1st post and a game opinion

[plasticpanzers]

National differences don't really exist in this game
where it makes a clear difference. "Upgrades" are
not really differences, its just replacing your old
Sherman tank with a Pershing. The flavor of the
Napoleonic period was the national differences in the
manner their armies operated. France could not have
survived to 1815 in real life if all nations had the
basic same army. It is the dynamics that occur between
nations with different characteristics that make it fun rather than "blue army" vs "green army" vs "yellow army". Game play could be nothing but improved by letting players discover the differences in operating different types of armies rather than just moving their base of operations by playing a different country.
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

National differences don't really exist in this game
where it makes a clear difference. "Upgrades" are
not really differences, its just replacing your old
Sherman tank with a Pershing. The flavor of the
Napoleonic period was the national differences in the
manner their armies operated. France could not have
survived to 1815 in real life if all nations had the
basic same army. It is the dynamics that occur between
nations with different characteristics that make it fun rather than "blue army" vs "green army" vs "yellow army". Game play could be nothing but improved by letting players discover the differences in operating different types of armies rather than just moving their base of operations by playing a different country.
Tim (plasticpanzers)

I disagree with you... I think the differences are quite noticable on the field. You can see it quite clearly in quick combat. Try putting about the same number of turks and french on the battlefield and you'll see the turks get a drubbing every time. Why? Because each nation (1805 scenario) has differing 'upgrades' and they have a noticable effect on the battle. Especially so when you compare the upgrades of france to that of the turks.

The 'upgrades' reflect more than just an upgrade to a piece of equipment.

For instance, levee en masse provides an abstract difference in the way in which strength from population is calculated reflecting a difference in how ones nation acquires new troops. Rapid March which gives an army an additional move using forced march. Massed artillery which increases the size of artillery units which reflect a change in the organization of artillery units by increases their size.

I've chosen just a few and there are many others that I think can be legitimately argued to demonstrate the differences in nations in this scale of game. Could there be more or could some of these differences be more pronounced? Sure... but they do exist and do have an impact.

[Mr. Z]

units during real battles had their own ammo cassions and having several running around trying to resupply units while being targeted by your opponent is not a real way to do supply.

As with many things in detailed combat, the supply cassions are somewhat abstract--so Imagine them as just representing the various ammo cassions that would have been active during battle.

2) Cavalry should have curassaiers as a seperate unit type other than cavalry, light cavalry, and lancers.

Some unit types have been combined into more general categories--Heavy Cavalry, for example.

There should be guard cavalry.

This is a very popular request, and we have taken it into consideration.

I notice most troop types look the same. Could not accurate types for each nation not be done for this game without using too much memory?

It's more a matter of the manpower needed to produce the animations.

4) Nations should have some restrictions on where they can move units. It is somewhat more than unlikely that Turkey would put naval units in the English Channel...

We considered putting something like this into place. We might consider it for a patch, though I don't think it's high on the list. Might be nice, though.

...and England would never put a major unit into France (and never did) until other nations in the alliance did. Although they did raids and attempted to seieze ports for a time (a la Dieppe) there should be a limit on how many troops England can place in France. Perhaps a matching amount of other allied units. To have England invade France with 100,000 men in 1799 and capture Paris is a bit wierd to see.

That's an interesting restriction--I don't know how difficult it would be to implement, however. We continue to look for tweaks in behavior, so we might have another look at this. For now, it's just an interesting deviation from history [:)]

9) access to the rules during the game would be very helpful! LOL again!

In addition to the forthcoming fix in the patch, we'd like to include more in-game help, and possibly more direct links to the manual from the game as well.

