will then sail into the Atlantic to destruction as well.

The satellites also seem to lavish their production piling up things they do not need and which their French ally definitely does not want - like tons of barges or position batteries for the minor satellites cities. As far as the minor land forces, it is common to see them either in stacks that lack command, or as many separate units in a single region, in varying non-sensical postures. Although we haven't gotten that far, I suspect the AI-controlled minor land forces operate more or less like the fleets - a mindless gaggle that are basically experience and morale gifts for whichever enemy has the fortune to oppose them (along with captured artillery and supply wagons).

In 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia, a decent chunk of his army was German satellite forces. There is no way to replicate that contribution under the current system of how minors are handled. I imagine the British will have the same issues with the Portuguese in the Peninsula. Yes, minors sometimes didn't do as asked. But that is a long way from the present madness.

Hopefully the two-player DLC mentioned above will address these issues. By the way, when AGEOD is ready, they should make a thread to solicit suggestions on the two-player campaign DLC. Players should have enough experience with the campaign by then to offer informed thoughts. So much of the game is a work of art and has so much promise.

When Napoleon invaded Russia his army was 10% polish, 10% austrian, 20% german and some others sprinkled here and there for a 50% foreign army...

Regarding minor forces, the build issue remain : The troop building algorythm is completely out of whack, the devs should 1/ take all port and fort batteries out of the pool. Period. 2/ A stopgap would be to change the pools so that there are no arty units buildable but more mixed units : infantry brigade with embedded arty (2line/1light/1arty ; 3 line/arty ; etc...) and cavalry brigades with embedded artyt (2cavs/1 arty). You would still have infantry and cav units without arty available. That way the AI would HAVE to buy infantry and cavalry (it already builds enough of that though) and have its addiction to arty STOPPED.

I think this stop gap might be the only viable solution since the devs don't seem to be able to find how to curve the AI love affair with Arty : The only solution is to take all "full arty" units out of the building pool for AI minors at least.

[elxaime]

When Napoleon invaded Russia his army was 10% polish, 10% austrian, 20% german and some others sprinkled here and there for a 50% foreign army...

Regarding minor forces, the build issue remain : The troop building algorythm is completely out of whack, the devs should 1/ take all port and fort batteries out of the pool. Period. 2/ A stopgap would be to change the pools so that there are no arty units buildable but more mixed units : infantry brigade with embedded arty (2line/1light/1arty ; 3 line/arty ; etc...) and cavalry brigades with embedded artyt (2cavs/1 arty). You would still have infantry and cav units without arty available. That way the AI would HAVE to buy infantry and cavalry (it already builds enough of that though) and have its addiction to arty STOPPED.

I think this stop gap might be the only viable solution since the devs don't seem to be able to find how to curve the AI love affair with Arty : The only solution is to take all "full arty" units out of the building pool for AI minors at least.

Ultimately, the best solution I think for the Two-Player campaign DLC is to design it so as not to have any AI at all. If carefully crafted, minor nations and major allies can be handled through decision trees and scripted events which will basically govern their political development and which forces and areas are accessible to whom and when. EAW is like this - the German player controls the German, AH, Ottoman, Bulgarian and whomever forces. No one runs around under AI control. Countries which are not pulled into the fray, e.g. Afghanistan, sit there locked.

It is a lot of work to script things for so many major and minor nations, but it can be a labor of love for those who study the era and would ideally provide its own sub-game of trade-offs.

For example, Prussian attitudes towards France in 1805, which reflect when and how they may become unlocked, would be impacted by French player choices on the disposition of Hanover and British player (as stand in for the Coalition) decisions on how Russia would approach Poland. If/when Prussia enters the war, you can have 1914 EAW-style deployment options to allow the player to choose where they appear within Prussian territory. The composition of Prussian forces after a surrender/defeat/treaty would change dependent on other player-driven political, economic and military decisions.

The biggest challenge would be handling nations that changed sides at times, e.g. Spain or Russia.

Some of this would have to be "dumbed down." And overall, it would be a bit more of "history on rails." But it would be a welcome option for those who don't want to play Risk-style or endure the AI issues.

[RebelYell]

One solution is to make minors that join the British coalition or the French alliance give automatically all of their unlocked forces for the major leading that coalition/alliance.

