Pride of Nations - Age of Revolution Mod

[McNaughton]

Random, I will totally look in to the mod enabler, it looks like a very useful tool (why not make it as easy as possible, eh?).

The problem I saw with the original stats was that casualties from day 1 were way too high. The bloodiest battles up to the 1870s caused only tens of thousands of casualties (the entire roll of Austrian casualties at Konegraetz was 45 000, this being the largest and bloodiest battles since the Napoleonic Wars). Even during the Great War, casualties were high, but so too were the number of troops fielded, and the duration of combat extended. In no way do I see a battle lasting 2-3 days resulting in over 100 000 casualties (the Great War battles causing these numbers of casualties spanned weeks, if not months).

A side effect of reducing casualties is that the quality of your leadership now plays a greater part. Take the 1905 scenario. In the old version, after your second battle with the Russians, the Japanese army was crippled. Even though it won the two battles, they were simply savaged so much that the Russians, who have much greater numbers, had more reserves so regardless of the leadership, fresh and 100% strength troops will overcome tired and weakened veterens. I have played a modified 1905 scenario as the Russians and find it VERY difficult to do any real damage to the Japanese. Regardless of when I try to attack, the Japanese quality of troops and leadership throws my forces back. We both recover somewhat quickly, but pretty much are at a stalemate (I can make no progress against them, even though my individual force number is much greater, their quality makes up for it).

Casualties in the mod are still high, averaging at about 10-20% of the total forces engaged (depending on the tenacity, success, or failure of the battle). For example, a force of 300 000 men may lose a battle and have 60 000 casualties. Rarely do I lose elements, even after a force being in combat multiple rounds a turn. Even still, I rarely lose units (only if a much larger force catches a tiny group moving to reinforce).

I have removed the ability to capture HQs and Artillery, which means that you will no longer collect your enemie's corps HQs and Artillery. These forces remain in the hands of the original owner, meaning that given time, even an 'annihilated' corps can rebuild itself (although takes a long time and a lot of replacements).

At present I am working on wartime events, testing out AI and Human battle goals, as well as special intervention events (to represent an expanding war). I have just figured out how to do MC events. Will keep people posted.

In a few days I plan to work on more stuff with the models and units, notably natives and other minors (plus changing around the units a fair bit).

[McNaughton]

Hi there, I would just like everyone to know that my project is NOT dead. I have been working on it consistently since the release of the initial version. There are A LOT of additions, changes, and fixes to the models and units, as well as some other extras...

Here are some previews...

#1. National units. Each major nation (and many of the minor nations) will have units that are composed of different numbers of elements. For example, a German Infantry Corps has two attached light cavalry regiments, an Austrian Corps has one cavalry regiment, while Russia has no attached cavalry. Sizes of forces are also different. A British Cavalry Division is composed of 6 Cavalry Elements, while an Austrian Cavalry Division is composed of 4 Cavalry Regiments. All is based off of historic OOB. In this way you wil get a different experience in the formations of each nation.

#2. New Force Pools. Matching what the nations fielded at their maximum size (basically up to 1914 levels), each nation will have a historic level of forces that they can raise, and the main limitation being that of available manpower. Nations like the United States will no longer have access to Corps unless they are at war with a major power (including the CSA).

#3. Many little hidden issues of unit construction and upgrades tidied up.

#4. Support elements (Engineers, Pioneers, Medical, etc.) and units for newly released nations (Belgium, as well as support troops for the ever popular Spain).

#5. A variety of new element graphics for the majors, and many minor European nations.

Just to name a few changes..

[vaalen]

Hi there, I would just like everyone to know that my project is NOT dead. I have been working on it consistently since the release of the initial version. There are A LOT of additions, changes, and fixes to the models and units, as well as some other extras...

Here are some previews...

#1. National units. Each major nation (and many of the minor nations) will have units that are composed of different numbers of elements. For example, a German Infantry Corps has two attached light cavalry regiments, an Austrian Corps has one cavalry regiment, while Russia has no attached cavalry. Sizes of forces are also different. A British Cavalry Division is composed of 6 Cavalry Elements, while an Austrian Cavalry Division is composed of 4 Cavalry Regiments. All is based off of historic OOB. In this way you wil get a different experience in the formations of each nation.

#2. New Force Pools. Matching what the nations fielded at their maximum size (basically up to 1914 levels), each nation will have a historic level of forces that they can raise, and the main limitation being that of available manpower. Nations like the United States will no longer have access to Corps unless they are at war with a major power (including the CSA).

