Hello all from the development team!

Marshall Ellis · Post by **Marshall Ellis** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 7:23 am

Hello fellow wargamers. The development team would like to say that we are very excited to be teaming with Matrix on this Grand Campaign! My name is Marshall Ellis with SPME Technologies and I would like to get your input for Napoloenic Wars. We believe that wargamers know best how a wargame should be played so you will be vital in the development cycle. We fell in love with this game from the start and we feel that it belongs on a 21" monitor. Thanks in advance...

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 7:07 pm

Marshall,
You all are certainly starting off on the right foot. Good for you guys.

I hope that you guys love Napoleonics and that you just don't look at this game as another "project". My recommendation is to make a stragegic level Napoleonic game that everyone will use as a standard for Napoleonic games in the future. Right now, for WW II, it can be argued that COMBAT MISSION is the standard. Their simultaneous "we-go" turn base is very attractive.

Quite simply put, "real-time" games s**k, IMO. Napoleonic events were not quick events and you'd kill your game if those two words were EVER associated with it.

Personally, I'd stay away from the temptation to add in tactical battles. It would slow the game's overall developement, IMO. Maybe, make it possible for that to happen as a future product. Can we count $$$$? <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> We'd suck that up just as quickly. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

For me, things can be summed up in a simple phrase. "The greater the detail, the better it is." The potential is almost limitless. I'm talking about the game and not necessarily the video display. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

For instance, take the common land unit, "the corps". When one considers the power of computers nowadays, having the ability to contol the composition of a corps is essential for a game like this. As one with some programming experience, I feel that I can safely say that keeping track of the number of men in an infantry battalon or cavalry regiment shouldn't be difficult at all. Those values changed a lot during a Napoleonic campaign, so they're very important.

Transfering infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, or artillery batteries between the different corps is just as important.

A utility to display AND print a detailed OOB of a fortress, a corps, OR an army at any time would add a LOT to your game.

Maybe the ability to change a corps commander just like a national or army leader would be nice.

I'm sure that there must be parallels when regarding the naval aspect of the game.

Oh, yeah. (Constructive criticism here.) That darn shadow underneath and to the left of any land mass looks really strange IMO. I'd get rid of that effect right away. (NO offense meant to whomever put it there. I know your heart was in the correct place.) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Wargaming is such a fascinatiing endeaver. In it, we assume the role of a commander and we get to go 'right' where our historical counterpart went 'left'.

The buzz word is freedom. We hear it SO much these days. Freedom to do whatever the national or army leader was free to do. Build a navy instead of armies. Sign treaties and make alliances. Spy and cause assasinations. Have an army invade someplace or go into cantonments for the winter. Interdict shipping lanes or protect them. Begin, increase or end conscription. Raise or lower taxes.

Last but not least: scenario generation for those what-if situations. For instance: what if the Austrians stayed loyal to Napoleon in 1812-1813? What-ifs make for great fun. In order for the gamer to take full advantage and customize a situation, he needs a great amount of freedom. I'd like to see a point system where players can "pick" their armies and ensure play balance.

The greater the freedom that we have and the greater the detail -the better your game will be.

Well, if I think of anything more I'll add it here. I wish you the best of luck and God's speed! It is REALLY nice to have something REALLY nice to look forward to in these strange days. Thanks. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Rick

David Heath · Post by **David Heath** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 9:24 pm

Hi Guys

This is a game Matrix tried doing some time ago and do to outside reasons had to be dropped. This has been a long term goal aso you can count on this NOT just being another project. Matrix has gone through to much already for it to be just a project.

We do not plan on making the game real time. I am sure Marshall and I will get back to everyone on this with more details in the near future.

sol_invictus · Post by **sol_invictus** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 10:35 pm

To add a few points to Tondue's post, I would like to have an option for random events to be included. It really increases the realism to have to deal with some really crappy luck sometimes, as well as benefit from some very fortuitous circumstances. I also think it is vital that the Diplomatic and Strategic AI is robust, as even with internet play as an option, I still see myself and many others having to play solo many times. Finally, for now, I believe everyone would like to have a large amount of control over their own destiny. This not only includes the ability to change Corps composition but also the larger Strategic decisions that a Nation at this time would need to ponder. Im thinking along the lines of economic decisions, ie Tax rates and whether or not to abide by the Continental System. Also conscription rates with the social repercussions that follow should have to be considered. If you create what I think you are planning and know you to be capable of doing; essentially EiA for the computer; you will have achieved the Holy Grail of computer wargamming.
I am sure that over the next few weeks you will get plenty of feedback on what I and others would wish to see included.