[plasticpanzers]

I know i can't shut up! LOL! but looking over the list
of upgrades some can be tweaked to be national specific
in nature to refect the differenct nations.
Artillery: France, Russia, Britian. All had good art
transport systems. Turkey, Austria, Sweden, and
Spain did not or had very small art units.
Artillery Ranging: France, Russia. These two nations
had sophisticated artillery programs. Other
nations had never organized theirs into really
professional artillery for the majority of the
war.
Cav Ferocity: Britain (Union Brigade!), France, and
Russia. All had superb battle cavalry. Austria's
was well trained as induvidual units. Spain,
Turkey, Sweden, and Prussia had smaller or
almost nonexistant battle cavalry.
Cav Operations: France, Russia, Prussia. British cav
had a tendency to charge and not want to stop!
Other nations cav to small to really upgrade
Cav Training: France, Britain, Austria, Russia. The
other nations again had limited cavalry assets.
Column Fighting: France, Russia, Austria.
Divisional Artillery: French specialty as well as
Russia. Other nations had very small units of
art attached to divisions and brigades.
Field Medicine II: France only. Only nations to set
up ambulance units and real hospitals other than
to shovel wounded into fields and empty huts.
Irregular Tactics: Russia!
Levee in Masse: Russia, Prussia, Austria only after
they have surrendered at least 2 times to another
country. They then (in 1808-9 and for Russia in
1812) to allow peasants and serfs to bear arms.
For Prussia it was nationalism.
Line Marching: Britain
March Logistics: Auto when Napoleon is in the
province units start in.
Massed Artillery: Auto for France when starting the
game.
Mixded order: French specific until later on when
Prussia adopted a similar system.
Nationalism I: all nations
Nationalism II: Russia, Prussia
Nationalism III: Prussia
Naval Guns: Britain
Naval Maneuvers: Britain
Naval Repairs: Britain
Organized Foraging: France specific and speciality!
Patrotism: France, Prussia. Russia and Spain should
be much higher
Force March: If Napoleon present in starting province
then auto for units force marching.
Rocket troops: were only used as a small part of
several batteries of British artillery. No
effect at all at this scale other than a
minor morale loss to cav attacking the British
art div.
Skirmish training: Britain, France, Prussia post 1808
Other nations had very limited real skirmish
units. many in name only. very well documented
Square Firepower: British specific!
Target Practice: British start with this!
Target Practice II: British specific. No other
nation spent so much time developing firepower
to offset enemy melee forces.
Wheel Training: France and Britain. Maneuver was
never a strong point for other nations. Spain,
Turkey, Austria, and Prussia all ran their army
as they were in the mid 1700s per maneuver.
Winter Fighting: Sweden and Russia starting
Winter Fighting: Russia specific

I know i keep up with my comments but please
understand i am very impressed with this game and
there are ways i think to tweak it to a higher that
would only improve it as a simulation of the wars
of Napoleon and Europe. If its just a matter of
having a "game engine" to adapt to other periods
with no real difference then some of the comments
made earlier on by others ring sadly true and it
will remain a game that could take place anytime
and anywhere with no real flavor of the period that
really changed the world and created the modern
Europe more so than than WWI.
Very respectfully submitted!
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Jordan]

Well, the politcal and social considerations of the era have been abstracted so this also blurs the differences between nations.

Each nation had unique social and politcal considerations that presented them with a dilemma and tensions. Dilemmas and tensions make for good gameplay. To counter Bonaparte, nations had to adjust but making those adjustments might represent a threat to the social order (the very thing they were attempting to combat!). I guess this is represented in the game between a nation's feudalism level and it's ability to obtain advances (innovation). To obtain more innovation (by reducing feudalism, the entrenched structure) you get hit with a national morale penalty. However, each of the nations I've played start with the ability to make corps and gain the benefits of the corps system. The corps system should really be one of the big differences between France and other nations.

Bonaparte is a general in this game and his status as head of state is abstracted into his unique qualities. If he is removed from the game then the game continues. (Generally, I still would like to see the threshold raised for removing generals; specifically, even more so for Napleon because he is head of state. And even if he is removed - after some massive allied victory - I think it would add fun to the game if he were allowed a certain chance to return every month. If he does return it should boost France's morale and give them back some GPs).

Anyway, it would be nice if some of these cultural and political differences (the effect of German nationalism is another) were more apparent.

