Hello to all:
Just wanted to drop a line and give you the latest status and ask a few questions.
Latest:
The combat system has been rewritten and will allow more tactical control (Optional) of the battle field. We are working some diplomatic issues with minors and are doing more graphical work on the interface.
Question:
What is your opinion of the behavior of minor countries in a game such as this?
Should minors act on their own (If not allied with a major) and be controlled by the AI or should minors be treated as in many board games and ALWAYS be controlled by an available major nation?
Should both be available?
Thanks for the support
July update
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
Marshall Ellis
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
Hi
First of all thanks for the update.
I think minor countries, like in most games, should be left alone until under the influence of a major country. Therefore the AI should handle them but perhaps just "locking" them until they become a part of one of the big countries is easier. Thats my opinion anyway. I think it would be very hard to let the AI run such small countries and let them act and have an impact on the game. With enough programing time though............
Dan
First of all thanks for the update.
I think minor countries, like in most games, should be left alone until under the influence of a major country. Therefore the AI should handle them but perhaps just "locking" them until they become a part of one of the big countries is easier. Thats my opinion anyway. I think it would be very hard to let the AI run such small countries and let them act and have an impact on the game. With enough programing time though............
Dan
Minors
Hi Matrix, Nice to hear from you.
This is really a question that is hard to answer. It is in some was up to yourselves and how good you are at programming and predicting behavior. On one hand it could be great if minors had a game plan of their own and where not merely puppets to be influenced/controlled by the big countries.
On the other hand it can be hard to predict how each minor should act so that its actions are in its best interest. Should the minor be active in trying to solicit support if threatened? Should they gang up if attacked?
If you choose to have minors with their own AI, you could just as easily ask if there should be public opinion in the game. If you just conquored a minors naybor state, should he then be friendly still?
I think the best solution is to leave them "sleeping" until attacked. Upon attack they should seek assistance from a major power. You could consider something like diplomacy between major and minor powers where you are requested to assist a minor ally if it where attacked. You could also consider if it should be posible to aquire control of a minor through diplomacy, maybe as a contest between the majors or by investing money or "glory-points".
This is really a question that is hard to answer. It is in some was up to yourselves and how good you are at programming and predicting behavior. On one hand it could be great if minors had a game plan of their own and where not merely puppets to be influenced/controlled by the big countries.
On the other hand it can be hard to predict how each minor should act so that its actions are in its best interest. Should the minor be active in trying to solicit support if threatened? Should they gang up if attacked?
If you choose to have minors with their own AI, you could just as easily ask if there should be public opinion in the game. If you just conquored a minors naybor state, should he then be friendly still?
I think the best solution is to leave them "sleeping" until attacked. Upon attack they should seek assistance from a major power. You could consider something like diplomacy between major and minor powers where you are requested to assist a minor ally if it where attacked. You could also consider if it should be posible to aquire control of a minor through diplomacy, maybe as a contest between the majors or by investing money or "glory-points".
-
Marc Hameleers
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Contact:
Th variant with active minors is more interesting, and the best of both worlds is to leave this as an option. maybe even add the independant minors as an add-on in a patch if it would delay the release date substantially. The passive minors are good enough since it is "what we gamers are used to" in these kind of games. The active minors will be a nice and welcome option.
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.
Good News
Nice to see the report. thanks.
As for Minor powers, I'd like to see an option for both -depending upon the situation. In other words, I'd like to see the ability for the game AI to take over a minor power that was previously played by a human and vice-a-versa. Games like this might need a minor power to be played by a player who gets into the game late only for him to take over a Major power for a player that drops out --causing the minor power to revert back to the control of the game's AI. Just a thought.
Now, I don't want to see this game take a real long time because you guys are so nice to listen to us and put in everything we can think of, but I would like to say that the more options that we can have as gamers, the better NW will be.
Rick
As for Minor powers, I'd like to see an option for both -depending upon the situation. In other words, I'd like to see the ability for the game AI to take over a minor power that was previously played by a human and vice-a-versa. Games like this might need a minor power to be played by a player who gets into the game late only for him to take over a Major power for a player that drops out --causing the minor power to revert back to the control of the game's AI. Just a thought.
Now, I don't want to see this game take a real long time because you guys are so nice to listen to us and put in everything we can think of, but I would like to say that the more options that we can have as gamers, the better NW will be.
