Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

[Uncle_Joe]

Ok, so based on the fact that won an Epic victory on General the first time I played (score 436 to 128), I decided to go again playing on Emperor.

And yes, it was definitely much tougher (obviously since I'm getting less and they are getting more) but it wasn't any more diverse or interesting. I still employed the same strategy of repeatedly punch out Austria/Prussia as soon as the 'respawned'. It was a bit touch and go at times due to taking higher losses and not receiving as many replacement but I eventually got up to a pair of 20-stacks camped outside each of their capitals and I would punch each in succession, using the PPs gained to keep Spain out of it.

Once Prussia was out (Prussia Prostrate card), I was able to shift an army, crush Spain and then occupy Portugal to cut off that scoring avenue for the Allies. After that, it was just repeatedly punching Austria as soon as they spawned (before they can combine up armies) and then knocking out Brit nuisance raids (which really don't do anything except liberate a few minors which honestly don't mean anything in the long run).

I ended up that game with a score of 364 to 132 (Epic victory). Yes, it was harder but it required me to do absolutely nothing different
(strategically) to win. To be fair, they didn't play The Grand Alliance until somewhere in 1815 and it was too late by that point for me to lose much.

I think one the key culprits is how easy it is to just 1-turn sucker punch each nation. And that stems from the predictable and now that I'm used to the game, unfortunately poor battle AI. Now when fighting major battles, I just overload one flank with my best troops and cannon and then put crap (minors and stock infantry) opposite their heavier guns. That way I'm not losing much in the way of decent troops...just whatever they can kill in the zone that I'm attacking (which can be painful, but in the long run I destroy their nations quickly so it's not a problem).

The AI MUST cross the centerline to threaten weak position even when on the strategic defensive. There is just no reason to sit there with a 3 cannon, a 3 Cav, a 3 Inf, and 2 Inf and let me match it with four 1 infantry while I maul another flank with all my elites. I have to admit that I was 'forced' to try this tactic due to losses in early battles when I tried to fight 'correctly' (ie, a solid line all the way across). But once I started doing this my losses dropped dramatically. I imagine if I started another game doing this from the beginning, it would have been much easier.

Anyways, I like the game, I think it has potential, but it needs some additional tweaks to enhance it:

1) The battle AI needs work. As indicated above it's child's play to beat it when attacking (it's a little dicier when defending because EVERYTHING crosses the line but even there it could be better about shooting with opportunities rather than moving troops that aren't going to get to shoot this round anyways).

2) Add 'Commitment rolls' so you aren't guaranteed to subdue nations one turn after their capital falls. This might give Russia a chance to do SOMETHING.

3) Make territory worth something. Tie the number of recruits or cards or something to territory owned. As it stands, I don't really care about the Brit's nipping at my heels. It doesn't cost me anything except a few points of score to let them liberate nations (and honestly I can make that score back by remaining in place and playing 'Consolidate the Empire' rather than chasing their stacks around).

4) As I've mentioned before, limit recruitment such that basic infantry has to be selected at least half of each year's allotment.

I can't see even being able to play as the Allies as doing much if the battle AI remains the same. MP could easily save the game because players are not going to be this predictable. But even there, they get one shot to win a battle because each time their nations spawn they will punched in the face and forced to surrender before the Brits or Russians can intervene.

Hopefully some additional development takes place based on feedback. Without out, I think this is fun game at first, but quickly becomes 'solved'.

[SteveD64]

I agree about the battle AI. Once you've figured out the AI is playing defense, there is almost no risk to overloading your left flank and steamrolling it.

[Solaristics]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I still employed the same strategy of repeatedly punch out Austria/Prussia as soon as the 'respawned'.
...

Hopefully some additional development takes place based on feedback. Without out, I think this is fun game at first, but quickly becomes 'solved'.

I reached a similar conclusion a few days after release (see my earlier posts). I haven't made a day one purchase in years, and now I remember why. The game has a lot of nice features, but I have no interest in playing it at all now since I "solved" it. The best fix to me is to deal with this rinse and repeat strategy against Austria and Prussia. Defeating them should be a major accomplishment, hard to achieve, and have longer term consequences, as per history. If they can stay in the game longer, then Russia can join the battle, and we have a better game.

[gdrover]

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gdrover

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

That would help a bit. Have you considered lengthening the enforced peace period? That would also help.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, I think that would help strategically. But I still think the battle AI needs to be tweaked as well or else Russia will just move in and be punched as well.

Not crossing the center even with a major advantage in that sector is what is killing it.