[Alaric_31]

greetings everyone, please take care of all others napoleonic games that have hit the market, i must say that the most near of simulate well enough the napoleonic wars and national differences is Crown of Glory, i have played others, that i want to avoid to name here, but at strategic level and this degree of perfection there are none in the market about napoleonic wars. these other games the most incurred in the "generic failure" for all nations very very much than Crown of Glory and have deserved good feedback.

with best regards,

alaric.

[plasticpanzers]

I heartily agree!! This is the best Napoleonic game I
have ever played! Just think it needs a little tweak
here and there! LOL!
ps: Bayonet Training: Russian specific! They loved
sharp things! LOL! (gotta figure out how to edit..)
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Malagant]

All these Upgrades that you say nations did not have is because they made a choice to not have them.

The whole idea of this GAME is to see what happens if you and I make different choices at the grand strategic level...not to be forced in to the same situations and same decisions. I think many of us would find it boring to have to do the same thing as historically already happened.

Artillery: France, Russia, Britian. All had good art
transport systems. Turkey, Austria, Sweden, and
Spain did not or had very small art units.

Because they chose to.

Artillery Ranging: France, Russia. These two nations
had sophisticated artillery programs. Other
nations had never organized theirs into really
professional artillery for the majority of the
war.

Because they chose to.

Divisional Artillery: French specialty as well as
Russia. Other nations had very small units of
art attached to divisions and brigades.

Because they chose to.


Why should someone playing the GAME as Austria (for example) not be able to CHOOSE to concentrate on their Artillery program? Was it not historically POSSIBLE (not likely, but possible) that they do so?

The upgrades are in the game to represent the big picture choices the nations made when it came to running their military (and other things). There is nothing that says Russia could not have concentrated on learning to march her armies faster (March Logistics I, II, III). As a player of the GAME, I might choose to do that, and my armies will run circles around the French. Again, it's something that COULD have happened, but didn't. It was POSSIBLE.

Don't force me to play a historical reproduction. To me, that's the same as watching a movie or reading a book. Given the choices made by the historical leaders about what capabilities they wanted their armed forces to have, I already know what will happen. It has happened. There's no need to go over it again. The GAME let's explore the big picture 'what-ifs'...what if France DIDN'T build a Guard Corps, but instead on colonialism and colonial troops? What if Britain DIDN'T concentrate on making fine infantry, but instead on incredible artillery assets? What if Prussia chose to implement the concept of Levee en Masse shortly after France, and is able to field a much larger army?

You can't have all the upgrades, you will only get a few, so everything is a trade-off. The upgrade system, and the way it represents the different nation's choices on how to use it's military, is one of my favorite aspects of the game. [:)]

[James Ward]

All these Upgrades that you say nations did not have is because they made a choice to not have them.

The whole idea of this GAME is to see what happens if you and I make different choices at the grand strategic level...not to be forced in to the same situations and same decisions. I think many of us would find it boring to have to do the same thing as historically already happened.

But the fact is many of these became obvious benefits to some nations AFTER the era. Certainly Austria saw first hand the benefits of a massed artillery division yet for some reason didn't think to use the tactic. Cossacks arrassed Napolean's troops throughout the retreat from Russia yet Fance never created a siiliar force.
Now it is obvious that field hospitals are a goodh thing but it wasn't so obvious back then and it's not like they were secret. If you want to only be able to choose the 'good' upgrades then maybe there should be some downside to them too, you know to let us make a wrong choice [:D] As it is you can't go wrong with an upgrade yet in real life you never know how something will turn out [;)]

[Jordan]

I guess I fall somewhere between Malagant and Plasitcpanzers, I don't want a strict simulation yet I would like the game to represent the historical conditions of the time. I suspect many feel similarly and the difference lies in degrees and playability issues.