Rick
Vive l'Empereur!
Thank you for asking our opinion on this matter. Like the other guys, I don't want to see the game delayed by hefty programming changes.
Most minor (long term) states like Bavaria, Sweden, Denmark and Saxony had their own goals and needs for survival, having land hungry neighbors like Prussia, Russia, and Austria to contend with. So, I'd like to see them able to choose their own courses and their allies perhaps with some bias toward one or another because of their historical needs...
The latter 'kingdoms' and duchies formed by Napoleon would of course, being puppets, do nothing but act as auxiliaries of the French.
Either way...this game sits atop my "must have" list.
Most minor (long term) states like Bavaria, Sweden, Denmark and Saxony had their own goals and needs for survival, having land hungry neighbors like Prussia, Russia, and Austria to contend with. So, I'd like to see them able to choose their own courses and their allies perhaps with some bias toward one or another because of their historical needs...
The latter 'kingdoms' and duchies formed by Napoleon would of course, being puppets, do nothing but act as auxiliaries of the French.
Either way...this game sits atop my "must have" list.
Jesus ...., with all respect. This closet germanism is allways killing me.
I have mixed feelings about how to best treat minor nations.
While it is true that all nations (whether created by Napoleon or having existed before) had their own war aims and motivations, none were able to pursue those aims independently. That's what makes them minor countries. Bavaria might have had it's own interests to pursue, neverless it lost and gained territories during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars at the whim of the major powers. It's contribution to these wars is through it's aid (or lack thereof) to the main beligerents.
So I feel minors should only exist as diplomatic and economic factors prior to war entry. They should have no control over their armed forces, which would be either inactive, partially controlled (an expeditionary force, supply tracing, fortresses and garrisons) by a major or fully controlled (all armed forces and military structures controlled).
But again, the minors should exist as at least semi active diplomatic powers (that is not only the majors' diplomatic or military actions should lead them into the war (or out of it)).
Marc aka Caran...
P.S.: For those mentionning the EU engine's minor countries, consider that it is not at all logical to see all those minor countries pursue military expansion policies (worse, see two vassals of the same major power declare war one on the other and have the major unable to intervene without taking huge stability hits and declare war on one of them).
While it is true that all nations (whether created by Napoleon or having existed before) had their own war aims and motivations, none were able to pursue those aims independently. That's what makes them minor countries. Bavaria might have had it's own interests to pursue, neverless it lost and gained territories during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars at the whim of the major powers. It's contribution to these wars is through it's aid (or lack thereof) to the main beligerents.
So I feel minors should only exist as diplomatic and economic factors prior to war entry. They should have no control over their armed forces, which would be either inactive, partially controlled (an expeditionary force, supply tracing, fortresses and garrisons) by a major or fully controlled (all armed forces and military structures controlled).
But again, the minors should exist as at least semi active diplomatic powers (that is not only the majors' diplomatic or military actions should lead them into the war (or out of it)).
Marc aka Caran...
P.S.: For those mentionning the EU engine's minor countries, consider that it is not at all logical to see all those minor countries pursue military expansion policies (worse, see two vassals of the same major power declare war one on the other and have the major unable to intervene without taking huge stability hits and declare war on one of them).
Marc aka Caran... ministerialis
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
Thanks for the update; this game has the potential to be a true classic. I would prefer that minors act upon their own agenda and not be simple, mindless pawns; as long as the AI can reasonably handle it. For instance, if France liberates certain lands held by the other powers and then grants those lands autonomy, then this should raise the standing of France in the eyes of certain other minors, as they see France as a potential liberator and not a conquerer. As long as the minor nations react in a realistic manner in response to an action of a major, then all should be well. I would think this would be doable.
I am encouraged to hear that there is now more tactical control being possible. It doesnt have to be extremely detailed, just something to add a little tactical spice.
I am encouraged to hear that there is now more tactical control being possible. It doesnt have to be extremely detailed, just something to add a little tactical spice.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
The problem is, who is to prevent France from taking territory from your minor next time;-) Very few people ever felt liberated by Napoleon's actions. The major exception is of course Poland, but they felt Napoleon did not go far enough. In the end, changeing one overlord for another did not bring much benefit to the people, and the rulers obviously had their doubts (most rulers who received new territories first lost some or all of their old, Napoleon was recreating Europe at his whim). They went along with his policies as long as he was winning, when the tide turned they either proclaimed neutrality or defected right away.