Lascar · Post by **Lascar** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 12:25 am

This is great news! I was hoping that Matrix was going to resurrect this project after the sad demise of the Wars of Napoleon last year. I'm also glad that you are utilizing some of the fine graphics that were developed for Wars of Napoleon.

I am really looking forward to the release of Napoleonic Wars.

Thanks.

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 12:55 am

FWIW,
Maybe a two-tiered game system, with a "War and Peace" layer and an "EIA" layer. (Not unlike SPWAW with its fully adjustable levels of difficulty.)
This would give users the level of detail they wish. Also, potential new gamers interested in the era would not be put off by an "EIA"-level game-a chance to grab greater market share.
Similarly, experienced gamers could go VFR direct to the EIA game, getting as much detail as they can endure...
Agree with the Random Events idea, and robust Political/Diplomatic interaction.

Didz · Post by **Didz** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 5:55 pm

I'm with Le Tondu in his wish to see a turn based game with PBEM capability.

I would also add that when considering PBEM do NOT fall into the trap of assumming a 1 on 1 format. Many existing PBEM games, not least the BG series, have no facility for team play or chain of command player structures. For a large strategic game like this it is a must.

Like the others I am happy to accept that an inbuilt tactical game may be 'a bridge too far' in fact it could be a mistake. It certainly was for N1813. However, I would still argue for the inclusion of an option to resolve battles outside the game and feedback the results. Not only does this open up opportunities for the game to be used by clubs as a Campaign Management Tool it also leaves opportunities for the addition of a seperate tactical battle game extension later.

Finally, as a campaign moderator I would like to lodge a plea for a location specific fog of war mask to be included in the display options. This in effect would hide from view all unit information which should not be available from a selected location. At present most games BG included display all information available from every location occupied by friendly troops and this is fine for single player games but when running multi-player games it is inappropriate and I would like to be able to limit each player to what they personally have a right to know.

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Didz ]</p>

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 10:14 pm

Originally posted by Didz:
[QB]

......I would still argue for the inclusion of an option to resolve battles outside the game and feedback the results. Not only does this open up opportunities for the game to be used by clubs as a Campaign Management Tool it also leaves opportunities for the addition of a seperate tactical battle game extension later.

QB]

Wow, how could I have forgotten that? Good going Didz! That is a very excellent idea.

Matrix has the beginnings of something REAL nice. I wish them luck. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Rick

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 9:24 pm

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Hi guys I've always been a Steel Panthers/modern war type of gamer. I don't know much about the Napoleonic era, but would love to learn. Good luck with your new game!!

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 4:06 pm

Welcome aboard to Marshall and the Napoleonic Wars development team! I'm looking forward to this new game.

Btw: I posted a suggestion in the 'Steel Panthers: World at War' forum, suggesting a Napoleonic strategic game based on the combat software that SP:WaW uses. Such a game would be an excellent vehicle for a whole slew of mega-campaigns based on Napoleon's campaigns in Italy, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Egypt. I would gladly purchase such mega-campaigns. I still have fond memories of my days playing Napoleonic miniatures, and am sure that lots of Napoleonic fans would also flock to such a game.

Eric Maietta

LarkinVB · Post by **LarkinVB** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:13 am

My greetings go to the development team. I'm designer/coder of Titans of Steel - Warring Suns, also to be published somtimes soon by Matrixgames. I'm also an old napoleonics grognard and would have dared to do what you guys try to accomplish if not ToS has eaten my time.

Since I have lots of experiences in napoleonic wargaming ( miniatures, Empires in Arms boardgame, battleground gamers by Talonsoft) I'm offering my help to make it a game to be remembered.

Galahad · Post by **Galahad** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 4:00 am

Here are a few first thoughts on feedback.

