if you start in 1792...

[Gilia]

thank you but i maked it work by myself. the campaign now starts 1792 an end 1820. i have combined all the leaderfiles and all the generals show up between 1796 and 1815.


http://home.arcor.de/killmesoftly/CoG/Scenarios.zip

just extract it to your CoG-Folder. Dont forget to make a backup from the 1792-folder in scenarios.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: marc420

Just a thought, but this would be a cool area to get some big improvements in the future.

A fuller leader system. I'd like to see more leaders, and also promotion of leaders over time. Something that doesn't necessarily product historical generals, but instead models the leaders you might really see.

Seems like there should be a lot more 1-star generals. I'd guess a division without a 1-star general has an average commander. But it still seems like there should be a lot more good 1-star leaders. These should be able to be assigned to a division on the strategic map. So I can take my good 1-star general and assign him to a guard div or a heavy cavalry, then they just move together on the startegic map until I reassign leaders.

The reason for more 1-star generals is that most of the 2-star generals could get promoted from them. The same for higher ranks.

I could see a nation having a number of leaders based on percentage of divisions (with some cav leaders and art leaders thrown in amongst these). Also based on percentage of corps and percentage of armies.

A nation always has 1 4-star general. And enough 2 and 3 star generals that some corps and armies have leaders, but not all. The ones that don't have just an average unnamed (and unremembered) leaders. Different nations could have different numbers of leaders by giving different percentages. One country might have a 3-star for 90%of their armies, while another might have a 3-star for 30% of their armies.

The number of leaders is fixed by the size of the army and this leadership rating. What isn't fixed is how good they are. You should lose leaders in battles (does that happen in ver 1.00, haven't seen it yet). Also each leader should have a retirement chance, based maybe on rank (4-stars are old generals, 1-stars are young) if you don't want track age. Also could be just a random event that retires leaders.

Leaders could get better with experience. Maybe a small random chance on Jan 1. Just being a camp leader should make a general a little better at handling his troops. But the main chance of improvement should come from battle and campaign experience.

Different countries could promote different ways. Some could promote the best of the lower rank. Others could promote based on a separate random rating of how much the king likes a leader. This era always seemed to have a bunch of incompent army commanders whom were highly ranked in society or were buddies with the king.

When a leader gets promoted, there could be a random change to his ratings. Most should go down. A rookie corps commander doesn't handle a corps as well as an experienced div commander handles a division. But sometimes they should go up. That's for the guy who didn't really have a knack for handling a div, but has an excellent sense of the bigger picture of a battle.

I guess I'm looking for a system that doesn't produce historical leaders, but instead gives more of the feel of always trying to find competent commanders. I think I'd like a game where you aren't always sure when you find a good commander, but you are glad when you find one, and you are upset when you lose him.

Oh well, wrote a lot more than I intended, but this discussion sparked an idea. [8|][8|] Don't know if I'll ever see it in this game, but this is my idea of what would be cool to play with.

marc -
I think we have a lot of similar concepts for how leaders should work. Here's a link to a thread I did a short while back. LINK

[EarlPembroke]

Gilia - Thanks, downloaded it. Where did you find values for Gustav IV and Schulz? gustav IV, by the way, has a picture (I think) - number 94. Don't recall seeing those, tho Gustav IV I had added in mine just for fun ...

Also, (and I haven't looked at it much yet), what did you do with the Start2.txt file? I see that it has some values and locations for the start of a game, but what did you do to modify it for this purpose?

[Gilia]

I have made Gustav and Schulz only to see what is possible. I have taken some values from other Generals.

The only thing changed in start2.txt is how long the campaign will go. i have taken the end date from the 1820 campaign.

[Alaric_31]

greetings, i want to advice a thing about commanders, there are 8 files in the main data directory (c:\Crown of glory\data) named as
CmdName1 to CmdName8 that are related to the posibility to pop up a leader after a battle, Eric tell this to me, some commander named in this files for the standard game are included in some scenarios, so there are a posibility to have two commanders with the same name in a given scenario, i have included 25 leaders for the standard scenario, some start the game deployed and each year after each nations receive some more generals, in turns 12, 24 and 36, in example i have added Gerard for the french and change in the file CmdName1 (France) Gerar for another name to disable the posibility to have two "gerards".

with regards,

Alaric.

[Gilia]

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: Gilia

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

Heh.. it is reminiscent of events long prior to Napoleonic era. In fact, revolutionary France and Napoleonic France sent such minors into jitters so they were only just preoccupied with their mere survival.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
One option we've been considering for the sequel...

Doesn't rule 14.1 of the game producer's code of conduct state that you have to get the first patch out before you can use the dreaded "s" word? [;)]

[Mr. Z]

ORIGINAL: Gilia

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

Sigh...would've been nice.

[jchastain]

Let's face it, we're spoiled. Going all the way to the 1990 edition of Balance of Power, that game had some interesting multipolar diplomatic streams. And EU2 clearly had active minor powers. In this game though, it might not work as well. The typical response to agression is finding a protector and do we really want nations winning new provinces because some random squabble occured between 2 single province countries? If that didn't happen, they would both deplete their limited forces. One would likely win. And both of those results just makes the map easier to gobble up. It sounds neat, but as I think through it I just can't think of a situation where having minor powers fight one another would add to the game. Am I missing something?

[Naomi]

If there was, at that time, any minor active enough, say, to be aggressive on its neighbours, could it still be counted as a minor? :p

If there were really such an active "minor", I thought the designers would place it along with the 8 nations we could choose to play.

[EarlPembroke]

Thanks, Gilia. Will have to use that file next time! (The start2 you created.)