#3. Many little hidden issues of unit construction and upgrades tidied up.

#4. Support elements (Engineers, Pioneers, Medical, etc.) and units for newly released nations (Belgium, as well as support troops for the ever popular Spain).

#5. A variety of new element graphics for the majors, and many minor European nations.

Just to name a few changes..

This sounds terrific! Thank you for your work.

[ancient seaman]

Hi there, I would just like everyone to know that my project is NOT dead. I have been working on it consistently since the release of the initial version. There are A LOT of additions, changes, and fixes to the models and units, as well as some other extras...

Here are some previews...

#1. National units. Each major nation (and many of the minor nations) will have units that are composed of different numbers of elements. For example, a German Infantry Corps has two attached light cavalry regiments, an Austrian Corps has one cavalry regiment, while Russia has no attached cavalry. Sizes of forces are also different. A British Cavalry Division is composed of 6 Cavalry Elements, while an Austrian Cavalry Division is composed of 4 Cavalry Regiments. All is based off of historic OOB. In this way you wil get a different experience in the formations of each nation.

#2. New Force Pools. Matching what the nations fielded at their maximum size (basically up to 1914 levels), each nation will have a historic level of forces that they can raise, and the main limitation being that of available manpower. Nations like the United States will no longer have access to Corps unless they are at war with a major power (including the CSA).

#3. Many little hidden issues of unit construction and upgrades tidied up.

#4. Support elements (Engineers, Pioneers, Medical, etc.) and units for newly released nations (Belgium, as well as support troops for the ever popular Spain).

#5. A variety of new element graphics for the majors, and many minor European nations.

Just to name a few changes..

All of them really great.

Now if you could share some info of how to add models/units for countries that don't have them?
I am really trying to mod Greece into play but so far no luck in terms of new models and units for them.Just to many crashes and since i am no modder...

[Drax]

I have removed the ability to capture HQs and Artillery...

I agree (if I can ^^) with HQs but not about artillery and supply wagons. That was quite common for a routing army to abandon those, or am I wrong?

Is there a way to make the difference between an orderly retreat and a total rout of a losing army? that would be great.

Anyway, thanks for your work and info sharing. Im looking to test your mod sir!

[Peissner]

I have removed the ability to capture HQs and Artillery, which means that you will no longer collect your enemie's corps HQs and Artillery.

I believe that if an army cannot abandon its slow-moving equipment, it becomes more difficult for them to retreat to safety, and they end up suffering greater losses.

Can someone more knowledgeable confirm that?

[yellow ribbon]

yes and no,

actually in the existing system you can have following:

besiege a city, fail, all infantry gets killed, the enemy takes over guns and supporting units in the rest of the turn processing.

or the way around:

enemy tries to break out with a single brigade of infantry, garrisons and fixed guns behave like moving around and participate in the breakout, eventually the infantry is killed and guns and supporting units destroyed and/or captured.

and so on. its ridiculous.

so, yes, if i understand him right, he is able to REDUCE losses to a historical level thereby... drastically.

its more about games logic, than reality, isnt it

[Kensai]

...the primary difference I have seen in European vs European conflict is that you no longer get massive casualties on both sides in an 'even' or 'somewhat even' fight. However, forces will become erradicated should you vastly outnumber them (had an entire force wiped out because it was against 10:1 odds)...

I believe these massive casualties we see are WAD. Seriously, how many of you guys do a conservative or fake attack and how many of you give defensive orders NOT to hold ground?

The game already has these options but I seriously doubt anyone changes often the default rules of engagement and stance.

It is my understanding that a battle with a conservative attack against a unit that has orders to retreat after 2 rounds will have much less casualties.

[yellow ribbon]

Kensai,

i have "tested" the blue-blue combat behavior with the 1850 GC American Civil War for weeks, even with armies not larger than 80K, and had still the ridiculous numbers...
thus avoiding battle and retreating in case of serious engagement, the McClellan way if you want to name it.

but just the other way around:

I arrive, wait for two or three times, besiege maybe, scripted level of AI aggressiveness goes on, attacks.

others have tested it even longer, with all kinds of nations.

And players reported many unsystematic zero losses / all losses battles.

I lost more men in one battle, than Grant at Shiloh or Meade at Gettysburg, while having fewer troops engaged.