1. First and foremost, the ability to edit. The biggest difference between computer war games and paper games is the latter can be modified by house rules, variants and general “what ifs.” Personally, I would love to try a super grand deluxe campaign ranging from 1788/89 to 1815. Modifying army strengths, naval strengths, and the ability to create ahistorical scenerios can be fun too.

Some of the best loved features of computer games certainly seems to be customization. User end custom rules also helps keeps games fresh and adds to the replay value too.

One excellent (IMHO) example of customizing is Space Empires IV. The game itself is maddingly close to genius, so much potential marred by a clunky interface, bad AI and other problems. But each and every aspect of the game is contained in a .txt file and is easily modified by even us non programmers. For those who are interested, SEIV is a work in progress, and numerous upgrades and patches have been put out. The latest patch is due next week or so.

2. A system which rewards historical behavior via in game benefits, as opposed to forcing historical behavior. For example, Prussia should have some benefit (perhaps a glory point bonus) in remaining neutral as long as possible in the 1805 to 1806 era. Same theory for military rules.

3. Land force detail level; I agree with Le Tondu, that such a game could in theory measure manpower by individual soldier. Whether or not that will add to game play, I can’t say just yet. But I would think that small numbers of men, no more than 50, should be the scale used. There is no reason to use 1000 man factors. Cannon should be measured down to the individual cannon. I don’t have an opinion as to whether the smallest military unit should be the division or battalion/regiment.

4. Naval detail level. Each ship should be represented. From what I can make out of the screen shots, it looks like there are light and heavy ships.

5. Naval control. I would like two options, one of which would be chosen in the game setup. First is a total control option, under which players would be able to move and have a fair degree of control of ships at sea. This option would allow players to control and see naval battles as they would land battles. Second option would be to give ships orders, and then turn them over to the computer/admiral. Reports would then come back as to the results of the naval operations.

While the latter would be more accurate, I would prefer the former. After all, grand strategy does imply the player becomes the controlling marshal or admiral at any given battle. But once in a while, it could be fun to curse at the French Navy’s incompetence and inability to intervene.

6. The maps – look good, but I also agree with Le Tondu. The land looks like its floating on the water. I have visions of sailors climbing down long ladders to reach the ships far below.

In conclusion for now, if the game has all the detail of Empires in Harm Version 4 and then some, I am going to be one happy camper. BTW, the empires in harm website should be up shortly under a new host.

Galahad.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 10:07 pm

Hi guys - I am so glad to see this game in development.

Here are a few suggestions:

1) Make everything as variable and customizable as possible. This includes difficulty level, fog of war, experience levels, random events, etc.

2) Include a superb scenario/campaign editor. Nothing gives longevity to a game better than these unique tools. This would mean that the game would sell for a long time to come.

3) Give players the ability to raise armies (from an historical force pool of a civilian population), build cannons, ships, etc.

4) Allow the players to have the ability to blocade ports, institute trade embargos, form alliances, engage in complex diplomacy (ie. to be able to ask an ally for troops, to ask the ally for assistance in a battle, or to allow you to provide financial/military assistance to an ally), to have to deal with civil unrest at home, as well as a few economic aspects of running a country (if you run low on funds do you run a deficit? do you invade a country and demand tribute? do you plunder a country? or do you ask an ally for financial assistance?).

5) The maps and the military figures look terrific. While the "medallions" beneath the soldiers look great, I would suggest replacing them with a small national flag that could be attached to the left shoulder of the soldier in question. Including a small crease in the flag would also give it a look of moving in the breeze.

6) I would also suggest a few different poses for the soldiers to indicate the status of that army. For example: an "action" pose would indicate that the armies are invading/engaging in battle. A "resting" pose could indicate that the army is not moving. And a "movement" pose would indicate the army is travelling.

Those are just a few suggestions.

I wish you all the very best of luck. I'll be following development of this game with keen interest.