We should not equate the people of a minor country with it's rulers. Their aims were quite different. And finally, Napoleon very rarelly served either's purpouses (but that is also true for Austria, Prussia or Russia).
Marc aka Caran...
We should not equate the people of a minor country with it's rulers. Their aims were quite different. And finally, Napoleon very rarelly served either's purpouses (but that is also true for Austria, Prussia or Russia).
Marc aka Caran...
Marc aka Caran... ministerialis
-
Marc Hameleers
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Contact:
Well, to be honest, there where plenty more nations that felt liberated at least for a part. The dutch were happy at the time when the french came, and installed a revoluntionary republic. Then the dtuch revolutionariesmadea mess,a nd Napoleons brother Louis came to the throne in the Netherlands. He was unpopular at first, but managed to gain the sympathy of the Dutch people pretty quick, and had to be replaced eventually by Napoleon cause he was too mcuh King of the Netherlands and to little lackey of Napoleon.
Other movements in Europe were there, that supported the French ideas, and wanted to see Europe Modernised to some extend. Now after a while it was clear that napoleon was not the one to do that, but it is to easy to discount the fact that many Nations at first were happy wiht Napoleon to some extend ( the smaller german states, the Netherlands )
In any case, i feel that nations should have their own goals, and act accordingly, and not act as just provinces that wait to be conquered.
As far as not wanting to see two allies of a third nation fight, that happened often, then and now.. In fact the US even just passed a bill that allows them to invade the netherlands ( an ALLY!!!) if there are ever americans facing charges in the international court in the Hague! ( wich is UN, and not dutch )
Marc
Other movements in Europe were there, that supported the French ideas, and wanted to see Europe Modernised to some extend. Now after a while it was clear that napoleon was not the one to do that, but it is to easy to discount the fact that many Nations at first were happy wiht Napoleon to some extend ( the smaller german states, the Netherlands )
In any case, i feel that nations should have their own goals, and act accordingly, and not act as just provinces that wait to be conquered.
As far as not wanting to see two allies of a third nation fight, that happened often, then and now.. In fact the US even just passed a bill that allows them to invade the netherlands ( an ALLY!!!) if there are ever americans facing charges in the international court in the Hague! ( wich is UN, and not dutch )
Marc
Let's hold our horses for a moment.
In support of Marc, I have to point out that there were other places that were happy about being liberated by the French. Northern Italy is a great example. In most part, they hated the Austrians. And they were liberated by the French twice. The Northern Italians were happy even though they were looted for the most part.
I am sure that one could find happy people in any place where the French went AND I am sure that the opposite was equally as true.
I think that the common people of the time hated to see any army come their way. Heck, the Russian army raped and pillaged as it went through countries that they were allied with! The Austrian Emperor found them to be necessary evil whenever they were in Austria.
All in all, there is more than one way to look at things regarding Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era and to say it was any ONE way and not another, is plain foolishness. It is foolish because we then begin to tread upon the subjective. Such things as personal opinion take hold which can be greatly influenced by the propoganda of the time (and the present).
I am astounded by the intense fighting that can take place on other discussion boards regarding Napoleon and his era. It is as if the Napoleonic Wars were being fought all over again. The feelings run VERY high in those places. Right isn't a matter of correctness, it is a matter of numbers and who is meanest. A most disgusting situation indeed!
I propose that we don't do that here. Let's keep things civil and enjoy our hobby. Honor both sides that fought with respect and let our machismo be won or lost on the computer screen with NW or any other Napoleonic game --NOT here.
I am NOT pointing fingers at anyone here AND I know that everyone has a right to voice their own opinion. I am just pointing out how things could go if we aren't a little careful. That is all.
At one of the first re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg after the ACW, mid-way through when Pickett's Charge was being re-enacted by the actual veterans who fought there, a very interesting event took place. The Union veterans threw down their muskets and went out into the field where so many had died and embraced the Confederate veterans with tears in their eyes. If men who fought each other can lay aside their differences and be civil, we who NEVER actually fought each other should be able to do it with ease.
Does anyone disagree with my proposal?
I am sure that one could find happy people in any place where the French went AND I am sure that the opposite was equally as true.