AND WEAPONS TECHNOLOGIES increase the problem over time, for all five years a player can gain, by supported research, a headstart while doing three years research and living 2 years from the harvest.

For playing totally cautious, slow build up, choosing up the ground on my own, avoiding battle, passive, entrenching, all additional guns and bonuses in one place and just blocking movements in other places, i still got 100K union losses to over 300K captured and killed rebels while waiting nearly 6 years to end the ACW, over two years not firing a shot while besieging cities, totally blockaded cities, land and sea.

Using blue/green i got badly mauled, obviously, using green/green i lost until moral was broken and kinda bitter peace had to be accepted.

to be brief, even with all knowledge about the combat system and experience with the system of orders from AGEODS ACW i still have the problems McNaughton is addressing in his modifications, especially due to the winner captures all equipment problem

of course the numbers depend on the way the player approach the warfare, however, most wont hang around with some corps for 2-4 years.

whether this all is a problem at all has been discussed for over a half year, and since we cannot screw the AI itself, he is working with the stats...

and i am eager to test this final outcome the very moment i get more time.

[Kensai]

i have "tested" the blue-blue combat behavior with the 1850 GC American Civil War for weeks, even with armies not larger than 80K, and had still the ridiculous numbers...

Sometimes, ridiculous numbers of casualties is the norm. Even for small scale conflicts. I would expect that, in game terms, the above battle was at least orange-orange.

Anyway, there is this possible problem that making armies bigger while cutting down casualties will have an adverse effect on hunting down and eradicating rebels, something that is quite of a nuisance in the current level and could become even worse. Don't get me wrong, annihilating completely the rebels should be difficult, and it is WAD, but more than this? Dunno...

[yellow ribbon]

well, your linked battle is the prime example for McNaughtons work, three salvos at a range closer than 200 meters, having the effect of surprise.

one more reason to adjust the stats

once more the major problem arises from the 15days time you cannot take command in between, or not.
one day such casualties is acceptable, 3 times in 15days and then loosing all equipment either is not.

for the rebels, true, i wrote about it last December. A corps of cav. was not able to nail down partisans. despite having brigades in all surrounding provinces too.

Despite it there is a different problem, alt least with north american tribes:

they can take over major cities and no matter whether you killed them all, or just drove them out, they destroy EVERYTHING within the city....

if others confirm this problems for "real" colonial tribes, its going to be a PITA. making it close to impossible to gain enough MC to get colonial cards running, maybe.
But every player shall be able to alter this stats quickly.

[Kensai]

well, your linked battle is the prime example for McNaughtons work, three salvos at a range closer than 200 meters, having the effect of surprise.

one more reason to adjust the stats

Aggressive fight settings imply that close ferocious combat was done. Why should that prove that the stats need alteration and not the other way?

once more the major problem arises from the 15days time you cannot take command in between, or not.
one day such casualties is acceptable, 3 times in 15days and then loosing all equipment either is not.

This is a necessary abstraction, would you prefer daily turns?!
That's why we have rounds in battles. Things not happen all at once.

Losing all equipment is indeed problematic, as well as having units annihilated. But does it really happen that often if you put your ROE and fighting stance to retreat? It is quite normal to lose your whole force to killing or capture if you tell them to hold an attack while outnumbered 5:1.

[yellow ribbon]

"Aggressive fight settings imply that close ferocious combat was done. Why should that prove that the stats need alteration and not the other way?"

Quite easy, the combination of salvo fire delayed to the last moment, what is lacking in PON, is more important in your example than anything else
Rapid fire action rifles, and wrong school tactic on the danish side speak in favor for the mod of mainly emphasizing close range efficiency. Amplified by the element of surprise.

PON is not in the age of cold steel, its in the age when cold steel was predominant in minds, but badly practical in field.
the game represents a time when inefficient muskets were used to equip massed armies more cheap as fast as possible, rather than using modern equipment.
the famous urban legend of the Prussians, able to shoot from the ground (learned from the observers in the american civil war) are not more than urban legends.
most of the time Prussians artillery were inferior in numbers, training and quality until late 1890s.
If you look into contemporary reports, stupidity of old school leaders caused the losses on one side in favor to the other, not more, not less.