Sure each nation chose to organize one way and not the other, but those choices were either determined or influenced by the unique social and political conditions facing each. Does that mean I think Russians should inherently be better with bayonets? Absolutely not. Or that only France should be able to build guard corps? No. Russian leadership may have emphasized ("may" because I'm not really sure they did) bayonet training because of their antiquated feudal system in which a lord donated a certain % of his serfs to the army. In this scenario, maybe for Russia to get musket training they have to make adjustments to their social order first.

To represent the period, however, if Austria wants to upgrade to levee en masse it should face the consequences. Same with Russia and their antiquated system. The game should provide a good player with a solution to these issues. From a playability issue, that's a fun dilemma to have and also serves to give some historical flavor to the game.

[James Ward]

<To represent the period, however, if Austria wants to upgrade to levee en masse it should face the consequences. Same with Russia and their antiquated system. The game should provide a good player with a solution to these issues. From a playability issue, that's a fun dilemma to have and also serves to give some historical flavor to the game. >

I think you've hit a nail on the head, for any game. We want lots of choices (no one would suggest completely removing upgrades) and optionsbut what is usually lacking is the 'bad' part of it. If you ever played Fallout II you know what I mean, you could take traits if you wanted and each gave an nice advantage but they also gave a disadvantage. So you had to weigh the benefit vs your style.
A nation only can only improve so much in any area and it's harder to do in areas where they had less experiance in. Doing one thing maybe should take away or make harder getting another especially if it is un-historical (like if Austria wanted to rule the seas then they should be able to TRY but at a great expense to all other areas as they had no real base to build on) .

[plasticpanzers]

I agree James. You should be able to try and duplicate
what other nations do. The problem is that many of
these nations were steeped in generations of doing
things one way only. It would be like a WW2 game
where the US can make kamakaze units and the British
Tiger tanks. There were numerous national, technical,
and historical reasons that they did not. Does not
mean they could not but it would be horrendously
expensive in resourses and/or national morale.
Napoleonic games come in two flavors-
a game where anything goes (ie Risk)
a game where history drives the game (true simulation)
If you want to play the Russians and have British
type army why play the Russians? If you want to be
the Austrians but have French style army why play the
Austrians? Would be easier to simply make a general
map of a mythical world and put the game into that
with no nation names that really existed. They may
have chosen not to do things with this game Malagant.
Does not mean that history played as history is any
where boring. Trying to use the strenths and the
weakenesses of each nations real and historical characteristics should be darn fun! Playing where
there is no real differences other than names is
truly not. Countrys during the Napoleonic wars i
want to continue to stress were each unique in the
manner of which they waged war. To make them the
same basically defeats the purpose of a true game
of the Napoleonic period and you might as well add
air units, wizards, and nuclear weapons! LOL!
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Malagant]

Maybe we're not playing the same game, but Austria CAN try to rule the seas: She can build up her docks, she can build naval forces there, she can choose Naval Upgrades, which she'll have to build Barracks to get.

All those things take resources away from other things...things like her Army, or improving her Economy.

There ARE 'bad parts' of it.

The same example could be drawn with other nations choosing to do things that they aren't set up for at the start of a scenario, either with geographical, economical, or starting upgrades.

Also keep in mind that Eric has said that all Upgrades are not made equal...some are clearly superior than others. Rocket Artillery is a good example....Britain CHOSE to invest in this system that turned out to be of dubious battlefield value. The same could be said of a player that chose to invest Austria's resources in trying to establish naval dominance. [;)]


Something the original poster said that stuck with me: all armies march at the same speed. That's not true. All armies THAT HAVE NO UPGRADES march at the same speed. In my current 1792 campaign, I've taken March Logistics I, II, and III, and my army marches circles around others. THIS is how the French armies are modeled as moving faster than their Russian or Austrian counterparts.

But why should France be FORCED to make those upgrades?

[Malagant]

And if you want to simply recreate history by being forced to make the same choices as were made historically, then we KNOW what the result will be. Right? There is no point in remaking the same choices that were already made. There is no question what the result will be. There is no GAME...it's simply watching a replay of history.

There are no choices in this game that were not available historically to the leaders of those countries at that time...nuclear weapons and wizards are not an option.

