1st post and a game opinion

[plasticpanzers]

I have been reading about Napoleon for about 40 plus
years and gameing almost as long (i'm 53). After buying and playing this for a few days i have a few
opinions on it good and bad. This is not an attack
but just my opinion based upon 40 years of study. I
really enjoy the game but it does need some tweaking
that would make it more realistic with only some
minor changes.
1) supply on detailed battles needs to be changed. 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. Generally units either had or
did not have supply the day of a battle. During the
evening or before the next day ammo would have been resupplied from regimental and battery cassions. This is just wrong and overemphasies supply during
combat.
2) Cavalry should have curassaiers as a seperate unit
type other than cavalry, light cavalry, and lancers.
There should be guard cavalry. 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?
3) France under Napoleon should be able to create
a Guard Corps and all Guard units and guard units only could be assigned to it. It would have a major
impact on morale for the entire army when involved
in a battle and would lower somewhat enemy army
morale. its just a fact of history and should be
a "France specific" rule.
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 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.
5)Armies should be given an "intercept" option so
that an army guarding a border will attempt to stop
an enemy army from slipping past in another province.
It is strange to see an Austrian army move from
Switzerland to Paris nonstop without being able to
be challenged by armies in nearby provinces. This
should apply to all armies. When an ememy unit
enters your nation in a province with no army you
should recieve a prompt if you have an army in the
next provice "Intercept? Yes/No".
6)POWs were often dispersed into local provinces to
help as a labor force and not kept in large camps
like WW2. POWs should be part of a negotiation to
return to their nations and not a target of a raid
to free them and to suddenly create a new army behind
your lines (where did they get all the muskets?).
7)artillery should be part of each corps and the only
other artillery should be corps and army artillery
units. This would be more real than seeing a British
artillery "division" smash French divisions which
never happened. Having artillery produced and then
filtered into corps and armies would increase their
firepower and be more realistic. Again seeing supply
and how it effects artillery during battles is just
not accurate. Artillery should have enough ammo for
a full day of battle. Units should not loose their
firepower from fire actions but from fatigue which
can be restored by not fighting or firing.
8) A game save from detailed battles is a must! LOL!
9) access to the rules during the game would be very
helpful! LOL again!
10) Can't think of anything more right now. Sure
i will be responding to others comments. Again, I
do enjoy the game but until some corrections or some
additions can be done its more of a very detailed
version of Axis and Allies or Risk in some features.
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[jchastain]

Welcome PP. There is a lot here to tackle but obviously a lot of time and effort went into this post and it deserves some discussion so I'll dive in first and let others chime in as they see fit.

I have been reading about Napoleon for about 40 plus years and gameing almost as long (i'm 53). After buying and playing this for a few days i have a few opinions on it good and bad. This is not an attack but just my opinion based upon 40 years of study.

You've come to the right place. One thing we have no shortage of here is opinions on this game. [:D]

I really enjoy the game but it does need some tweaking that would make it more realistic with only some minor changes.
1) supply on detailed battles needs to be changed. 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. Generally units either had or did not have supply the day of a battle. During the evening or before the next day ammo would have been resupplied from regimental and battery cassions. This is just wrong and overemphasies supply during combat.

I don't really mind the resupply model but I hadn't really given it much thought. One thing I am sure of though is that it is MUCH to late to begin consider changing such a fundamental element of detailed combat. In theory you may be right historically and I suppose it would be possible to maintain a low supply state throughout the battle, though from a game design standpoint it is more fun the way it is because it gives players another element that needs to be managed. It also simplified development and the player experience by encapsulating the supply situation into a fairly easy model that people can understand. Anyway, I don't see this changing and I can't say that I am personally disappointed even if this isn't entirely accurate.

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

I wouldn't mind a little more graphical variety. I agree with you there. As for more unit types, I can';t say that I would put any real effort to fighting against it but personally I think there are already plenty. You don't want things to get overly complex for no reason and player are already having to decide if they want to build light cavalry, heavy cavalty, lancer cavalry, irregular cavalry, just plain ole normal cavalry (and in some instanced cassack cavalty as well). Isn't that enough? Isn't that actually more than enough? Are the distinctions so significant that players should have to remember more than 5 types and select between them in balancing each army?