[Solaristics]

ORIGINAL: gdrover

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

Thanks for considering the changes. I'm not a fan of RNG for major game events. Why not just delay the surrender for what ever you think is a reasonable number of turns from the capital falling (the statistical average of your different RNG percentages perhaps)? Also, as I've mentioned earlier, and some others have concurred, please also consider a corresponding extension to the time of the peace treaty.

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

It just reduces how many times in a game you can actually declare war on a nation. If the delay was 2 years then instead of being able to defeat Austria and Prussia 10 times each in the 1805 scenario you would only be able to do it 5 time. You might also face a slightly larger army when you did the whack a mole on them.

I also think the France Declare War card should be used up each time it is played. Put a few more in the deck (maybe 3 or 4) and get rid of some of the Minor Nation Joins and Bribe cards. Then you would have to think more about who you wanted to declare war on.

[Solaristics]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

Fair question. I don't see the longer peace treaty making it more difficult, it is just to reduce the number of times I have to play whack-a-mole, which is so tedious I've stopped playing. If it were possible to make defeating Austria and Prussia more difficult, so that it only happened 2 or 3 times a game each, then there would be no need for changing the treaty length. It just might be difficult to balance this for all player abilities, where less experienced gamers may struggle to defeat them at all at increased difficultly, while an old grog may still be able to beat them many times. The treaty length hardwires a decent length of time between resurrections.

Of course, this might be able to be handled in the difficultly level settings, but my feeling is it may take a while or be hard to balance this all properly, and a longer treaty length will make the game less tedious in the meantime.

[James Ward]

Changing the number of time you can beat up on Austria and Prussia will have an effect on the game. You get a lot of points for beating Major nations and for winning major battles. Just doubling the length of the peace will reduce those a lot as you almost always get a major battle win when you defeat a nation. Plus after a few beat downs the reconstituted army is only 8-10 point so you can just overwhelm them easily. Giving another recruiting time between wars would make it a little bit tougher though ultimately it probably would not change the outcome unless the battle AI was improved.
If the Declare War card was also used up each time then you would not just be able to keep beating up every nation, you would need to choose which one you declared on or wait until GB drew them into the war. It would change the game though, there would be a lot of times when not much was going on.

[Uncle_Joe]

Each time they come back in (respawn, whatever), they get 16 new units (on Emperor, 12 on General). So whether they come back in 1 year or 2, they’ll have roughly the same forces (what they had left + the 16 or 12 new units).

I think something has to be done to make it more difficult to just punch out Austria/Prussia at will (ie, not a desirable strategy). Whether that’s improving the battle AI, having nations not surrender immediately so other Allies get a chance to intervene, something else, or some combination, I believe that has to be the focus.

In NiE (the game from which V&G seemed to evolve from), you almost NEVER wanted additional Allied nations to join in! Battles were often costly and losing territory was costly in the long run (and was harder to replace as well). In V&G, players are just chomping at the bit waiting for the next chance to punch out an Allied nation.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Each time they come back in (respawn, whatever), they get 16 new units (on Emperor, 12 on General). So whether they come back in 1 year or 2, they’ll have roughly the same forces (what they had left + the 16 or 12 new units).

I think something has to be done to make it more difficult to just punch out Austria/Prussia at will (ie, not a desirable strategy). Whether that’s improving the battle AI, having nations not surrender immediately so other Allies get a chance to intervene, something else, or some combination, I believe that has to be the focus.

In NiE (the game from which V&G seemed to evolve from), you almost NEVER wanted additional Allied nations to join in! Battles were often costly and losing territory was costly in the long run (and was harder to replace as well). In V&G, players are just chomping at the bit waiting for the next chance to punch out an Allied nation.

No later in the game they only get 6-8 units.

I don't think improving the strategic game, that is limiting how often you can go to war, will have any impact without a better battle AI and vice versa. Both need to be improved.

[deeter]

In V&G's first beta version, Declare War cards were rare. The result was years of inactivity, so they decided to make it perpetual. Maybe not such a good idea. I think Empires in Arms is a good model in that declaring war without a causus beli could you big politically.

Deeter

[Uncle_Joe]

Maybe the permanent cards should have a Political Point cost to use (or at least the France DoW's one should). Then give them a PP every few turns and it's all good. The same could go for 'Minor Empire joins'....give its PP cost.

