This sequel to the award-winning Crown of Glory takes Napoleonic Grand Strategy to a whole new level. This represents a complete overhaul of the original release, including countless improvements and innovations ranging from detailed Naval combat and brigade-level Land combat to an improved AI, unit upgrades, a more detailed Strategic Map and a new simplified Economy option. More historical AND more fun than the original!
Each comment has been individually listed and categorized and supporting/refuting comments appended.
Any other thoughts? Please gather all of the most important issues in this thread.
I have also compiled a small list of my own perceived "bugs" which will be added for consideration.
Questions:
1) Can anyone explain the "liberation by treaty" problem which Saucer 23 refers to? I want to make sure I understand it.
2) It is mentioned above that some of the "higher level" national upgrades do not appear to work. Does anyone else have experience with this and is it limited to just one item? Or several?
3) Please discuss the feudal levy issue/issues?
4) What do players think about the inflation mechanic?
5) Please discuss the creation of the confederation of the Rhine. I see here, some claim it cannot be created, but in discussions with Montesaurus, it appears that it is a matter of lack of clarity in the rules as written that this appears to be the case and that it CAN be created? Thoughts? Also. Discuss creation of the Kingdom of Italy please.
1) Liberation by treaty. There is a treaty clause allowing one country to force and/or agree to liberate a conquered province by selecting it. If it is selected now and a province chosen, nothing happens. Also, I believe only a province adjacent to your territory can be chosen. ANY conquered province should be allowed to be liberated.
That being said, I believe you should not be able to liberate a "province" but the country of which it is a part. Easy way (I would think--note I am not a programmer) is to only highlight the capitol province when it becomes time to chose. Chosing that province should liberate the entire country OWNED BY THE PLAYER IT IS DIRECTED AT (ie. no forcing Austria to liberate Poland and snatching up Polish provinces owned by Prussia and Russia as well) HOWEVER, you must adjust the surrender points required. It should cost a great deal more to liberate large Poland than tiny Genoa.
ADDED BY EDIT: IF a minor is liberated, the country doing the liberation should get a BIG addition to its political standing with that minor (and maybe a smaller one with all minors?). This would mean if a minor was liberated through a forced surrender, the country FORCING the liberation (ie. the victor) should get the political bonus. If done through the detailed diplomacy screen (ie. freed voluntarily by someone), the prior owner should get the bonus.
2) Outside of the fact that there appears to be no limit on labor (thus rendering the Upgrade that allows storage of Labor*3 to be unnecessary), I know "Colonial Regiments" don't work. ie. no regiments ever appear. Not sure about others.
3) First, minors NEVER do normal levy anymore (outside of the mentioned Kingdom of Naples, which appears to do its regional bonus levy properly). Major powers still do normal levy IF their available forces are a great deal lower than their mob limit. Obviously, some number got screwed up in the last patch and major powers should levy much more as usually you receive only a unit or two the first levy then nothing thereafter.
NOTE: COSSACK levy and I think the Turkish Nizmi (however you spell it) levy still work properly (note: this assumes there is a limit on the number of Turkish Nizmi allowed like there is a cossack limit).
4) I like the inflation mechanic alot. However, I think that either 1) there should be some way to Upgrade to bring it down (mentioned above) or 2) the maximum number of textiles allowed to be stored before consumption should be increased to the MINIMUM number needed to build the most expensive unit (accounting for inflation). This would prevent things like guards, lancers, diplomats and merchants from moving out of reach because inflation moves the number of textiles so high you can never store enough to purchase.
Thus, at 0% inflation, a guard cost 100 textiles (plus the other resources, of course), and textiles would not be consumed until you had more SAVED 100 textiles. At 10% inflation, a guard costs 110 textiles and textiles would not be consumed until 110 or more were saved.
NOTE: I don't have the game in front of me, but I actually think that DIPLOMATS cost the most in textiles. If correct, you would use Diplomats as the baseline of textiles saved.
Even better than the above, change the way textiles are "consumed." Give the PLAYER the OPTION to use textiles to improve NM by hitting a toggle. (I have done that on occasion on purpose) If the toggle is not activated, textiles are not consumed and can be stored normally (to some upper limit).