John Hutton · Post by **John Hutton** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:42 am

There are a few obsessives out there who would go Matrix Napoleonic at a moment's notice. Check out:

http://malta.solow.org/homepage.html

This is an EIA game, with a very good webpage (not my responsibility, but I do play in it). Problem is its almost real time pace.

no-dice · Post by **no-dice** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 4:46 am

One of the real challenges in doing a game (Computer or board) of this time period is trying to adjust game play to reflect major changes that occurred in the armies of the time. How does a designer take into account a disasters (such as Napoleon’s Russian campaign which destroyed much of the French Army)? Other nations were no less immune to the consequences of excessive losses (Austria for one) and England undoubtedly. I think the design team will have it’s hands full if they try and produce something more than a “Napoleon does Axis and Allies” game. J

Positive factors are also difficult to quantify when it comes to designing a game. Numerous examples of changes in “staying power and determination” occurred during the period of 1805 to 1815. To name but a few:

The tenacity of the Russian troops during (and largely after) the Russian Campaign.
The rebirth of Prussia in 1813 with a new National Army which were able to give the French as good as they got.
The determined national resistance in France during the 1814 campaign.
The marked improvement of the Spanish Army during the Peninsular war (ok maybe it could only get better!)

All of these examples tend to reflect that a standard “quality” rating of each country is just wishful thinking at best. Remembering the old Empires in Arms ratings giving the French “4.0” moral no matter how many losses they suffered is a good example of a simple system – a bad simple system.

I can only wish the developers the best with their endeavour. If you wish to get a good view of the political and military situation for Napolean during 1813-1815 get a copy of
“The Fall of Napoleon – The Final Betrayal” by David Hamilton-Williams. It covers the politics of the last 2 years very well.

No-dice

Link · Post by **Link** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 10:55 am

This strategic Napoleonic game sounds very promissing. I have one request though at this stage. Can the provinces/areas change color on the map as they changes hands i.e. if for instance France conquer "Torino" that area on the map will change color to blue if blue is the color for France.

/Lars L.

Marshall Ellis · Post by **Marshall Ellis** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 4:25 am

Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples?

Bedel Christian · Post by **Bedel Christian** » Sun Dec 09, 2001 2:39 pm

Just a small contribution as a miniature figurines fan:

I think the soldier icons of Austria and Prussia in the screen shots have been inverted.

I hope you will take you time and not release a half finished game as was the case for Wargamer 1813.

Good luck gentlemen !

<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:27 am

Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples?

Marshall Ellis

I'm not sure what type of combat you will have in this game, but here is a suggestion:

Movement on the STRATEGIC map by my army to a province occupied by a rival army might lead to a battle.

This turn-based battle could then take place on a TACTICAL map. This tactical map could be similar to maps found in games like Civil War Generals 2 and other games of this type. It would have elevations, rivers, trees, etc of the battlefield.

Combat could then take place in a way that is similar to combat in Civil War Generals 2; that is, certain objectives must be taken to qualify for defeat, minor victory, major victory, etc.

When the player moves to the tactical map, all armies are in place historically, but then the player is allowed to fight the battle as he sees fit.

Without complicating things too much, there could be simple supply rules, such that if certain supply points are occupied or cut-off from the opposing army, then that army suffers higher attrition in desertions, bad morale, reduced ammunition, etc. this would make supply centers hotly contested areas for maneuver and battle.

Also, if the battle is going badly, the player would have the choice of surrendering or retreating to an adjacent province.

This combat would involve variable-sized units depending on the size of the battle. Again, by looking how CW2 set up the units and cannons, might give you some interesting ideas. This would also allow for formation changes, artillery fire, cavalry charges, weather effects, with the proper sound effects.

The units in the tactical battles could have animations when they move similar to units in Civ 3 or they could just have the sound effects of marching when they move.

It would be nice if all the tactical units are modelled to actually look like groups of soldiers, cavalry and artillery (again similar to CWG2) rather than just icons on a map.

That's a starting point. This would be my ideal game. I certainly hope it's possible to implement <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Von Rom ]</p>

ntCoolHand · Post by **ntCoolHand** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 10:38 pm

Another important facet of the Napoleonic era is the existence of varied leader personalities. One man - Napoleon - molded that time period to what we know today so I think the different marshalls and generals should be represented together with their quirks, strengths, and foibles. Their actions could make or break any campaign as Davout's steadfastness at the Jena-Austertadt or Grouchy's indecisiveness at Waterloo.