AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia

[Jordan]

....there should be strong disincentives for having armies fighting over your territory. Production and tax revenue should plummet in those provinces that are traversed by armies and if enough provinces are devestated in such a matter, National Morale should start to suffer. The government; you; are not performing the priciple function of effective government; protecting the lives, property, and prosperity of your citizens. If this condition persists, revolts should break out. I also agree that after the Principles in a war conclude peace, the allies of said principles should conclude peace as well.

Agree. If production plummets then the forage value of the province should plummet as well.

[Jordan]

Apologies for being so long-winded.

Part of the great fun of games of this period is working out the dilemma of competing national interests among the allies in the face of French aggression, especially against a wily French player. Because, you as Prussia, would really like to help Austria (but you would really like to win as well).

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
2) Does Napoleon offer special bonuses for the French? He repeatedly destroyed larger armies than he had under his command time and time again, by attacking them separately. Is this modelled in the game?

3) What is modible in the game? What can the player himself change in the game files? Is there an editor?

Napoleon is awesome
- Napoleon provides an awesome initiative bonues to the army he is in: that makes it more likely they will be able to carry out the movement orders you give them on the strategic map, which is the precise implementation of this particular feature of Napoleon - his army is likely to move first and most precisely to hit enemy stacks before they combine.
- He has a fabulous impact on the division he accompanies in battle - more movement, easy to change formation, more morale recovered from rallying. The only thing he doesn't do is provide a special cav commander bonus.
- As a national commander (thats his rank) he helps all units on the battelfield to rally
- As an inspiring leader, he gives the nation +20 morale each month

The game is designed to be modible. (modable?) whatever
Quite a lot of stuff is in simple text files that can be readily understood. (Including some stuff about the AI's strategy!) - In particular, starting relationships, forces, locations, attributes of generals. Also game features: cost of units, unit capabilities, effects of terrain and weather. I believe things like icons used can be changed too, but I am not sure what is involved there.
I expect that information about this won't really come out with the game, but will be provided after launch.

Thank you very much for that detailed answer

So, once a person becomes familiar with the game files, then he could "create" his own scenario by:

* selecting a country (for this example I'll pick Prussia)
* tweaking variables in several of the game files to create an extremely tough challenge for Prussia

If I understand it correctly, there would be many ways to increase this challenge for playing as Prussia...

If I am correct in my understanding, then the ability to tweak the game files would essentially allow for unlimited replayability (since the game could be made more and more difficult for the human player).

[Becket]

I wonder if we're being overly hard on the game, suggesting it needs to be toughened up based solely on beta reports. My experience posting AARs for W@W leads me to believe that we, the non-testing public, tend to overemphasize things.

In order to correct this, we need to play for ourselves, so, I suggest that we spend our time harrassing Matrix for an early release. [:D]

[Jordan]

Drats!! Foiled again by reason.

You're right, of course.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Becket

I wonder if we're being overly hard on the game, suggesting it needs to be toughened up based solely on beta reports. My experience posting AARs for W@W leads me to believe that we, the non-testing public, tend to overemphasize things.

In order to correct this, we need to play for ourselves, so, I suggest that we spend our time harrassing Matrix for an early release. [:D]

From what I have read I am pleased that the initial game will be quite a challenge for some time.

However, it's always been my experience that once players become good at playing a game that they then want an increased challenge.

Knowing that the game files can be tweaked to increase this challenge only makes the game more desirable since there will be no end to creating tough challenges for the player.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.

I know there are things I would've liked to have seen make the cut, but they didnt for various reasons, as did every other tester (and even the designers!). 'Scope Creep' can be deadly to a game and at some point, lines have to be drawn.

The good news is that they appear to be commited to supporting the game down the line (something Matrix has a very good track record for). So, if there are a number of common problems or suggestions, you can pretty much rest assured that they will be looked at long and hard. Already there are ideas being batted around for patches for things that just couldnt make it into the release.

So, my opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved. If a majority consensus arises and the ideas are feasible, I wouldnt be surprised to see them implemented or at least accounted for in post release support.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
My opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved.

My point is that some things have to be played before you know whether they need to be improved. Some certainly don't, but my view is that when you see an experienced tester pull off a strategy that you don't like in a single AAR, the immediate assumption should not be to kill off the strategy.

[Cyrano]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.

THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM...HONESTLY, IT ISN"T...

But I was struck by the phrase "things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games." How many of these have their been? (on the PC, anyway?) I mean, you can't swing a member of the Hundred and Worst Airborne (Eighty-Deuce, now and always) without finding somebody coming out with some new WWII RTS/FPS/Grand Strat., etc., but yer Nappy games have been pretty thin on the ground.

EUII doesn't count because it isn't really ABOUT the Napoleonic era.

IG doesn't count 'cuz if it's a Napoleonic strat game then RISK is a Napoleonic strat game.

I'm just really glad for CoG. Looking forward to it in a big way.

See you all in the field.

Regards,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Uncle_Joe]

ORIGINAL: Becket

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
My opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved.

My point is that some things have to be played before you know whether they need to be improved. Some certainly don't, but my view is that when you see an experienced tester pull off a strategy that you don't like in a single AAR, the immediate assumption should not be to kill off the strategy.

Absolutely. I think the same thing...play the game, keep a list of things you'd like to see as you go. Look for like-minded ideas and support them. Thats what I've done through the late beta process.

[SLTxDarkknight]

Though the release is eminent we are still giving input and Eric has requested our continued assistance with things that simply didnt make the cut w/in the time frame he had. Play it enjoy it and help make this the game you want through valued input.

[sol_invictus]

I have some small peeves before even playing the game,[:-] but I am blown away by the many things that seem to be implemented in an intelligent way. I am also confident that the Devs will listen to and consider any input that the players supply.

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: Cyrano

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.

THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM...HONESTLY, IT ISN"T...

But I was struck by the phrase "things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games." How many of these have their been? (on the PC, anyway?) I mean, you can't swing a member of the Hundred and Worst Airborne (Eighty-Deuce, now and always) without finding somebody coming out with some new WWII RTS/FPS/Grand Strat., etc., but yer Nappy games have been pretty thin on the ground.

EUII doesn't count because it isn't really ABOUT the Napoleonic era.

IG doesn't count 'cuz if it's a Napoleonic strat game then RISK is a Napoleonic strat game.

I'm just really glad for CoG. Looking forward to it in a big way.

See you all in the field.

Regards,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

There is always Le Emperuer from Koei... at least if you still have the 8 bit Nintendo system...or a DOS machine.....[;)]