Defensive treaty would not be enough, only full membership would give this.

[Offworlder]

Actually I would prefer an RDG card driven approach as in when a minor becomes a part of a coalition, cards appear once a year to the player to raise a specific force, possibly approaching real historical satellite contributions. Card activation could be against money, resources, EPs or a combination thereof. We have a working example in the first 3 RHC regiments that are activated through such a card. Imagine that for example, once or twice a year, several cards become available to raise units from some of the minors - it will force players to make decisions on where to spend EPs and other resources. These could also be linked with specific campaigns like the beginning of the Spanish or Russian or German campaigns for the French or specific dates for the Brits (forgot the date but they did ask for a considerable number of men from Spain and Portugal).

Such a system would also allow the minors to continue building up their 'home armies' at leisure without rendering them indefensible. However, I do acknowledge that such an approach would entail a lot of coding as a process.

[elxaime]

These are good ideas. There are lots of ways to skin the cat. Another thought would be that minor armies not even appear on the map, aside from TYW-style auto-garrisons, but when they are "mobilized" (either through a RGD mechanism or as a result of players choosing a specific option) the forces that appear would be from a roster that reflects the state of those forces at the time. For example, Berg in 1805 would have an order of battle and leaders that may differ from Berg in 1810, with that difference dependent on whether other options have been taken. A pro-French Bavarian army in 1807 would look different from a pro-Allied Bavarian army in 1814, with someone like a General Wrede even having different ratings. The Hapsburg army of 1805, if defeated, need not remain on the map, but if Austria went to war again in 1809, its army would be deployed EAW pre-war mobilization style, with its make-up consistent with political and economic choices made by the Coalition player. To reflect political dynamics for unstable or unreliable forces, including suspect nationalities within certain major powers, you could use a game mechanism like RUS where such forces would be subject to periodic "desertions" which would drain their ranks, or have their cohesion levels, again RUS-style, drop if they move outside their home regions.

RUS, TYW, ROP - there is a rich set of existing mechanisms for handling scripted politico-military behaviors and economic impacts in other AGEOD games to draw on. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, for the most part, although again handling challenges like Spain and Russian changing of sides will require some thought.

The trade off will of course be in player freedom. Those who have dreamed of sailing the entire Spanish army to retake Constantinople will be disappointed. But there are games like Europe Universalis for that sort of thing. WON really needs a two-player campaign to cater to the history buffs willing to experience plausible options under the actual constraints of the rulers of the time.

[vaalen]

One solution is to make minors that join the British coalition or the French alliance give automatically all of their unlocked forces for the major leading that coalition/alliance.

Defensive treaty would not be enough, only full membership would give this.

I like this idea very much. The AJE series has it, when a minor nation becomes your ally, you get full control over their unlocked forces. It works very well.

[Pocus]

Perhaps this kind of work can be tried and tested by a small beta pool, but we would need volunteers for the foundation.

[veji1]

I like this idea very much. The AJE series has it, when a minor nation becomes your ally, you get full control over their unlocked forces. It works very well.

This is more or less what Vicberg's mod tried to do, although because of how the engine is set up, he had to make it a full annexation to make it work.

[Offworlder]

This is more or less what Vicberg's mod tried to do, although because of how the engine is set up, he had to make it a full annexation to make it work.

It would be nice as today I've encountered a really ridiculous situation. As France, when Spain declared war upon me, it still retained the alliance with me. The minor allies declared war on each other as some sided with France, while others with Spain which was totally ludicrous. Then Austria decided to attack Bavaria for the nth time, I declared war on Austria, Russia came rushing in and then Prussia as well (before the Tilsit agreement elapsed) and basically now I'm at war with the whole world except for the Ottomans, Persia, USA and Mahrattas.... in 1808 no less! BTW the Saxon change of sides is also bugged as they remain allied with Prussia and basically go to war with everyone except France once the event fires. When Saxony changes sides, it should automatically become a French satellite and not remain within Prussian orbit.