5) Only the Kingdom of Naples levies its "special regional levy" properly. None of the other countries work at all. My suggestion, check and make sure 1) all the provinces necessary to create the "regions" are listed properly somewhere (so players know what is needed) and 2) make sure these provinces can be ADDED to the "region." This requires all provinces to be conquered so they can be made a protectorate. I believe one of the provinces needed for the Kingdom of Italy is AUSTRIAN home territory, and thus can never be made a protectorate. Oh, and #3, make sure they actually will have a "special regional levy" which means they should have TWO levies, 1 normal levy and 1 special regional levy.
For the Confederation of the Rhine (and others), there is no "choice" for selecting it if it doesn't already exist. Simply add several "empty" countries (ie. Confederation of the Rhine, Kingdom of Italy, etc.) to which you may add provinces. (Note: when turning a province into a protectorate, you have the option of 1) making it its own little country (ie. whatever its flag says) OR 2) adding it to an existing protectorate (creating a larger, but not special, protectorate). Their should be a third option, adding it to one of the "special regions" (even if it currently has no provinces). NOTE: Even if you added provinces to one of these special regions, they would only get the normal levy UNLESS they held all the provinces needed to get the special regional bonus levy, then they would get 2.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
Some more points:
On games with another country played besides Sweden (ie. Poland, Denmark, etc.), remove the Swedish diplomat and add a diplomat to the played country.
Also, I would think it would be nice to have minors have a chance to levy a 1 or 2 star leader (maybe a 10% chance per levy). These leaders would be treated the same as other minor power leaders. The could be named General1, General2, etc. if the ability to change names (and KEEP them changed) was ever fixed, thus allowing the players to rename them. Maybe if adopted, give the "special regional levies" an additional chance to levy a leader.
One other thing I just thought of (and haven't really thought much about it), but what about reducing cossacks (for the Russians) and irregular cavalry (for everyones) mob limit cost to 0.5?
Also, I don't think that "out of supply" units should be able to capture other units. I had a Russian infantry division captured by a raiding Turkish cavalry division several provinces from the nearest Turkish controlled territory. How on earth did they get marched to their prison camps (though I guess, did they still use 'paroles' at this time? If they did, such captures would be ok because they would simulate such actions.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
I think this has been raised before but as it has just come up again in a current game I'll mention it again.
I have only used the ‘Pledge of defence’ Pact once as it's too dangerous i.e. you can get sucked into Wars you don't want/or can't afford to be in and IMO ‘Pledge of defence’ needs to be made so as it is not "All inclusive", i.e. there should either be an option for the signatory nations to state who they will defend against or at the very least an automatic exclusion of either nations already established allies.
Here’s an example from the current game of how it can go wrong; my oldest ally has just signed up to a ‘Pledge of Defence’ pact with a nation that has for sometime now been extremely provocative in its actions against me i.e. continually sending all his Diplomats to try and cause an ‘Insurrection’ in one of my Protectorates, should that come about I will obviously go to War over the issue which would trigger an automatic war between 2 old established allies.
I have shed a lot of Blood and incurred considerable expense to safeguard that ally against unprovoked aggression and now it risks being negated due to no opt out clause being available in his ‘Pledge of Defence’ or else he will incur GP losses due to none compliance with the Treaty.
* ONE--have no country able to declare war on another unless it has a PBEM setting of 'be aggressive'. If "forced" to DoW another country by a 'pledge of defense' and it fails to do so (ie. not set at 'be aggressive' against that country) then the country unable to fulfill its pledge automatically breaks the pledge of defense treaty and suffers the glory hit. NOTE: only the country that fails to honor the treaty (ie. was called upon to DoW and failed to do so) should suffer the glory hit.
* TWO-- have signing a pledge of defense give the countries the OPTION to send a treaty for those parties of a pledge of defense to declare war (like how you can fill in those countries "must accept as terms of surrender.") That way, the calling country has the option of inviting in their allies or not. NOTE: this would provide a one turn delay on DoWs done in this manner (but only 1 turn if done like surrenders because surrenders are automaticaly accepted when received). BTW--that option should have a set period of time it could be used. 3 months? 6 months? I would think no more than that.