You will ask for further proofs and reasons, i guess, well think about the stahlhelm, which needed to be introduced in field battles long after the modern guns and rifles.
it is the prime example that contemporary tactics were overwhelmed by technology for many years, but no change in combat behavior appeared until there was the slightest chance to use parts of the "as many as possible, as fast as possible, as direct as possible into the enemies line"-tactics

So, unless PONs units do it to this close range, the combats results would not be that high.

cant identify "ferocious combat" in your example, its more about the reason why the military schools of thinking made the step to rapid fire action, before going back to the "larger gun" action within 40 years, ending back in the massed assault / human wave and war of attrition from 1916, when battles out of the movement no longer worked (again, like mid 1860s).
the military schools of thinking repeated again and again, determined by the weapons at hand, while ambushing and close range fights became more and more important, for the "fire superiority" doctrine could not be sustained on large theaters of war.

thus, again, close range casualties are more logic to be the cause of extremely high losses. only alternative is enveloping action, but this was seldom.

Practical example: the late war in Italy in the Great war, the Austrians tried it a last time, totally ineffective massed bombardements, fast, aggressive attacks, getting slaughtered and repulsed, while the ANZAC (i believe) learned their famous tactics of fire bells and fast advancing teams and just firing point blank there in Italy and that was copied and introduced successfully at the west front

********************************************

for combat:

yeah, i would like to check the status of supply and units after all battles, setting new orders if necessary.
inactive commanders and so on do the rest to ensure that random effects are still dominant afterwards.

for loosing complete elements:

it did happened that often whenever i did not manage to block the enemies movements.
If the foe attacks at will, it can happen that all infantry eliminated (volunteers / militia ), cav running away, equipment captured, while most of the foes units were actually garrisons with high cumulative bonuses from trenches and structures at the same time, in a city without a fort but with over 50 breaches...

if you know what i mean, they can either fall out and hunt down my troops, or they can have bonuses from strongholds, but not both the same time and not for a duration of 15 days, again and again, destroying whole elements to the last man

[Kensai]

For example, is such a battle really bloody?

[yellow ribbon]

compared to what?

see, this days a loss of 30% was completely normal in case of serious engagements, your example is only about surprise.

It was also quite common that WIAs struggled their way back to the own lines right after getting wounded, often enough helped from 1 to 3 friends.
so loosing 30% men, another 20% helping out the WIAs, most died after the battle.

your example has an outcome of
32 dead,
44 wounded,
20 captured

after taking three salvos at point blank attacking a 25% larger number of Prussians

yeah this is bloody business, a catastrophe for every battle.

whole villages could be erased while one regiment got beaten up.

but as i pointed out, you find statistics that proof that most of the time far more than 1000 musket rounds/mine balls had to be shot, to kill one single person. lets say 1800 balls in a volley.
thinking about an average regiment in the american civil war, having 60 cartridges in the pocket, fighting 3 hours, being 300-400 men.
thus saying 15.000 shots downhill, maybe 300-700 killed and wounded on the other side

to take care of the wounded depleted the combat power even faster than KIAs

why that? the reason is simple, you fired most of the time first and than as often as possible before the enemy reached you. too inaccurate, too short.

compared to nowadays maybe 5-10% of a patrol are losses in an ambush, now, your example would even be a disaster.

compared to the fact that contemporary about 50% of a regiment could eventually get killed by diseases and not even see combat, the 30% losses are "acceptable"

generals and officers knowing the numbers, they tried to avoid such a massacre, which would have been a stain on their jacket while going on for elections after the war. (AACW/PONs inactive commanders)
While others just wanted the quick and decisive action with high casualties to end the war.

its like the frenchman who said it would need some ten thousands of killed soldiers to make an general major.
********************************

just to link it to modern days, maybe as a fellow german you know that NATO planned to have 60-70% losses within the first days in their most optimistic scenarios.
Living here in Antwerp i have/had one of the largest NATO military hospital in my neighborhood, planned to be the last stand, defending this area to make it possible to retreat and evacuate to UK.

the same NATO has the military doctrine to use standardized small caliber ammunition, 5.56mm which actually has a lower probability to kill, but a high chance to fragment, to splinter, causing multiple wounds and thus binding troops to give the wounded attention.

for nowadays moral and public opinion, THIS is bloody. But as long there is no pile of corpses, no one will ask.

[yellow ribbon]

just want to make a point in this discussion:

as mentioned with the order passive/passive and playing extremely cautious i
got a ratio of 100.000 billy yank vs .about 300.000 johnny reb casualties.

for more than 2 years i did not even fire a shot, most times it was from 1858 to 1863/1864


historically we find this situation:

"The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222


The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000


The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:

Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.

Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:

The Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War.

Some of the great blood baths of the war came as Grant drove on Richmond in the spring of 1864- Confederate casualties are missing for this campaign, but were enormous. The Federal toll:

The Wilderness, May 5-7: 17,666
Spotsylvania, May 10 and 12: 10,920
Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16 4,160
Cold Harbor, June 1-3: 12,000
Petersburg, June 15-30 16,569


These total 61,315, with rolls of the missing incomplete.

The Appomattox campaign, about ten days of running battles ending April 9, 1865, cost the Union about 11,000 casualties, and ended in the surrender of Lee's remnant of 26,765. Confederate dead and wounded in the meantime were about 6,500.

Lesser battles are famous for their casualties.

At Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, General Hood's Confederates lost over 6,000 of 21,000 effectives -most of them in about two hours. Six Confederate generals died there.

Hood lost about 8,ooo men in his assault before Atlanta, July 22, 1864; Sherman's Union forces lost about 3,800.

The small battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, August 10, 1861, was typical of the savagery of much of the war's fighting. The Union force Of 5,400 men lost over 1,200; the Confederates, over 11,000 strong, lost about the same number.

The first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, though famous as the first large engagement, was relatively light in cost: 2,708 for the Union, 1,981 for the Confederates.

The casualty rolls struck home to families and regiments.
The Confederate General, John B. Gordon, cited the case of the Christian family, of Christiansburg, Virginia, which suffered eighteen dead in the war.
The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, in a charge at Petersburg, Virginia, 18 June, 1864, sustained a "record" loss of the war-635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes.

Another challenger is the 26th North Carolina, which lost 714, of its 800 men at Gettysburg-in numbers and percentage the war's greatest losses.
On the first day this regiment lost 584 dead and wounded, and when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound.

The 24th Michigan, a gallant Federal regiment which was in front of the North Carolinians on the first day, lost 362 of its 496 men.

More than 3,000 horses were killed at Gettysburg, and one artillery battalion, the 9th Massachusetts, lost 80 of its 88 animals in the Trostle farmyard.

A brigade from Vermont lost 1,645 Of its 2,100 men during a week of fighting in the Wilderness.

The Irish Brigade, Union, had a total muster Of 7,000 during the war, and returned to New York in '65 with 1,000. One company was down to seven men. The 69th New York of this brigade lost 16 of 19 officers, and had 75 per cent casualties among enlisted men.

In the Irish Brigade, Confederate, from Louisiana, Company A dwindled from 90 men to 3 men and an officer in March, '65. Company B went from 100 men to 2.

Experts have pointed out that the famed Light Brigade at Balaklava lost only 36.7 per cent of its men, and that at least 63 Union regiments lost as much as 50 per cent in single battles.

At Gettysburg 23 Federal regiments suffered losses of more than half their strength, including the well-known Iron Brigade (886 of 1,538 engaged).

Many terrible casualty tolls were incurred in single engagements, like that of the Polish Regiment of Louisiana at Frayser's Farm during the Seven Days, where the outfit was cut to pieces and had to be consolidated with the 20th Louisiana. In this action one company of the Poles lost 33 of 42 men.

One authority reports that Of 3,530 Indians who fought for the Union, 1,018 were killed, a phenomenally high rate. Of 178,975 Negro Union troops, this expert says, over 36,000 died.

Some regimental losses in battle:Regiment Battle Strength Per Cent
1st Texas, CSA Antietam 22 82.3
1st Minnesota, US Gettysburg 262 82
21st Georgia, CSA Manassas 242 76
141st Pennsylvania, US Gettysburg 198 75.7
101st New York, US Manassas 168 73.8
6th Mississippi, CSA Shiloh 425 70.5
25th Massachusetts, US Cold Harbor 310 70
36th Wisconsin, US Bethesda Church 240 69
20th Massachusetts, US Fredericksburg 238 68.4
8th Tennessee, CSA Stone's River 444 68.7
10th Tennessee, CSA Chickamauga 328 68
8th Vermont, US Cedar Creek 156 67.9
Palmetto Sharpshooters, CSA Frayser's Farm 215 67.7
81st Pennsylvania, US Fredericksburg 261 67.4


[color="Red"] Scores of other regiments on both sides registered losses in single engagements of above 50 per cent.[/color]

Confederate losses by states, in dead and wounded only, and with many records missing (especially those of Alabama):

North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724


[color="Red"](Statisticians recognize these as fragmentary, from a report of 1866; they serve as a rough guide to relative losses by states).