If Russia wanted to emulate the French manner of waging war, what's to stop them? Would there be upheaval in their officer corps? Sure! Would it be expensive and time consuming and take away from investing in their economic future? Sure! Would it be helpful and beneficial to them? Maybe. There's no reason they didn't other than they CHOSE not to.

If I play Russia, I choose to! What's wrong with that?

were each unique in the
manner of which they waged war

They are unique in this game too...they are unique based on the Upgrades chosen by the ruler...you and me [:)]

[plasticpanzers]

Enjoy! LOL! No offense meant buddy. Perhaps in the
game setup page an option allowing for choosing to
use or not use national characteristics would be a
viable option. I now retire from the field! LOL! I
am off to the Dragon Expo show in Atlanta where i work
with some fantastic people making 1/6th scale armored
vehicles (its a living!...actually not, i loose money
on this and use copious amounts of asprin! LOL!).
Tim (plasticpanzers)
http://www.plasticpanzers.8k.com
"Where unique WW2 armor hides out"

[James Ward]

Maybe we're not playing the same game, but Austria CAN try to rule the seas: She can build up her docks, she can build naval forces there, she can choose Naval Upgrades, which she'll have to build Barracks to get.

But in real life the cost would be enormous to do this. They had no naval history, no designer, no shipyards, no training, no sailors as it were. For Austira to have ruled the seas back then would have meant not only a slow down in any army improvement but a degradation of their existing army training as the amount of resources required to become a 'sailing nation' in a decade would have been enormous, in effect taking away army upgrades in the game. It would be similiar to the Chinese building a completely armored army in WWII. As Judy Tenuti would say 'It could happen' [:)]

I'm not against you being able to try to do non-historical things but if you want to try there should be negative consequences if what you are doing would change the basic 'character' of the nation.

[Malagant]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Maybe we're not playing the same game, but Austria CAN try to rule the seas: She can build up her docks, she can build naval forces there, she can choose Naval Upgrades, which she'll have to build Barracks to get.

But in real life the cost would be enormous to do this. They had no naval history, no designer, no shipyards, no training, no sailors as it were. For Austira to have ruled the seas back then would have meant not only a slow down in any army improvement but a degradation of their existing army training as the amount of resources required to become a 'sailing nation' in a decade would have been enormous, in effect taking away army upgrades in the game. It would be similiar to the Chinese building a completely armored army in WWII. As Judy Tenuti would say 'It could happen' [:)]

I'm not against you being able to try to do non-historical things but if you want to try there should be negative consequences if what you are doing would change the basic 'character' of the nation.

But there are negative consequences! If Austria were to try to build up a Navy in this game, her army would be neglected completely: resources would go building docks and ships, and upgrades would go to Naval upgrades, at the expense of Army or 'National' upgrades!

She CAN do it if she wants, but it's doubtful she'll be successful, and it most certainly wouldn't be wise!! (Though it would be entertaining, and that's the whole point of playing a game, right? [:D])

edit: As for the Chinese armored army: China didn't have the infrastructure or economy to even begin to develop the heavy industry required to build and maintain a large armored force. Compared to the nations of the time period that did, her infrastructure and ecomony were centuries behind.

In CoG, Austria has comparable infrastructure and economy to all the other nations, even Britain. She has the ability, but it's a question of choosing to accept the consequences of not being able to build or maintain a land army. Most players are not going to choose to build up the Austrian navy, for the same reasons the leadership of Austria historically did not. That, IMO, is good game design.

[Malagant]

If you want to field an Austrian army in this game that has all the strenghts and weaknesses of the historical Austrian army, YOU CAN! You simply have to CHOOSE to take the appropriate upgrades, build the appropriate units, don't use competent leaders in your armies, and apply your economy appropriately...

but don't expect the rest of the nations to be forced in to their same historical roles.

Maybe you can find some like-minded people for a PBEM where you all endeavor to drive your nations as they were historically. I don't see how that would be any fun, because we know what the outcome will be, but it sounds like it would work for you! Seems to me your beef is that the AI doesn't choose the same Upgrades or to build the same force mix as was done historically.