3) France under Napoleon should be able to create a Guard Corps and all Guard units and guard units only could be assigned to it. It would have a major impact on morale for the entire army when involved in a battle and would lower somewhat enemy army morale. its just a fact of history and should be a "France specific" rule.

This is another area where you have to balance reality with playability. Does this matter enough for players to have to remember than when playing country X they can only put division type 1 in corp A but country Y can't build A so then 1 goes into B... You get the point. I don't like country specific rules. They add a lot of complexity. So again, I don't mind the historical inaccuracy here though others may feel differently.

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...

Here I agree with you to at least some degree. I wouldn't prevent Turkey from sailing to the English Channel but there are factors that prevented them from doing so that should be modeled in some way. It would make sense for naval units to have some sort of significant penalty (attrition and morale?) if they remain too far from a home port for too long. And adding such a rule would add some real value to the control of key ports such as Malta and Gibralter.

...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.

I would not restrict movement of armies as the whole idea is to give players the control over a nation and allowing them to try strategies alternate to what occured in history. If I just want to see a replay of what really happened, I'll go to a movie instead. I think what has been discussed though is that armies should not be able to cross great distances and maintain long lines of supply through enemy territory. But if the French Army is stupid enough to abandon France entirely, then why shouldn't the English be able to fill the void?

5)Armies should be given an "intercept" option so that an army guarding a border will attempt to stop an enemy army from slipping past in another province. It is strange to see an Austrian army move from Switzerland to Paris nonstop without being able to be challenged by armies in nearby provinces. This should apply to all armies. When an ememy unit
enters your nation in a province with no army you should recieve a prompt if you have an army in the next provice "Intercept? Yes/No".

Great idea! I really like this one. I wouldn't do it quite as you suggest because it would interrupt the flow of the game a bit to have a dialog box just pop up in movement resolution (especially in a MP game). But there is already a box that allows you to select "engage" or "avoid" the enemy for each unit - why not expand it to include an "intercept" choice that would cause the army with no further orders and sufficient movement points remaining to move to meet an enemy that entered any adjacent province for just the reasons you describe. The game mechanics already essentially include this capability during in the reinforce mechanics.

6)POWs were often dispersed into local provinces to help as a labor force and not kept in large camps like WW2. POWs should be part of a negotiation to return to their nations and not a target of a raid to free them and to suddenly create a new army behind your lines (where did they get all the muskets?).

There are enough threads already discussing POWs that I won't get into it here. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to share your opinions on one of those existing threads.

7)artillery should be part of each corps and the only other artillery should be corps and army artillery units. This would be more real than seeing a British artillery "division" smash French divisions which never happened. Having artillery produced and then filtered into corps and armies would increase their firepower and be more realistic. Again seeing supply
and how it effects artillery during battles is just not accurate. Artillery should have enough ammo for a full day of battle. Units should not loose their firepower from fire actions but from fatigue which can be restored by not fighting or firing.

As discussed above, the supply model isn't going to change. Artillary is attached to a corp or an army and I believe Mr Z once quoted that it wasn't really meant to represent an "artillary division" per se. You might be able to find that discussion if you are interested enough to search for it.

8) A game save from detailed battles is a must! LOL!

Agree. And it is in process and should be delivered as part of the first patch.

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

Being able to alt-tab during play is also supposed to be in the first patch. Personally, I just printed the manual.

10) Can't think of anything more right now. Sure i will be responding to others comments. Again, I do enjoy the game but until some corrections or some additions can be done its more of a very detailed version of Axis and Allies or Risk in some features. Tim (plasticpanzers)

Again, I appreciate all the time and thought you put into your post even though I see a few things differently. I am the first to admit though that I am less of a period historian and more of a guy who just enjoys a fun game so I likely have a more favorable opinion of some of the deviations from historical accuracy that promote better gameplay than you might.

[mogami]

Hi, I really like this game but there certain things that trouble me. Turkey in the channel and Spain becoming the protetor of Poland.
OK the current scenarios and VP and what is allowed works fine in a free for all that is not about the actual period. It's a nice 8 player what if power grab.

Actual history has almost no connection other then a few training levels and OOB starting locations.

The period covered by the game was not a 8 nation free for all it was a war against first the French Republis following the revolution and then a war against France under Napoleon. Turkey had internal problems and never was a factor for any nation in the period. (But is always a nice what if country to add. I think given it's size Poland should also be a player option.