I think that the common people of the time hated to see any army come their way. Heck, the Russian army raped and pillaged as it went through countries that they were allied with! The Austrian Emperor found them to be necessary evil whenever they were in Austria.
All in all, there is more than one way to look at things regarding Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era and to say it was any ONE way and not another, is plain foolishness. It is foolish because we then begin to tread upon the subjective. Such things as personal opinion take hold which can be greatly influenced by the propoganda of the time (and the present).
I am astounded by the intense fighting that can take place on other discussion boards regarding Napoleon and his era. It is as if the Napoleonic Wars were being fought all over again. The feelings run VERY high in those places. Right isn't a matter of correctness, it is a matter of numbers and who is meanest. A most disgusting situation indeed!
I propose that we don't do that here. Let's keep things civil and enjoy our hobby. Honor both sides that fought with respect and let our machismo be won or lost on the computer screen with NW or any other Napoleonic game --NOT here.
I am NOT pointing fingers at anyone here AND I know that everyone has a right to voice their own opinion. I am just pointing out how things could go if we aren't a little careful. That is all.
At one of the first re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg after the ACW, mid-way through when Pickett's Charge was being re-enacted by the actual veterans who fought there, a very interesting event took place. The Union veterans threw down their muskets and went out into the field where so many had died and embraced the Confederate veterans with tears in their eyes. If men who fought each other can lay aside their differences and be civil, we who NEVER actually fought each other should be able to do it with ease.
Does anyone disagree with my proposal?
Vive l'Empereur!
-
Marc Hameleers
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Contact:
Well i agree with the principles...
Sadly however, often it seems that it is easier for people who have fought eachother in a war to embrace then for people who have a misunderstanding and didn't fight yet. Strangely enough, the human race insists on fighting heavily once every couple of decades before realizing your point....
Marc
Sadly however, often it seems that it is easier for people who have fought eachother in a war to embrace then for people who have a misunderstanding and didn't fight yet. Strangely enough, the human race insists on fighting heavily once every couple of decades before realizing your point....
Marc
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
Hello,
Err... Love and peace?
Anyway,
I think that it is more important how the major powers being controlled by the AI react to the way other major powers act on minors than the minors themselves. For example if France starts gobbling up Italian minors I am more interested in what an AI controlled Austria and Russia think and do than in whether Naples is able to follow its own expansionist policies against Tunisia or if it is just inert until a major power starts interacting with it.
I have played EU and EU 2 (Computer game) and even EU the boardgame. I like the computer games but they are over a much longer period. With them (especially the second) you can take a small power like say Hanover and turn it into a European giant with colonies around the world. If you can do that in a napoleonic game over 10-20 years all it will demonstrate is a very very poor AI.
Obviously there are certain similarities between this game and Empires in Arms In that boardgame when a minor was attacked it was run by another major power. It was the same in the EU boardgame. This was used in the boardgames more as a way of deciding who should operate the minor and by trying to give the minors controller a stake / something to lose to keep him honest and acting in the minors interest (by fighting off the aggressor) rather than just cutting a deal (give me some money and I'll force march all my troops to death etc.). It didn't always work IIRC I do not think this is necessary or even desirable in a computer game unless the other major power has done something like say a Imperialism II like War Pact to guarantee the minor. I remeber in the EU boardgame that you would often try desperately NOT to be a minor nations controller. All rather gamey and not needed in a Computer game.
Err... Love and peace?
Anyway,
I think that it is more important how the major powers being controlled by the AI react to the way other major powers act on minors than the minors themselves. For example if France starts gobbling up Italian minors I am more interested in what an AI controlled Austria and Russia think and do than in whether Naples is able to follow its own expansionist policies against Tunisia or if it is just inert until a major power starts interacting with it.
I have played EU and EU 2 (Computer game) and even EU the boardgame. I like the computer games but they are over a much longer period. With them (especially the second) you can take a small power like say Hanover and turn it into a European giant with colonies around the world. If you can do that in a napoleonic game over 10-20 years all it will demonstrate is a very very poor AI.