Unfortunately the quirks of diplomatic system and the continued failure of the expeditionary forces facility really render this otherwise magnificent game, totally unpredictable in an annoyingly illogical way. A simplified system for diplomacy and recruitment of minor contingents needs to be found. This especially since diplomacy in those days was essentially very simple - big power, with big stick knocks on your door and 'offers' its protection in exchange for specific conditions usually rendering a minor power into a satellite (see Napoleonic and Russian 'diplomacy' in these days vis-à-vis Spain and Italian States for the former and the Ottoman Empire for the latter or for example the Brits in Copenhagen). Essentially it was a mafia racket of international dimensions and did not go through progressive stages of asking for more and more control.

Secondly, minor contingents were essentially levied according to the wishes of the major power and were not a random collection of units thrown together by chance. Most of the time they were regulated as part of the conventions drawn between states. Thus the present system, even it worked well, would not represent the true system existent in Napoleonic times, whereby states were quite thorough and specific in what it actually 'asked for' (ie ordered) from their satellites (see for example the conventions regulating the allied contingents levied for Spain by the French from the Dutch and Germans). In my opinion, the recruitment of such contingents should not be tied in any way with diplomacy, especially since it is not essentially a diplomatic transaction between equals but rather an imposition from the stronger power. I can only envisage it for those middling powers which were not necessarily or easily persuaded to join one side or another and who in real life retained a modicum of independence of greater powers (ex Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Sweden).

[veji1]

It would be nice as today I've encountered a really ridiculous situation. As France, when Spain declared war upon me, it still retained the alliance with me. The minor allies declared war on each other as some sided with France, while others with Spain which was totally ludicrous. Then Austria decided to attack Bavaria for the nth time, I declared war on Austria, Russia came rushing in and then Prussia as well (before the Tilsit agreement elapsed) and basically now I'm at war with the whole world except for the Ottomans, Persia, USA and Mahrattas.... in 1808 no less! BTW the Saxon change of sides is also bugged as they remain allied with Prussia and basically go to war with everyone except France once the event fires. When Saxony changes sides, it should automatically become a French satellite and not remain within Prussian orbit.

Unfortunately the quirks of diplomatic system and the continued failure of the expeditionary forces facility really render this otherwise magnificent game, totally unpredictable in an annoyingly illogical way. A simplified system for diplomacy and recruitment of minor contingents needs to be found. This especially since diplomacy in those days was essentially very simple - big power, with big stick knocks on your door and 'offers' its protection in exchange for specific conditions usually rendering a minor power into a satellite (see Napoleonic and Russian 'diplomacy' in these days vis-à-vis Spain and Italian States for the former and the Ottoman Empire for the latter or for example the Brits in Copenhagen). Essentially it was a mafia racket of international dimensions and did not go through progressive stages of asking for more and more control.

Secondly, minor contingents were essentially levied according to the wishes of the major power and were not a random collection of units thrown together by chance. Most of the time they were regulated as part of the conventions drawn between states. Thus the present system, even it worked well, would not represent the true system existent in Napoleonic times, whereby states were quite thorough and specific in what it actually 'asked for' (ie ordered) from their satellites (see for example the conventions regulating the allied contingents levied for Spain by the French from the Dutch and Germans). In my opinion, the recruitment of such contingents should not be tied in any way with diplomacy, especially since it is not essentially a diplomatic transaction between equals but rather an imposition from the stronger power. I can only envisage it for those middling powers which were not necessarily or easily persuaded to join one side or another and who in real life retained a modicum of independence of greater powers (ex Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Sweden).

Yep, basically ideally expeditionnary force as it works should be replaced by RGDs to be played by the major power when a minor is in his orbit, giving him free troops.... And the diplomatic engine as it is is really only viable for MP.

[elxaime]

Yep, basically ideally expeditionnary force as it works should be replaced by RGDs to be played by the major power when a minor is in his orbit, giving him free troops.... And the diplomatic engine as it is is really only viable for MP.

A midway solution for MP could be:

- all minors diplomacy is handled by scripted events and RGD
- all minors on map forces limited to fixed units
- minor field forces appear only as a result of scripted events or an RGD by a major power of the same alliance

This would free AGEOD to only having to improve the AI for major powers and, perhaps, a few "major minors" like Sweden. The problem right now is that the AI doesn't really handle well the plethora of minor states. It may historically perhaps model how they behaved in the 1300 and 1400s, with petty baron wars, but as mentioned above by this era the minors had become pawns in a greater game - even the "major minors" like Portugal, Denmark and Sweden.