[Ron]

I completed the game on Normal and doubt very much I will be going back in again unless there is a massive overhaul of the game. Perhaps coming from Hannibal, my expectations were too high but V&G has been designed down so far gameplay has been reduced to the point of asking 'why bother'? For all the reasons noted here and elsewhere. From the very beginning it was simply park your Army and then whack a mole - whether British landings, Austria, Prussia or occasionally Russia by repeating the same 'battles' against the predictable and inept battle AI. Even when the Allied Armies were fielding 30 strong units and battle cards versus the 20 strong French there was no difference. From start to finish that was the 'gameplay'. On paper the strategic aspect and the card system sounded great but in practice it doesn't seem to matter much, and is not Napoleonic like at all! Whether converting Minors, forming minor nations, playing PPs etc., you were going through the motions but really what difference did it make? None I could see.

Harsh, and perhaps I'm biased for the reason above, but I can't recall being this let down in quite some time. It is not a premium game at all, probably worth only a fraction of what it is being sold for in hours played. I really like many of Uncle_Joe's suggestions and applaud you for being a positive contributor and hope the devs take it to heart to revamp the system and put some 'game' back into their baby.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: Ron

I completed the game on Normal and doubt very much I will be going back in again unless there is a massive overhaul of the game. Perhaps coming from Hannibal, my expectations were too high but V&G has been designed down so far gameplay has been reduced to the point of asking 'why bother'? For all the reasons noted here and elsewhere. From the very beginning it was simply park your Army and then whack a mole - whether British landings, Austria, Prussia or occasionally Russia by repeating the same 'battles' against the predictable and inept battle AI. Even when the Allied Armies were fielding 30 strong units and battle cards versus the 20 strong French there was no difference. From start to finish that was the 'gameplay'. On paper the strategic aspect and the card system sounded great but in practice it doesn't seem to matter much, and is not Napoleonic like at all! Whether converting Minors, forming minor nations, playing PPs etc., you were going through the motions but really what difference did it make? None I could see.

Harsh, and perhaps I'm biased for the reason above, but I can't recall being this let down in quite some time. It is not a premium game at all, probably worth only a fraction of what it is being sold for in hours played. I really like many of Uncle_Joe's suggestions and applaud you for being a positive contributor and hope the devs take it to heart to revamp the system and put some 'game' back into their baby.

I have the same feelings about this game as Ron. Hannibal was one of the best games I ever bought, and I guess I expected more from this one.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
4) As I've mentioned before, limit recruitment such that basic infantry has to be selected at least half of each year's allotment.

Not sure if this is really a "solution."

You get plenty of infantry from minors and you end up with tons of infantry which in the end you don't need, especially when you go into battle and you only need 1 infantry to get the Combined Arms Bonus.

Why not change the Combined Arms Bonus from 1 Inf, 1 Cav, & 1 art.... to 2 Inf, 1 Cav, & 1 art?

Losses would be higher and infantry more valuable. If infantry is more valuable, then folks will recruit more.

By requiring more Infantry on the battle line, it also will give the AI a boost in fighting, as the player can simply stack up on tons of art and Cav to win battles. In my games Napoleon is running around with 5 art and 5 Cav to 10 or 15 Infantry. This is totally out of whack with Napoleonic army composition.

As it is now, you bring your "nominal" infantry unit and then smash the AI with cavalry charges and artillery barrages. Requiring 2 infantry to gain the Bonus will allow the AI to deny Napoleon of the Bonus much more often by routing 1 unit and prevent players from having a line composed of 1 Inf, 1 or 2 Art and 1 or 2 Cavalry... which allow them to easily deny the AI the Bonus when trying to fight back.

The Combined Arms Bonus, would thus become more rare and more likely given to the defender (normally the AI). Right now, it's pretty easy for Napoleon to reap the benefits of the bonus almost continuously throughout the battle. It's no wonder the AI has so much trouble and is defeated so easily in battle.

[Uncle_Joe]

The point of requiring the infantry recruitment would be too limit the number of cannon and cav you can field so quickly. Of course as long as the battle AI will just let me stack up in one sector and ignore the others, it doesn't really matter. I can make due with significantly less cannon and cav now and in fact, I started picking extra inf later on just to soak up losses in the two sectors I ignore.

I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

But the fact that you can win against heavy infantry flanks with just cannon and cav is a problem in and of itself IMO (and I mentioned it in my first Impressions thread). Cav have no risk attacking infantry, even when they square. And cannon MURDERS infantry in square so what do you need your own infantry for? I think Cav should have risk of routing when attacking (maybe not eliminated) which would at least make you think a bit more about Cav charge, cannon kills every time.