In addition to its dead and wounded from battle and disease, the Union listed:

Deaths in Prison 24,866
Drowning 4,944
Accidental deaths 4,144
Murdered 520
Suicides 391
Sunstroke 313
Military executions 267
Killed after capture 104
Executed by enemy 64[/color]

Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts," by Burke Davis
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

[yellow ribbon]

so, yes, as more drive the generals put into the forces to decide anything, as higher the losses, as in PON, the red/red order

but NO, playing passive/passive still leads to too high losses, compared to contemporary (for that years very bloody days)

[lukasberger]

Is this still being worked on?

[Sir Garnet]

I don't know - a lot of good ideas. Representing different OBs would be nice if the AI can deal with it in building and running its forces. Though figuring out how to give minors a less truncated range of units is a worthy project in itself.

[McNaughton]

Hi all, still working on this! It would take me a while to list off all of the changes in all areas, but here are some things I have finished, or am working on...

#1. New graphics (for land and naval models, as well as for new events).
#2. New models (primarily for flavour, to have better representation of model names and types and graphics).
#3. Revised model stats (reducing KIA casualties, battles being less bloody early on, to increase as the game does).
#4. Revised units (each nation has a distinct TO&E rather than the same from nation to nation).
#5. New Events (for leaders: Leader Pool Changes, Leader Court Marshals, Leader Illnesses, Leader Death Checks, etc.).
#6. Revised starting OOBs and building pools.
#7. New and Revised events (due to new Units, as well as to get flavour/gameplay events).
#8. And more...!

[Laruku]

Sounds interesting. Any pix?

[McNaughton]

Here are some pictures of my test scenario showing different units, their compositions, plus some images.
[ATTACH]20396[/ATTACH][ATTACH]20397[/ATTACH][ATTACH]20398[/ATTACH][ATTACH]20399[/ATTACH][ATTACH]20400[/ATTACH]

[lukasberger]

Looks great! My mouth is watering.

[McNaughton]

Here's an update on one of the focus' I am working on...

Strategic AI

This is based upon the premise of the mod to be less linear, and more 'pathway' based. This is based upon the idea of a campaign from an old game called "Wing Commander". This was a space flight simulator, with a series of pre-definied missions. However, based upon your success/failure in completing a mission you would carry down a certain path, leading either toward game victory or game defeat (rather than other Fligth sims where you have to keep on playing until you win). Basically this is how the game in the mod will function. If you fail or succeed at a certain mission (primairly the game changing missions, notably warfare in Pride of Nations) you get a different path than the linear current one. For example, if you are playing as Austria, and you win battles against Italy and Prussia, then you and they go down different paths (with a trickle down effect). The better you do as a nation, the harder your situation becomes (An Austria that does well finds itself surrounded by enemies in Italy, Germany, and Russia, with weak allies in France and Turkey).

Anyways, one thing about this, and general gameplay, is to get the AI to relate to nations properly, given where they are on the paths, and what paths they are on. One way to let the game know what path a nation is on is by its leadership. At present, leadership is linear, expect a certain leader by a certain date. However, in the mod things like Assassinations, Abdications, and Revolutions may serve to modify the leadership of a nation. This modification can be random (what if Franz Josef actually died in the assassination attempt in 1853?) as well as determined based upon results of actions (would Wilhelm I be able to retain power if defeated by France or Austria in his attempt to unify? His abdication in 1866/1870 and Frederick III coming to power then would affect relations) and interactions.

What I am working on are a series of monthy events (every 2 turns) where the event checks for certain perameters...

A) Who is leading your nations (leadership will be a little more dynamic/changing in this mod, with some variations currently not in the game)
B) What are your goals (capture territory X, liberate territory Y, unite, keep nations divided, etc.)
C) What are your relations (who is stopping you from getting your goals, who is a friend to your enemy, who is an enemy to your enemy)
D) Changes of popular opinions (is Panslavism in effect? Is Austria dominated by Hungarian goals as being AHU tag?)

Basically there are a few types of relations between nations...

Friendly
Warm
Neutral
Cool
Hostile

The base relation is neutral. If no criteria for relations are met, the relations between the two countries is neutral (not good, not bad, don't expect an alliance or war anytime soon between the two).

