1st post and a game opinion

[plasticpanzers]

hehehe! good one! Just logged on while waiting to
leave for airport. I agree there has to be a balance
between history and fun. I am just suggesting that
with a little more effort more enjoyement can be added
to this game. A choice in the game setup for the player to choose historical for an indepth simulation
or non-historical for a more fun and fast paced game.
(see, i am easy! LOL!) More options really means more
choices and therefore more fun! Add a choice at the
start of the game for the player to choose the type of
game he wants to play. PS: France was never at peace
from 1792 to 1815 (cept for Napy's short vacation to
Elba..). The wars continued somewhere all the time.
Peace!! I love the game!!!
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Jordan]

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?

I don't know that it is a question (at least for me) of France having to choose those upgrades. It's a question of Austria being able to easliy choose those upgrades as if they were on a store shelf.

If the Austrian leadership were able to choose the "I want my armies to march faster" option, undoubtedly they would have. Why didn't they if it were that easy? First, they needed a different army structure, a whole new concept of supply, and before either of those they needed to make some tough social choices. A historical game that lets them do so without taking into consideration the things that make Austria into Austria and not France loses something. It loses the idea that when I choose to play Austria, I have to face some of the same social and political reailities that their leaders faced. The developers of COG, who clearly are historically knowledgeable and who also want a marketable product, attempted to abstract these things as best they could (though I think they missed the boat by letting non-France nations have a corps system so easily).

As noted earlier, I for one am not arguing for a strict historical simulation....boring. But I am arguing for differences among nations that make certain choices harder and others easier. It is clearly not simply a matter of "choosing" from a menu (to mix metaphors); it is choosing within the context of Austria, etc.

[Malagant]

ORIGINAL: Jordan

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?

I don't know that it is a question (at least for me) of France having to choose those upgrades. It's a question of Austria being able to easliy choose those upgrades as if they were on a store shelf.

If the Austrian leadership were able to choose the "I want my armies to march faster" option, undoubtedly they would have. Why didn't they if it were that easy? First, they needed a different army structure, a whole new concept of supply, and before either of those they needed to make some tough social choices. A historical game that lets them do so without taking into consideration the things that make Austria into Austria and not France loses something. It loses the idea that when I choose to play Austria, I have to face some of the same social and political reailities that their leaders faced. The developers of COG, who clearly are historically knowledgeable and who also want a marketable product, attempted to abstract these things as best they could (though I think they missed the boat by letting non-France nations have a corps system so easily).

As noted earlier, I for one am not arguing for a strict historical simulation....boring. But I am arguing for differences among nations that make certain choices harder and others easier. It is clearly not simply a matter of "choosing" from a menu (to mix metaphors); it is choosing within the context of Austria, etc.

Your quotes confused me [X(]

I think for Austria to get an army that moves fast it not only needs to 'choose from the menu', but also invest heavily in barracks and Culture to get more upgrades, and rearrange it's army structure to use more Corps. This will all come at the expense of other things. If one were to choose to do this with Austria, they'd end up with a fast moving army that might get it's virtual butt kicked by someone that's focused more 'pointy-end' advances.

Perhaps what you're asking for is more 'pressure' on a player to perform certain things, or restrict his choices, based on the country's feudal setting?