Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: massachusetts Status: offline
|
My 2 cents 1. Forced march Too bad, but I don't think it's a huge dea. 2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn) Makes defense quite a bit tougher. Again too bad, but not sure it's awful 3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.) Hard to know what that will do. Probably necessary for PBEM, which is how I would plan to play. 4. Besieged port city supply This I really would like to see implemented. Hurts the game a lot IMHO 5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term) No biggie 6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can) As described in the later post - no biggie. 7. British change to VPs Changes the dynamics a bit, but I'm not so sure it matters. 8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process] Can be done off line, so I don't care. 9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1) Fine 10. Scuttling of ships Unecessary 11. Demobilizing Ditto, no great loss. 12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege Depends what the alternative is and how cheesy you can be. Optional rules not available in game 13. Militia conversion Stupid rule anyway. Tough luck if you built too many militia. 14. Large fleets I don't like this rule eithe, although I can see why people like it. 15. Limited supply I'd like it, but not a big deal. 16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game] I think this is a good choice. Poland and Ottomans are the most important. It would be nice to allow some way for the extra fleets to be accessed. 17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms I would prefer to have this, although I'm not as appalled as a lot of commenters. 18. Peace treaty limited access No big deal 19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies) no big deal 20. American trade restriction Rarely used, but it would be nice to have. 21. Naval raiding No great loss 22. Proportional naval losses If this means that GB can take all her naval losses off an ally/free state there is a real problem. Not as much as... 23. Proportional land losses Again worried about cheese. If I loan my corps to an ally can he take all the losses from my army and not his? If I stick a horrible minor in my army can it be wiped out to spare my national corps? If so that's ugly. I like the random allocation idea actually. 24. Balance of Power peace restrictions No biggie 25. Change of Dominance status Nice chrome, but not a huge deal Customised/changed rules 26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location) Depends how it works out. Probably necessary for PBEM. 27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises) Ditto. See how it works, but something is needed for PBEM 28. All retreats are conducted by the AI Good change. 29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply. I think I can live with this. 30. Access through the Dardenelles Don't like this change, but not a killer. 31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can) Doesn't matter. 32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport 33. Privateers and privateer defence I don't want the extra complexity of these rules, but I guess I don't care too much.
|