All that being said, I agree with you completely about the supply model: at both a tactical and strategic level supply could be improved. I don't think it's a game-breaker, it doesn't detract from the fun for me(except when the enemy cavalry rout my supply wagons on the first turn! [:@]), but could be tweaked a bit.

Enjoy your convention!!

[carburo]

From my limited experience -I haven’t had the time to do anything continually for 40 years- I agree with Malagant’s warning against making the game so historically accurate that at the end there is no game left. I have a lot of books already, if history is what I want.
It would be rather boring playing under the historical accuracy rules. Imagine England starting in 1805: you would have Trafalgar (quick battle), if the AI is nice enough to sail against Nelson, and… hit the subsidize button a lot and read the papers until Napo invades Spain and you have something to do with your army. As Austria all you would be able to do while waiting for Leipzig is surrendering to France, but you could be sure that in 1810 Napo would accept Marie-Louise. I think some historical balance is already in the game: the French army is the best one by a huge margin (except for the Italian Corps), Russia in far from everywhere and can raise huge numbers, Austria and Prussia are comparatively weak and need alliances to survive, and Britain is safe behind it’s fleet, but have a limited army. I would welcome some ways of making it harder to deviate wildly from what seems historically logical, but that’s all. I can think of ships/fleets losing morale and strength after a certain amount of time out of one of its nation’s ports, or merchants not being profitable if they are too far from your bases. This would discurage/avoid the odd turkish merchant in the Baltic, but would leave it as a valid option if the player so wants. Historically, nothing forbade the turks from sending a ship to Sweden, except rationality. They didn’t do it because it was impossible, but because it didn’t make sense. Armies could be subject too to increasing drops in morale if the stay for a long time deep into enemy territory, so that a Turkish army would vanish in its way to Stockholm, or a French one in its way to Russia. Something I would like to see implemented is being out of supply affecting morale as well as causing casualties, and eventually making units disband. I think historical accuracy should be encouraged making “historical” decisions more sound under certain circumstances but not by taking options from the player.
I strongly support the idea of the intercept option. In my current game as France I have had Picton -with a 3000 men inf unit, all that is left of his army- plundering my provinces for three turns while being followed by the 7th Corps. I would add a way for this weak armies/units to surrender or disband automatically if followed by a significantly stronger army. It’s ridiculous when I have a corps following a roaming cossack/guerrilla all over France, and frustrating when I have to chase two or three.
On the more unit types topic all I say is: how many of us actually build plain and light cavalry if we can afford the heavy version? If there is no clear and meaningful difference between units, more types only adds to the confusion. In another post I suggested making light cav weak but easy to rally, so ideal to chase routers; heavies more able to disorder enemy units, sort of a powerful one-shot unit; and lancers weaker against other cav. I would also make all cav more vulnerable to inf fire, to discurage all-cav armies. I like the guard cav option though. An easy-to-rally heavy cav perhaps, but it has to be limited or would ruin everything. Could be linked to the number of other cav units: only one guard for every ten other cav maybe.
While I agree it’s absolutely ahistorical, I don’t find the tactical supply system particularly annoying, except when my caissons start facing the enemy cavalry and far away from my units. On the other hand, the enemy’s ability to build depots all the way to my capital, and sustain them for months, makes no sense at all.

[Joram]

I have been reading about Napoleon for about 40 plus
years and gameing almost as long (i'm 53).

Dad??? Is that you!!! [:D]

Just kidding. But that describes him and me too an obviously lesser extent.


As many people said, I think you need to balance what makes a good game versus pure historical accuracy. If you put so many restrictions in that you are recreating month-by-month the real war, then what's the point in the game? On the other hand, I do think it's a bit weird to see million man turkish armies marching through Europe and their fleet trapsing around the english channel. Also, hey, who knows, if the Papacy wanted to convert, maybe they would take the Turks as their protectors!!!