In a strict HISTORIC game If France surrender the game is over and all the players aligned against France win and all those allied with France lose.
I would to balance this say the same of Britain. The other nations can surrender and rise again or flip flop sides but the historic game would be at it's most basic France versus Britain (I can't really see Austria or Prussia ever becoming Allies to France but so be it)

Victory in COG is the most disturbing aspect because the root cause of the wars is ignored. However since at heart it is a free for all it plays multiplayer nicely. To be totally exact however rather then a balanced 1805 scenario it needs a balanced 1792 scenario.
Then you could play and not be haunted by history. (Since the Revolution in France is not important you could even begin the game in 1750 or 1700 or 1650 or 1600.......)(would need more unit upgrades)

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I really like this game but there certain things that trouble me. Turkey in the channel and Spain becoming the protetor of Poland.

I completely agree with you here Mogami. There should be significant penalties for not protecting a protectorate and people (and the AI!) should really consider before accepting such an offer. They shouldn't want one across the map that they aren't in position to protect. Worse than that though is the province exchanges following a surrender are FUBAR. When Russia ownes Burgundy, all senblance of history is gone. We've discussed the need to restructure the surrender cede province VP cost at length elsewhere and I still believe doing so is important.

[Jordan]

3) France under Napoleon should be able to create a Guard Corps and all Guard units and guard units only could be assigned to it. It would have a major impact on morale for the entire army when involved in a battle and would lower somewhat enemy army morale. its just a fact of history and should be a "France specific" rule.

Didn't other nations also group their guards into a single formation? Russia? England? I do like the idea of having a little variety and flavor between nations, both in terms of their "technology" trees (which should reflect different cultural and political systems) and units. The game does this to some degree. You could have unit type corps counters, such as a Guard Corps Counter, which would give additional advantages to the units grouped within it. An artillery corps counter would perhaps give add additional intitiative to the artillery within, reflecting the idea that you now have an artillery reserve and an artillery staff officer. The Austrians didn't add an artillery staff officer until 1809 (and their artillery performed much better as a result), the Russians until 1812. I'm sure that they considered it, but if only for individual country color sake, it would be cool if the French could have a Young Guard unit.

The supply issues don't bug me.

I like the intercept idea. Some kind of "march to the sound of guns" would be good as well instead of the current system of calling in reinforcments (where, btw, in games I've played the other powers seem to get there as easily as the French).

[Alaric_31]

hello everyone, want to say some about this topic, respectfull to all you...

i are against all restrictions, more posibilities give more challenging, why not have two or three guards corps? in example, the games that hit the market seek flexibility and this goes on more playability, addiction and re-playability, good factors wich pleased players.
i agree with everyone that not like straight and limited by historical scenarios or games, the most options, the most configuration of the game in the pre-screen, it's the most fun and replayability for games, and one more thing to say, the initial army for each nation is his home army, review the cost of all units for each nation, will take some years to make an army of this strength, this is the point of view of mine to regard Pows at this point.

please excuse my bad english and thank you for your time,

with best regards,

alaric.

[jchastain]

I was looking through the manual tonight and was reminded that fleet actually do have an intercept ability that allows them to react to enemies in the adjacent province. Doing that for armies might be even easier than I imagined. There is a UI issue, but the code seemingly already exists.

[Friant]

Re:

artillery should be part of each corps and the only
other artillery should be corps and army artillery
units.

I'm in favor of retaining the infantry, cavalry, artillery distinctions, even if they are unrealistic at a Division level. The whole flavor of tactical level Napoleonic combat is in the three types of unit; the line, column, mixed, square, etc. formations; and the evolution of Linear Tactics to a slightly more flexible form, but one that still could leave thousand-soldier units as weak as kittens if caught in the wrong formation by the right unit. The rules already allow a division to be split into two brigades. Maybe this could be automatic if people really want to have more units to maneuver. Split off the Divisional artillery into a tiny little detachment alongside the infantry column. But I don't want to have to manage 100 battalions (Battlefront) in each of a few dozen major battles.

Bonaparte initiated the innovation of massing the guns into army-level batteries. "It is with artillery that war is made". I'm content with the abstraction of allowing infantry to inflict casualties at over two hexes, while still allowing massed batteries to exist on the same battlefield.