Obviously there are certain similarities between this game and Empires in Arms
In that boardgame when a minor was attacked it was run by another major power. It was the same in the EU boardgame. This was used in the boardgames more as a way of deciding who should operate the minor and by trying to give the minors controller a stake / something to lose to keep him honest and acting in the minors interest (by fighting off the aggressor) rather than just cutting a deal (give me some money and I'll force march all my troops to death etc.). It didn't always work IIRC I do not think this is necessary or even desirable in a computer game unless the other major power has done something like say a Imperialism II like War Pact to guarantee the minor. I remeber in the EU boardgame that you would often try desperately NOT to be a minor nations controller. All rather gamey and not needed in a Computer game. Allies vs Belphegor Jul 43 2.5:2.5 in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
I agree Le Tondu (though you should remember that there were two Marcs in this discussion, and you don't sound like agreeing with me;-).
I play wargames for the military simulation. But I studied history and political science, so when a discussions draws near those fields I tend to veer in that direction. I feel a question on how minors should behave in a game is largely a matter of how the rulers and people felt etc. There was clearly a turning point in public opinion in the course of the Napoleonic wars. For country rulers I think this happened slightly earlier (as they saw Napoleon redraw the map of Europe at will and without regard for the old ruling circles). But very little of this allegiance shift became obvious in the military arena before Napoleon was defeated in Russia (and for most it took Leipzig or allied armis at their gates to take the final step).
Marc aka Caran... from a pre 1804 french departement and post 1815 grand duchy
P.S.: It is a fact that Napoleon seems to be either belowed or bedevilled in many parts of Europe he passed through. Of course this is due to the overall effect of the wars between 1804 and 1815, not the opening stages. The birth of modern nationalism during this period is also a factor in modern interpretation of Napoleon as a person.
P.P.S.: Personally I feel that napoleon was a good or even great politician and above average general (almost genius early on with a steady decline towards mediocricity). I respect what he did, but certainly don't admire him.
I play wargames for the military simulation. But I studied history and political science, so when a discussions draws near those fields I tend to veer in that direction. I feel a question on how minors should behave in a game is largely a matter of how the rulers and people felt etc. There was clearly a turning point in public opinion in the course of the Napoleonic wars. For country rulers I think this happened slightly earlier (as they saw Napoleon redraw the map of Europe at will and without regard for the old ruling circles). But very little of this allegiance shift became obvious in the military arena before Napoleon was defeated in Russia (and for most it took Leipzig or allied armis at their gates to take the final step).
Marc aka Caran... from a pre 1804 french departement and post 1815 grand duchy
P.S.: It is a fact that Napoleon seems to be either belowed or bedevilled in many parts of Europe he passed through. Of course this is due to the overall effect of the wars between 1804 and 1815, not the opening stages. The birth of modern nationalism during this period is also a factor in modern interpretation of Napoleon as a person.
P.P.S.: Personally I feel that napoleon was a good or even great politician and above average general (almost genius early on with a steady decline towards mediocricity). I respect what he did, but certainly don't admire him.
Marc aka Caran... ministerialis
I know that there are many people on this board that have a keen military history interest. That just fine. I think though that it will be unfortunate from a gameplay point of view if the actions of minors should be too much guided by historic allegiance. If the minor counties always favour the same major powers and work for the same political goals you can almost only play the game once. This game should also appeal to those who want to see the result of "what if"-scenarios. If minors shall have goals, they must be more or less random. Therefore I say its better to leave them out.
-
Marc Hameleers
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Contact:
Hi
I think the idea of one option with historical settings for minor countries and one with random is great!
I have a question to Matrix or the great people that visit this forum:
I was not here from the beginning so my question is with what do you buy or make armies with. Resources or money? Will this be a purely military/political or with some economy as well? Please help.
Dan
I think the idea of one option with historical settings for minor countries and one with random is great!
I have a question to Matrix or the great people that visit this forum:
I was not here from the beginning so my question is with what do you buy or make armies with. Resources or money? Will this be a purely military/political or with some economy as well? Please help.
Dan
What is really nice about making things like this Minor Power issue an optional rule is that it can make both sides happy at the same time.
On a different note, -no problem Marc. Er, I mean Marc. While it is true that there are two, I was referring to 'Marc Hameleers.' That is his username. When I want to refer to the second Marc, I'll use his username 'Caranorn'. It gets too confusing when there are two people with the same name. Usernames makes things real simple.
On a different note, -no problem Marc. Er, I mean Marc.
While it is true that there are two, I was referring to 'Marc Hameleers.' That is his username. When I want to refer to the second Marc, I'll use his username 'Caranorn'. It gets too confusing when there are two people with the same name. Usernames makes things real simple. Vive l'Empereur!