It's also possible that none of that is necessary if the battle AI wasn't so predictably bad. If I was under more pressure on other flanks, I might not want to take the time to Cav charge/Cannon kills as much.

/shrug It really wouldn't take too much to make the game a LOT better. A few basic mechanical changes here and there could go miles and really breathe some life into the game.

Ultimately though, I think my territorial observations (echoed by Ron) are going to hold the game back from ever being great. There is just no reason to care about territory. Annexing and liberating? Who cares in the long run? It's largely immaterial since you don't derive anything except a few points of artificial 'score' for having it (and it's easy to get that score in other ways). So that derails a good chunk of the political system as well.

Maybe tie the number recruitment points to territory (1/territory? .5/territory?) and assign a cost to each unit:

2 Str Inf costs 1
3 Str Inf costs 1
4 Str Guards costs 2
2 Str Cav costs 1
3 Str Cav costs 2
4 Str Cav costs 2
1 Str Art costs 1
3 Str Art costs 3
3 Str Ship costs (who cares? :p )

It's simple and it would certainly would make me think a lot more about my recruitment. And I would certainly care a lot more about taking and losing territory. Put a default Annex/Liberate card that cost a PP or two and voila! A whole new game emerges!

The problem is that I WANT to like the game and I do like the idea and presentation. But there just isn't a game there once you've played and beaten it a few times. Here's hoping that Glenn et al work on improving the game. I am purposely avoiding giving the game a review on Steam because I don't want to be a negative contributor but I can't honestly recommend the game at this point even to Napoleonic fans.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The point of requiring the infantry recruitment would be too limit the number of cannon and cav you can field so quickly. Of course as long as the battle AI will just let me stack up in one sector and ignore the others, it doesn't really matter. I can make due with significantly less cannon and cav now and in fact, I started picking extra inf later on just to soak up losses in the two sectors I ignore.

I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

But the fact that you can win against heavy infantry flanks with just cannon and cav is a problem in and of itself IMO (and I mentioned it in my first Impressions thread). Cav have no risk attacking infantry, even when they square. And cannon MURDERS infantry in square so what do you need your own infantry for? I think Cav should have risk of routing when attacking (maybe not eliminated) which would at least make you think a bit more about Cav charge, cannon kills every time.

It's also possible that none of that is necessary if the battle AI wasn't so predictably bad. If I was under more pressure on other flanks, I might not want to take the time to Cav charge/Cannon kills as much.

/shrug It really wouldn't take too much to make the game a LOT better. A few basic mechanical changes here and there could go miles and really breathe some life into the game.

Ultimately though, I think my territorial observations (echoed by Ron) are going to hold the game back from ever being great. There is just no reason to care about territory. Annexing and liberating? Who cares in the long run? It's largely immaterial since you don't derive anything except a few points of artificial 'score' for having it (and it's easy to get that score in other ways). So that derails a good chunk of the political system as well.

Maybe tie the number recruitment points to territory (1/territory? .5/territory?) and assign a cost to each unit:

2 Str Inf costs 1
3 Str Inf costs 1
4 Str Guards costs 2
2 Str Cav costs 1
3 Str Cav costs 2
4 Str Cav costs 2
1 Str Art costs 1
3 Str Art costs 3
3 Str Ship costs (who cares? :p )

It's simple and it would certainly would make me think a lot more about my recruitment. And I would certainly care a lot more about taking and losing territory. Put a default Annex/Liberate card that cost a PP or two and voila! A whole new game emerges!

The problem is that I WANT to like the game and I do like the idea and presentation. But there just isn't a game there once you've played and beaten it a few times. Here's hoping that Glenn et al work on improving the game. I am purposely avoiding giving the game a review on Steam because I don't want to be a negative contributor but I can't honestly recommend the game at this point even to Napoleonic fans.

Perhaps units could given point costs like above and those number determined the 'size' of your army instead of each unit counting as 1?

I try to create a 'standard' 20 unit army as soon as I can and it is almost never defeated. I try to get 3 foot art, 3 horse art, 2 guard, 3 heavy cav, 2-3 light-med cav and the rest inf.

If foot artillery and heavy cav cost 3 point each, medium cav, horse art and guard inf cost 2 point and everything else cost 1 then I would not be able to create my 'standard' army as it would cost 35-40 points. This would make the Corp de Armee cards really valuable, would force more armies to work near each other and give the AI a chance to use their larger numbers to win the odd battle or at least hold for a draw and make you retreat.