[Ralegh]

Hmm. Great thread.

a) I find your proposed changes to the battlefield supply system quite compelling. I think supply caissons should be provided per corps/army, and supply done overnight. Caissons should have LESS movement capability (but be better protected at the start of battle).

b) I agree on land interceptions, although it should be probability based (leveraging initiative, and taking into account weather, terrain etc) just like the movement system. But larger forces should be easier to intercept.

c) I disagree on restricting units ability to operate in different places. I would prefer the game to provide a better implementation of the reasons why they didn't. For example, if supply couldn't run inland without owning the ports, then a British invasion of France would require taking the port city (or following allies in) - and "taking a port city" is code for sitting still long enough for the French to whack them, so that doesn't bother me. Historically, my understanding is that the French kept a large reserve to defend France - so that any invasiion could be easily crushed. (And thats how I play France). I think the concequences of being out of supply should be more severe - namely, that you wouldn't start new battles fully supplied with ammo.

d) I disagree with your suggestion for the special Guards Corps for France. Part of what I like about these types of games is that if I wish, I can try that sort of thing as other countries. I do, however, find a bit compelling the idea of bonuses for a corps made up wholly of Guards. How about Guard Artillery, though?

[benpark]

Very good suggestions.

[ericbabe]

These are good ideas. Having infantry/cavalry/artillery divisions is simply a playability issue. Similarly for caissons.

Interception for armies/corps was on the features list and just barely didn't make the cut... It is a bit more problematic than naval interceptions for technical reasons, but it could be done.

A similar thing I've always wanted to add: in lieu of moving an army/corps, you could instead give it a sort of dedicated reinforcement order. You could call such a reinforcement in addition to the regular reinforcement.


Eric

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
For example, if supply couldn't run inland without owning the ports, then a British invasion of France would require taking the port city (or following allies in) - and "taking a port city" is code for sitting still long enough for the French to whack them, so that doesn't bother me. Historically, my understanding is that the French kept a large reserve to defend France - so that any invasiion could be easily crushed. (And thats how I play France). I think the concequences of being out of supply should be more severe - namely, that you wouldn't start new battles fully supplied with ammo.

This has come up before, but let me say once again that I agree that supply should only be able to come from the sea onto land at a friendly controlled port. And your idea of lowering initial ammo for unsupplied units is definitely worth considering.

[plasticpanzers]

Thanks for the insightful replys! My response to some will be i hope not to of your replys would be:
(and i hope i don't sound too "windy"! I am not nor
ever have been a know it all. I just study! LOL!)
1) Cavalry. Light Cav, Regular cav (dragoons), Heavy
Cav (could be Guard or Curassier), Lancer, Cossack.
Irregular cav should be the same as Cossack. They
were not historically battle cavalry. Good in persuit
or screening a withdrawl but seldom used enmasse on
actual battlefields.
2) Supply. Although the current supply does make the
game "playable" in one sense it does not really make
historical sense. Batteries of artillery seldom fire
off all their rounds in 1-2 hours. On one of the Maxims quoted when the game starts by Napoleon he says
make sure you have 2 days (battles) worth of ammo. units should have a zone of control to recieve fresh
ammo and the caissons need to be altered so that they
do not become a seperate and eagerly sought after
target that they do now and as such have such a
negative effect upon battles. You supply before and
after battles, not during (gunpowder explodes!)
3) France as the crux of the Napoleonic wars and not
a "Risk" style game should have an elite corps of
Guards that can be built during the game. This is
historical fact and its effects upon battles and the
war is incredibly well documented. Other Guard units
for other nations were either very small (such as
England) or made of just big fellows who were not
superb combat veterans (a must to join the French
Guard usually) such as the Russian Guard which was
large but lost its battles with amazing frequency.
The "Guard" corps of Napoleon was his ace in the hole
in any battle. It could either be his trump card
in an attack to breach an ememy line or a superb
reserve to cover his retreat. In such a French
specific Guard is a must and a historical necessity.
I should be allowed to be created after 1805 by the
French as a special corps which only guards can join.
4)I can agree somewhat on the placement of units. If
a player wants to invade France while the main army
is away - go for it. But remember that all depot
battalions of the army were stationed in France as
well as National Guard units. Napoleon was sure
that no army of England could gain more than a small
foothold in France against the 10s of thousands of
troops stationed there. The further you get from
home tho it should be harder to supply. I cannot
see why Austria or Russia can build supply depots
in France 2 or more provinces away before they even
invade! Turkey also should not really have much
influence past the coast of Italy except in N.Africa.
They were a constant irritant and foe to both Russia
and Austria and drained away armies to garrison the
border against them.
5) The intercept for armies "passing thru" on their
way thru your country past friendly armies is a kinda
must. Borders are like swiss cheese for enemies!
6) Leaders. For playablility i am sure having alot
of leaders being the same quality is fun but there
should be a realism option for leaders. Austria had
one real combat leader (Charles) and Russia had about
3 (inc Kutuzov). Most allied leaders except for of
course Wellington and Moore were at best only equal
and usually less than the average French general.
Napoleon is vastly superior to all except Wellington.
Units under any leader in combat should be effected
by him if he is attached to them or not. Napoleon
should have a blanket effect on morale over his entire army during any major battle.
7) National movement rates. Making all armies move
at the same rate again may make it fun to play the
countries like Austria and Russia but their armies
moved like snails! The only countries that could
move like a French army in advance was Britain and
the Allied nations in 1814. Before that especially
Austria and Russia were incredibly slow and their
movement rate should be drastically slowed. If you
want to play a game where history is accurate and
fun then play using the tools, systems, and manners
in which armies acually operated in the Napoleonic
world. Making everybody the same does not really
make a more fun game. History when accurate can
be just as fun and have real satisfaction that you
worked with the faults of a country as well as its
strengths.