Depending upon criteria, two nations will get fluxuating relations. This will affect the nation's acceptance of positive and negative diplomatic negoatiations. Every 2 turns the game will check the criteria (who is leading your nation, the relations between the two, controlling certain territory, random chance, etc.) to determine how the two nations will inter-relate.

This should hopefully help the AI to relate better with the player and other AI nations in this less than linear change of the game.

For example, say this is the situation...

#1. Austria defeats Prussia
#2. Prussia and Austria maintain hostile relations into the 1870s
#3. France does not loose its Imperial status (no defeat in 1870)
#4. Russia and France still hostile (Imperial France is no friend to Russia)
#5. Austria and France would be keen to develop friendly relations
#6. Russia and Germany would be keen to develop friendly relations

[lukasberger]

Sounds really, really good.

[McNaughton]

Here is an update of what I am working on...

One key aspect of the mod and events is that the better a nation does, the harder the situation becomes for them. The reverse is true, the worse a nation does in the game, the easier the options and world is for them. Take history, Austria fared poorly in most of the timeframe of the game, yet, ends up with a pretty good political situation (allied with Germany, the best possible ally for them). Germany, on the other hand, did very well if you look at history. United in two successful wars, became the most powerful nation in Europe, and ended up in a tight situation (only ally was a weak Austria). Should Austria do well, their situation should become tougher (a strong Austria equates conflct with Germany), should Germany not fare well then their situation should improve (conflict with Austria means that they are free to develop strong relations with a powerful Russia).

German Unification: *Note, these events are intertwined with the Italian unification events, which face similar changes

Goals are to improve the process of German unification to allow for fun player actions as well as good gameplay. The goal of the unification events are to allow the German player to unify Germany and feel like they are actually doing something (vs waiting for events). Also, as a player of Austria or France, you will actually get to impact German unification through success or failure and not feel like no matter how well you play the result stays the same, or, a wrench is thrown into histroy (i.e. Germany does not unite).

Peacetime events based upon the situation have been created for all key unification wars (Italian and German). This will help to keep things going on correct 'paths' rather than relying upon the player or AI to make the correct peaces and territorial changes. Each war has two peace events, one historic, one alternate, which are important to determine which path the game is going upon (if Prussia wins the SWW then AUS becomes AHU and is out of the Confederation, if Prussia loses the SWW then Silesia is Austrian and an alternate-history path is created).

A Great War Conflict will be much more in the realm of probability in this version, with the main differences being the composition of the alliances (dependent upon the results of the early game).

Here is a summary of the changes...

I. As Prussia you get the chance to create the North German Confederation as early as March 1850. This represents the situation early in the game, where the North of Germany was still toying around with the idea of unification. Historically, due to immense pressure from Austria, Prussia backed down. However, the Prussian player (the AI will not choose this as it will not fare well) has the option to try and unite the north ASAP. However, it is not to be easy...

I.a. Prussia ends up going up alone against Austria and the German minors in a war, with a strong chance of Russian intervention.
I.b. The only possible ally is France, and to get French support you have to give up territories out West (Saarland).
I.c. If Prussia wins the war, then the NGF event is triggered. If Prussia loses the war, it gets a second chance to unite in the Seven Weeks War

II. Criteria for the historic Seven Weeks War have been strengthened as well as having a few 'AI push' events to get things on track (i.e., if two nations are AI and do not seem to be doing what they should by a certain date, an event will set up the situation).

II.a. The introduction of a German-Danish War and the resulting division of Schleswig-Holstein by AUS and PRU has been added.
II.b. The war can begin as early as 1862 (entry of Bismarck) depending if other criteria is met (German-Danish War, Prussian-Italian Alliance, etc.) and not based upon a specific date.
II.c. Alternate peace events representing an Austrian victory (gaining Silesia, keeping the status quo)*
II.d. Events representing the German Minors siding with Austria (status quo) and how to eliminate them in the conflict (capturing key territories will knock out German minors).