[Nappy]

For us steam players....it would be nice for all these positive stable patches were considered worthy...

[vicberg]

I've stepped away from this game for a while due to real life, but I've been tempted to start working on this very concept. I've found that MP games with even just 4 players quickly fall apart, especially in the long second winter. This could lead the way, so to speak, for a DLC from AGEOD.

To do this, I would do the following:

1) Reduce to 2 players, France and Britain. Spain would start French controlled and Spain would eventually flip to British controlled during the Charles Abdication events. Austria and Russia would start British controlled, but if January 1805, Austria is at peace with France
2) RGD card play for raising troops won't work as there's no ability I've found to trace a region where the card is played back to the country that owns the region. Minors or controlled majors would have to be handled like TEAW (or my mod) and the country forces and economy are added to the controlling major power. The trick to doing it this way would be to limit force pools, oitherwise GBR/France could build an immense army quite quickly using the minor/major controlled economies. For example, using GBR economy, Austria could build a huge army quickly. So force pools would have to be adjusted.
3) The diplomatic engine would still be used, but it would be limited. Actions by either power would still change diplomatic standings (-100 to +100). Standings would be checked, but I'm thinking that DOW would switch to event driven.
4) Most of the base game scripting would still hold up as is. There would have to be additional scripts added to manage the 2 player choices.
5) A 2 player game would enable better AI Scripting. Uncontrolled minors or majors wouldn't build until controlled by GBR or FRA, so that would remove the Artillery Mass Building issue or the formation of solid Corps/Armies, since that would be human controlled. Uncontrolled Minors won't DOW each other. The scripting to set the diplomatic values would fire and then wouldn't be adjusted unless some major event happens. AI could be focused without a huge effort on more historical lines of play by the AI along with chances for variations of play.
6) Supply will still be an issue through neutrals because of the engine. Foreign Access didn't enable supply to move through because the military control part of the supply mechanics prevented it. No military control (and there will be none in a neutral minor) = no supply movement. Unless this has been fixed in recent patches, it would have to be addressed in some manner.
7) There's been complaints in the mod about combat taking too long. Since I'm not seeing anyone complaining about the base game combat system, I'd revert back to that.
8) There's quite a few What Ifs that could be included. For example, France doesn't form up the RHC and the result is Prussia doesn't DOW France. Russia would have to either go through Austria or DOW Prussia. France could encourage Turkey to DOW Russia (as happened IRL), become controlled by France, but now Turkey has to defend it's huge territory from Russia/Austria/GBR. As I did in my mod, France can choose to push out the Bourbons in Spain or can choose to play nice. Both have costs. The affects of the continental blockade or not enforcing it could be made more severe to motivate French attacks against Portugal and Russia.

If there's anyone who wants to get into AGEOD scripting, let me know as I could use the help.

[elxaime]

I've stepped away from this game for a while due to real life, but I've been tempted to start working on this very concept. I've found that MP games with even just 4 players quickly fall apart, especially in the long second winter. This could lead the way, so to speak, for a DLC from AGEOD.

To do this, I would do the following:

1) Reduce to 2 players, France and Britain. Spain would start French controlled and Spain would eventually flip to British controlled during the Charles Abdication events. Austria and Russia would start British controlled, but if January 1805, Austria is at peace with France
2) RGD card play for raising troops won't work as there's no ability I've found to trace a region where the card is played back to the country that owns the region. Minors or controlled majors would have to be handled like TEAW (or my mod) and the country forces and economy are added to the controlling major power. The trick to doing it this way would be to limit force pools, oitherwise GBR/France could build an immense army quite quickly using the minor/major controlled economies. For example, using GBR economy, Austria could build a huge army quickly. So force pools would have to be adjusted.
3) The diplomatic engine would still be used, but it would be limited. Actions by either power would still change diplomatic standings (-100 to +100). Standings would be checked, but I'm thinking that DOW would switch to event driven.
4) Most of the base game scripting would still hold up as is. There would have to be additional scripts added to manage the 2 player choices.
5) A 2 player game would enable better AI Scripting. Uncontrolled minors or majors wouldn't build until controlled by GBR or FRA, so that would remove the Artillery Mass Building issue or the formation of solid Corps/Armies, since that would be human controlled. Uncontrolled Minors won't DOW each other. The scripting to set the diplomatic values would fire and then wouldn't be adjusted unless some major event happens. AI could be focused without a huge effort on more historical lines of play by the AI along with chances for variations of play.
6) Supply will still be an issue through neutrals because of the engine. Foreign Access didn't enable supply to move through because the military control part of the supply mechanics prevented it. No military control (and there will be none in a neutral minor) = no supply movement. Unless this has been fixed in recent patches, it would have to be addressed in some manner.
7) There's been complaints in the mod about combat taking too long. Since I'm not seeing anyone complaining about the base game combat system, I'd revert back to that.
8) There's quite a few What Ifs that could be included. For example, France doesn't form up the RHC and the result is Prussia doesn't DOW France. Russia would have to either go through Austria or DOW Prussia. France could encourage Turkey to DOW Russia (as happened IRL), become controlled by France, but now Turkey has to defend it's huge territory from Russia/Austria/GBR. As I did in my mod, France can choose to push out the Bourbons in Spain or can choose to play nice. Both have costs. The affects of the continental blockade or not enforcing it could be made more severe to motivate French attacks against Portugal and Russia.

If there's anyone who wants to get into AGEOD scripting, let me know as I could use the help.

As noted above, I think the future of this game really depends on designing a 2-player campaign. So it is great you are interested in helping make this happen. Here are some thoughts on your above list:

1. This is the heart of it - all forces are controlled by a player, there are no AI-controlled forces. You can handle "side" wars like Sweden v Russia through scripted events with restrictions like RUS which penalize units native to certain regions from moving out of it.

2. Good idea

3. I would trash the current diplomatic system and go the path of EAW or TYW, with "diplomatic boards" where players can send diplomats. These "boards" would change periodically to reflect major developments, either scripted or player choice driven. I would put this system in the ledger rather than on the map, and have "diplomats" played the same way you'd allocate replacements. E.g. each country capable of being impacted by diplomacy would have an icon that looks like the current replacement unit system - you'd "add diplomats" to try and affect change the same way you'd buy replacements. But you'd be using EP.

4. That's great, no need to remake the wheel everywhere.

5. I would suggest leaving AI for a future patch and just have the 2-player version require a player for each. I think most/all people will be able to find an opponent, and the solitaire folks will still have the vanilla game to play while waiting for the AI to be added to 2-player.

6. On number six, why not deal with this the same way EAW does, which is that there are only two types of military control. For WON, this would be pro or anti-French. A "neutral" would initially have one side or the other's MC assigned to it, but this would change as forces move around. For example, Hannover can start as 100 MC of anti-French, but this shifts either as French/French allied units move through a region. You can also have "Rape of Belgium" EAW style events which become available when one side holds the capital of that minor country or there is some political development.

7. Sounds good.

8. This is where I think two-player will really shine. You can give players all sorts of interesting choices they will then have to live by. Scripting, as opposed to an AI-controlled diplomacy, doesn't have to be dumbed down. In actuality, you can have a ton more "chrome" and "flavor" events with some impact that would add great pleasure for the history buffs.

[vicberg]

I'd love to bring in the TEAW diplomacy system. The issue is that I don't believe it can be turned on with a config file. I'd need access to the source code, though I'll take a look and see. The map has the countries embedded in it to the right in TEAW. I believe that would have to be coded. The second thing to consider is that in TEAW there's around 20+ minors and 2 Majors (Italy and Turkey). In WON, there's 89 minor countries and 5 Majors (Russia, Prussia, Austria and Spain, Turkey). The diplomacy board would become immense in size. So I'm afraid the diplomacy engine in WON will still have to be used in some capacity. I could go completely around it and create RGD cards for Ambassadors/Diplomats and then place on a capital (so no diplomatic board), but with 89 possibilities, the scripting might grind the game down to a halt. Plus there's an issue tracking the region back to the country. I'd have to find a solution for that.