France is the center of the wars of the period and
as such became unique among them. Being litteraly
surrounded by enemies she survived due to her army
and her military leadership. Napoleon, his Guard,
and his generals are the key to victory.
Austria has a huge army that is well trailed but is
led by poor officers (lowest rate of officer deaths
per army thru the late 1800s than any other army!)
and moves slow!
Russia has a vast army that is also poorly led but
not so much as Austria. Her Infantry should have
improved melee combat factors but get rid of the
cossack infantry and just keep cossack or irregular
cavalry. no such thing as cossack inf ever really
existed. She has vast latent troop capibility and
plenty of cavalry and artillery. also moves slow!
Prussia after being destroyed comes back with both
good leaders and good troops (mixed regular infantry
divisiona with irregular divisions would be good to
show the landwher). Less artillery and Cavalry.
England. Good Infantry, Excellent Cav but only
small amounts went overseas (1-2 squadrons per reg
usually). Good artillery but very little of it.
Rocket troops at this scale of game should not exist.
Spain. Enter at your own risk! Massive guirella
armys popping up everywhere when invaded. Very hard
for her to move beyond her border and very little
cavalry in that country (very few horses)
Turkey. Kinda odd man out. See my notes above.
Again these are my opinions and feel free to disagree
with them. I think if your going to do a game of
the Napoleonic wars (the real First WORLD War!) with
all the bells and whistles you have and want to make
it more than just a big "Risk" game then some of the
"stuff" i mentioned might want to be looked at.
Thanks again for your hard work on these games!!!
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Reg Pither]

Plasticpanzers brings up some good points, most of which revolve around one central issue - do we want an accurate Napoleonic historical simulation or do we want a game set in the Napoleonic era? That is the fine line that WCS have to tread, and I think they've got it pretty much spot on. While my own preference (after only about 35 years of Napoleonic reading and gaming... [;)]) would probably be for more accuracy and restrictions on what can and cannot be done, I realise that would limit the game's potential and its market, so I'm more than happy with the open and 'loose' feel of the game in which almost anything could happen, no matter how ahistorical it may be. [:)]

One or two comments on the original points -

I think the supply rules in combat are OK, but I'd prefer them to have a much greater stock of supplies (double?) so that there is less replenishment needed in battle.

As the graphics for heavy cavalry are cuirassiers, I don't see a problem here. One type of 'heavy' cavalry is enough in a global strategy game of this scale.

Guard Corps I'd like to see, although I already build one as France anyway. Obviously it has no special advantages, and it needs some Guard cavalry and artillery, but, as above, although I'd love to see more detail I realise that it may be too much for this type of game.

Naval restrictions (or penalties, really) should definitely be harsher. The importance of certain ports would be more historical and give the naval part of the game more meaning and focus.

Intercept option for armies - good idea.

POWS - I don't think anyone here would disagree that they need changing.

I don't have any problem with an artillery 'division' as such. It's just a handy game term, and having the three arms separated but using them in conjunction was what Napoleonic warfare was all about. Admittedly, for much of the period, it was primarily the French who combined such large units of guns into distinct units, but having that structure available to all nations streamlines the game.