III. The Franco-Prussian War has also been revised.

III.a. A chance that the Luxembourg Crisis may spark the Franco-German War (as early as 1862, based upon certain criteria met).
III.b. Peace events representing the historic peace (Alsance-Lorraine to Prussia, leading to unification) and an alternate peace (Prussia still remains as NGF, Saarland and Luxembourg annexed to France, and Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria join a rekindled Confederation of the Rhine with alliances and good relations with France).
III.c. Peace events for the French government will allow a free hand by the player to choose what type of government there will be...
1. Keep the Empire in power (not too many benefits of this in a losing war)
2. Develop a Third Republic (historic - Paris centric in France)
3. Put Henri V in power as a monarch (alternate - Rural centric power in France)

IV. Revolutions of 1878! Basically what I was looking for was a way for all nations to play, meet goals, and gain from the experience of gameplay without too much sense of 'no matter what I do the results are the same'. However, if the game is completely sandbox then things feel hollow and missing depth. So, should history go off track in some important areas (usually due to war) alternate worlds should be created. There are three main possible situations in Europe in the 1870s.

1. Historic: German and Italy unified, France and Austria beaten.
2. Alternate: Austria defeats Prussian/Italian attempts at unification.
3. Alternate: Prussia defeats Austria, but is defeated by France.

IV.a. The trigger of the Revolutions of 1878 will be the defeat of Prussia by either Austria and France + assassination of Wilhelm I (historically survived the attempts on his life in 1878). Freidrich III rules Prussia/NGF (liberal).
IV.a. If Austria won the Seven Weeks War, no Hungarian Compromise. Unrest in Hungary sparks a new Hungarian Revolution (events akin to ACW creation of CSA).
IV.b. If Austria won the Seven Weeks War, Franz Josef abdicates, putting Rudolf in charge of Austria (Anti-German, Anti-Russian, Pro-French).
IV.c. If Austria wins in the War of Revolution against Hungary then the status quo remains (no Austria-Hungary).
IV.d. If Austria loses in the War of Revolution against Hungary, Hungary is still absorbed into Austria, but created Austria-Hungary (aggressively anti-Russian).
IV.e. Napoleon III survives surgery in 1873 (in a French hospital) and is still emperor in 1878. Still in declining health a French revolution occurs (creation of a Revolutionary Army in Paris, akin to the Commune events).
IV.f. The French player gets to then decide the fate of the government (see above in a defeat during the FPW, the three choices of government)
IV.g. During the process of unrest in France and Austria, events in place having unifications of Italy and Germany will follow (kind of like forcing unification). However, the strength and prestige of these artificially forced unifications will not be as great (a unified Germany in 1878 will not be as strong as the 1871 version).

V. Post 1880 events will be based upon the situations beforehand. A strong France or Austria, which won their wars against Prussia and defeated unrest in their nations during the Revolutions of 1878 will still be in positions of victory (lots of Prestige gained through these acts), but the world will be a different place.

V.a. A Germany unified in 1878 will be much more liberal leaning, leaving less antagonation with Great Britain (if Germany unifies in 1878 then in 1900 the assassination attempt on Wilhelm II will actually happen, and his much more liberal leaning brother, Heinrich Wilhelm, will become regent).
V.b. Austria and France will be drawn together, with Russia and Germany partnering up, creating a new set of alliances (Northern Russo-German and Southern Franco-Austrian) leading to an alternate Great War.
V.c. Great Britain will be much more of a wild card, with reasons to side with both alliances (Anti-Russian feelings will draw them to Southern Alliance, but Colonial/Naval Conflict with France could draw them to the Northern Alliance).
V.d. A 'victorious' France will have much greater industrian power (Saarland) and much less of a reson to develop a massive land army (as it did historically) so it could devote much greater resources to a navy, making it a potential major naval threat to Great Britain (instead of Germany).

[Pocus]

I applaud your commitment in all cases! Perhaps a suggestion, release your mod as modular mod, brick after a brick if possible and don't wait for the whole things to be done. This will sustain the interest of people and you'll get feedback rapidly. For example release Austria new events and options first, as a standalone part of your mod.

[Sir Garnet]

I am impressed.

[Egg Bub]

Wow, just clicked onto this thread and it seems your mod will solve just about every problem I have with the vanilla version of the game! Could you tell me, will this make it more possible for Great Britain with a historically sized army to stand a chance against Russia/China in the Crimean/Opium wars? When I played these for the first time I got steamrollered. Thanks.

Out of interest, as this mod will overwrite the data in the game folder, will it contain the latest patch fixes?

[Mac Linehan]

A major effort, that will only enhance PON. You have my appreciation and respect - I could not imagine the amount of effort it has taken for you to progress thus far.

I also will patiently wait in anticipation for the mod to be released.

Thank You for all that you have and are doing.

Mac