TEAW deals with supply by adding countries as "sub-factions" to the minor power. This gives, in essence, military control over the country without actually giving military control. This could be replicated, but it requires complete control over the diplomacy model. For example, in August 1805, France needs to trace supply through Baden and Wurttemburg in order to push in Austria. France (and Spain) would have to become sub-factions within these two minor powers, but this would change if France declares war for any reason against either of these two. Both minors should remain neutral until RHC is formed up. The challenge is that I don't have complete control over the diplomacy model, which is one of the issues presented by many. The AI somewhat takes over and makes it's own moves. What I could possibly do is to keep the diplomacy panel and remove all options from it, so it shows current diplomatic relations only and then create the RGD for ambassadors and diplomats. So a combination of both possibly.

I already have the complete control of a minor concept in my Enhanced Diplomacy mod. It wouldn't take much to bring the concept into a 2 player game.

[elxaime]

I'd love to bring in the TEAW diplomacy system. The issue is that I don't believe it can be turned on with a config file. I'd need access to the source code, though I'll take a look and see. The map has the countries embedded in it to the right in TEAW. I believe that would have to be coded. The second thing to consider is that in TEAW there's around 20+ minors and 2 Majors (Italy and Turkey). In WON, there's 89 minor countries and 5 Majors (Russia, Prussia, Austria and Spain, Turkey). The diplomacy board would become immense in size. So I'm afraid the diplomacy engine in WON will still have to be used in some capacity. I could go completely around it and create RGD cards for Ambassadors/Diplomats and then place on a capital (so no diplomatic board), but with 89 possibilities, the scripting might grind the game down to a halt. Plus there's an issue tracking the region back to the country. I'd have to find a solution for that.

TEAW deals with supply by adding countries as "sub-factions" to the minor power. This gives, in essence, military control over the country without actually giving military control. This could be replicated, but it requires complete control over the diplomacy model. For example, in August 1805, France needs to trace supply through Baden and Wurttemburg in order to push in Austria. France (and Spain) would have to become sub-factions within these two minor powers, but this would change if France declares war for any reason against either of these two. Both minors should remain neutral until RHC is formed up. The challenge is that I don't have complete control over the diplomacy model, which is one of the issues presented by many. The AI somewhat takes over and makes it's own moves. What I could possibly do is to keep the diplomacy panel and remove all options from it, so it shows current diplomatic relations only and then create the RGD for ambassadors and diplomats. So a combination of both possibly.

I already have the complete control of a minor concept in my Enhanced Diplomacy mod. It wouldn't take much to bring the concept into a 2 player game.

- On the Diplomacy Board, I am wondering if that can be handled cleverly somehow by creating an additional "diplomatic" overlay to the map. Press a key and the diplomatic status appears and you could play the diplomatic RGD only on this overlay. That would remove the issue of needing to create a new EAW or TYW style diplomatic board (perhaps)

- the work-arounds for the Enhanced Diplomacy Mod probably are a good approach for a new two-player version campaign. Instead of fighting the vanilla diplomatic system, curtail it and limit its negative impacts.

- longer term, since AGEOD itself has now mentioned this as a potential DLC, I wonder if they may already be thinking of making the source code changes you mention.

[Offworlder]

There is need for a diplomacy upgrade. I'm playing the French and am at 1811. Prussia is completely crushed and yet, it declares war on France. This is beyond ridiculous and now a beautiful game is turning into a chore of every year invading Prussia and Austria because the game can't realise that without a semblance of an army (a few artillery brigades and garrison troops are not an army), it cannot take on another player. Only Russian expeditionary forces bring some muscle, but even Russia is dangerously depleted now. Yet Prussia and Austria keep attacking France, any minors within reach and the Ottoman Empire (and each other) with abandon, even if it means certain defeat.

Furthermore, its pretty obvious that the AI cannot rebuild its forces after the initial drubbing in 1805-07 period. Not only does it indulge into an artillery building frenzy (once I found 6 garrison artillery parked in Vienna in 1809), but it doesn't actually bring together the various brigades into divisions and so on. At sea, even the Brits seem to be open to sneak attacks and never reinforce their depleted squadrons (or their army in Portugal for that matter). And I still have to see a division in reformed armies on the allied side.