Of the two options above, I like #2 the best as it gives flexibility to the players.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
Another (admittedly very small) bug. On the graphs, all of them I believe, one country (it appears to be at random) will have a single turn of a very high (ie. off the scale) reading. It will return to normal the next turn.
Most of the time I just ignore (as it just tends to disappear off the top of the graph), but on occasion the game changes the graph scale to show the entire graph, shinking the normal (ie. actual) readings to unreadable levels.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
Having stated that, I do think that the power of 'forger' has been blown a little out of proportion. If playing with march attrition, units out of supply will get steadily weaker because they can't receive replacements. In addition, in combat, out of supply units suffer mightily.
A stack of 150-200k can take more casualties from being out of supply in one turn than it would lose in a major battle, so I have to disagree with your assessment that OP claims have been blown out of proportion. For 7 experience per div it is very overpowered, particularly for barrack rich powers that plan to do lots of globe trotting. I have also seen campaigns where everyone is marching and countermarching big stacks avoiding general engagements while smaller detachments try to sever supply lines, so having your entire force with the phoney forager ability removes that nuance from an already limited model.
1) Liberation by treaty. There is a treaty clause allowing one country to force and/or agree to liberate a conquered province by selecting it. If it is selected now and a province chosen, nothing happens. Also, I believe only a province adjacent to your territory can be chosen. ANY conquered province should be allowed to be liberated.
For me the country selection doesn't work with the liberate clause at all. No country is highlighted as selectable and if I click on the map nothing happens.
Also there are still some issues with unconquerable minor countries. We have it popped up as an unconquerable Brunswick in one of the IWGC games right now. I can post screenshots or saved games if needed, but would be nice to get some "sanity checks" put in place for minors. It is a one province minor and I have been occupying it's one and only province for almost a year now.
I am trying to "fix" Brunswick by launching Diplomatic coup missions there.
This has been raised before, even before the last patch I think.
Fleets set to 'Blockade' should NOT be able to also guard the whole of a Sea-province; the very nature of a Blockade, ie disciplined opperations close inshore, would negate any other duties such as intercepting enemy Ships/Fleets elswhere in the Sea-province.
This has been raised before, even before the last patch I think.
Fleets set to 'Blockade' should NOT be able to also guard the whole of a Sea-province; the very nature of a Blockade, ie disciplined opperations close inshore, would negate any other duties such as intercepting enemy Ships/Fleets elswhere in the Sea-province.
All the Best
Peter
Not sure I agree with that assertion. What I have read about the British blockade for example is that smaller scouting units watched the ports close inshore and the ships of the line were kept in big groups much further out. Seems plausible they would be free to engage other ships entering the area provided a sally from one of the ports they were assigned to wasn't underway. I do like the idea of more random chances to miss interceptions particularly in these cases of "split attention" though, especially given the large areas a sea zone in the game involves.
For forger, I don't think I have ever seen a game played in such a manner. However, as stated above, I think that simply reducing the benefit of forger would have the same effect without an artifical limit to the number of units with it.
Another point I think I would throw in, should any type of "all generals" or "French revolution" scenerio(s) be created, PLEASE don't forget to include such scenerios for the other countries besides Sweden that can be played (ie. Poland, Denmark, etc.). In many ways, I think playing these countries are more fun than Sweden, as some of them have more opportunities to influence the game than playing Sweden does.
Also would be nice if, in naval quick combat, you had the ability to capture enemy ships and either turn them into lumber (good) or actually gain the ship for your forces (better).
For more naval stuff, I know the whole naval morale system for building new ships needs to be reviewed. Also, I know the naval upgrades "Naval Academy I & II" don't work. Oh and I believe it is possible to gain one of the level II naval upgrades before getting the level I (the one about privateers?)
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
I would say fleets could certainly do both. But would be slightly less effective at each.
Problem is, IF that blockading fleet is trying to keep an enemy fleet in port, an absence of 3-4 days would certainly have been more than enough for the fleet to escape to sea.