And finally, saving the game during a battle is on its way! [:)]

[plasticpanzers]

Might be possible to simply make it expensive for some
countries to buy certain unit types. This would keep
Britain from building more than a few artillery and
cavalry. Their expertise is Infantry and darn good
ones.
On how much can be put into these types of games the
graphics for the weather effects and such are most
likely more complex than simple mathamatical formulas
used in the combat sequences. Should be fairly easy
to tweak them with national differences. Look at
War in the Pacific with induvidual battalions of troops
and all the seperate ships and aircraft with upgrades.
Just a question of how much time and effort to put into
it. "Risk" is a simple Napoleonic game. If you are
going to do one with the compexity items already put
into this game then go the extra step and make it
real. Having fancy diplomacy, in-depth province
stucture, intricate ecomomy features, and mix this
with ahistorical national features and combat then
all you have succeded in is to have made a very
compex game of "Risk"
The Napoleonic wars deserve a game that this one
can be. Not just another intricate but inaccurate
simulation that is based only on ease of play.
With all that is included in this game already
to make it more real will just make it better.
again my 2 cents! LOL!
Tim (plasticpanzers)

[Reg Pither]

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

The Napoleonic wars deserve a game that this one
can be.

I agree with that 100%! [:)]

[James Ward]

If you take the this out of a Napoleonic game the things that made it the Napoleonic Era you are left with nothing but a game. It may as well just have different colored square markers for units.
I like just about ever one of pp's suggestions. Guards, movement, leaders, national goals and tendancies, these are the things that MADE the era what it was. The era was unique. We have enough conquer the world games that could take place anytime in history. We don't need another game where Turkey invades Denmark because it can.

[Friant]

I think a lot of the ideas for making armies nationality specific are good ones: Austrians move slowly and break easily, Russians are heard to break but tend to misinterpret orders, after a major defeat, Prussia can raise irregulars quickly, etc.

I'd just be leery of building into the game mechanics any national differences that were really a matter of choice. Other nations could have build Old Guard corps out of combat vetrans. Many chose not to, because it deprived the regular line units of vetran NCOs, and in effect created a corps of "Immortals" who could live forever because they almost never actually fought, despite being the best troops.

Remember the old agage that a conquer only ends up teaching his opponents how to beat him. By the end of the wars, many of the innovations that had made the French Army so unstoppable (light infantry tactics, lighter supply trains, mass conscription, massed employment of artillery) were in use by most of the combatants. Maybe this could be simmed by making the bonuses along the technology/research tree more substantial without needing a major revision in game mechanics? If Austria wants to invest in "Professional Officer Corps", let them, just make it more expensive and time-consuming than it is for the French to develop it.

[James Ward]

I'd just be leery of building into the game mechanics any national differences that were really a matter of choice.

I agree with that to some extent but we play with hindsight so what is an easy 'choice' to us was more difficult, maybe impossible, to make back then.
If there is no differances between the armies or nations other than name, if every infantry at a certain level is identical for example, then the game might as well take place in outer space. There were national differances (just like in WWII) and these are what make it a Napoleonic game instead of just a 'game'. In the scale of this game there doesn't need to be too detailed of differances (we don't need to differentiate between special formations used then or weapons) but there should be some differances.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I'd just be leery of building into the game mechanics any national differences that were really a matter of choice.

I agree with that to some extent but we play with hindsight so what is an easy 'choice' to us was more difficult, maybe impossible, to make back then.
If there is no differances between the armies or nations other than name, if every infantry at a certain level is identical for example, then the game might as well take place in outer space. There were national differances (just like in WWII) and these are what make it a Napoleonic game instead of just a 'game'. In the scale of this game there doesn't need to be too detailed of differances (we don't need to differentiate between special formations used then or weapons) but there should be some differances.

Aren't these differences already modelled in the game through the use of 'upgrades' that each nation starts with? These upgrades then can be 'learned' over time through the building of barracks.

So I think we already have the differences represented, but maybe the effects aren't as noticable to the player and thus do not seem as obvious?

I think what would have been good would have been the attachment of certain upgrades to certain buildings. Such as naval upgrades to docks, some financial upgrades (waste reducing ones) to courts, some finanacial upgrades to banks, some farming techniques to farms, etc.