If the problem is what to do about the economic impact of the blockade (in terms of reducing trade income at the port), then I would say trying to do both would really depend on the types of ships and the type of shipping you are trying to block. The big ships could do little to stop the smaller merchants which travelled close to the shore, but by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the British had this taken care of with a mass of smaller ships which could stop even this type of movement. I don't think ships of that smaller size (smaller than frigate) are even represented in the game.
Perhaps the best thing to assume is that the order represents a hard and fast rule to blockade the port no matter what. And in that case, prevent the fleets from affecting actions at sea. But, this may make things more complicated (programming wise). I don't know.
I have not noticed any economic effect of blockading, either by reduction of merchant income in a given sea zone nor drop in province income the blockaded port is in.
I have no proof, only observations, I have seen a France with every port under it's control blockaded with no drop in income I could notice. I think it should be looked at. If you test for it and it is having an effect maybe it should be bumped up, even though counterintuitively that would hurt the blockading power if they had merchants in the involved zones (which actually makes sense historically).
PS Did you see where I raised the point that the unconquerable minor bug is still alive and kicking? I am sitting on top of an invincible Brunswick in one of the IWGC games right now as Prussia. A real PITA that bug is, please get it fixed.
Yes. I saw the thing about "unconquerable" minor. And it is on the list. But it would help if you could get me a file which we could take a look at. Do you still have my email address? If so, send it along.
I suspect this is 'the other side of the hill' to Peter's post #14, hopefully to provide a fuller picture of how the naval mechanics are working.
If, as I suspect, Peter and I are talking about the same campaign then the Dutch fleet was split in 2 and the the fleet that beat the English had no 4ths in it as far as I can tell. I would call it a surprise turn as the Dutch had just switched to the French out of the blue and had a fleet in the same zone as the English. Speaking as the owner of the inferior French fleet, it has taken the combined efforts of France Spain Russia and the Dutch to beat to combined English/Danish fleet. Most early battles were French/Dutch vs English/Danish with the French losing the campaign until the Spanish/Russians came in. Victories were infrequent and the English won a lot of battles, including some with very favourable rates of exchange. The Spanish and Russians are taking far more casualties than the French do; the Russian fleet is pretty much destroyed. But the English fleet was gradually worn down by attrition, as was the plan.
The combined Franco-Dutch fleet has also been massively upgraded. Cannot speak for the other allies but I suspect they did not. Wherever possible Peter has been facing quality admirals, reinforced hull and extra guns in every formation. I mixed Dutch into French fleets to get the morale needed to do that. I began upgrading well before we had our first sea battle. The result seems to be that the French survivors of a rather brutal winnowing process take fewer casualties than any of the other allies do. Rates of exchange seemed to be in favour of the English 2.5 to 1.5 - 1. In the latter battles they have sometimes taken more casualties than the allies but still won the battle. Losses seem to be declining.
What I am finding curious is that we now have England under close blockade (Dublin taken, Belfast under siege, Gibraltar soon to be blockaded and sieged) and nothing is happening. We have destroyed trade yet England's economy is so far as strong as ever as far as I can tell. Granted its just beginning but partial blockade in the south has been in place for several turns and overall English trade has been repeatedly shut down according to the trade routes screen. I will be tracking the English economy but I would think that of all the powers, England would be the most sensitive to this. If its of any help Marshall I can send you what I see turn by turn.
One other detail. The English have a number of containers with single ships in them scattered about; I suspect either frigates or 4ths set on avoid combat. Little beggars are pretty much impossible to engage.
And my privateers seem to be made of paper. VERY successful paper mind you, when they were still afloat and there was an English trade to raid.
After trying to play yet another game against the AI, I have to state again, the reaction movement issue MUST be fixed, never been so close to destroying my computer... [:@]
What I am curious about is IF Kingmaker has noticed any drop in his economic numbers (i.e. trade numbers) since his ports are under close blockade. Is this hurting your economy Kingmaker?
And Terje439, please elaborate on this "reaction movement" problem?
Thanks.