Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Victory and Glory: Napoleon >> Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/2/2016 6:08:37 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

Ok, so based on the fact that won an Epic victory on General the first time I played (score 436 to 128), I decided to go again playing on Emperor.

And yes, it was definitely much tougher (obviously since I'm getting less and they are getting more) but it wasn't any more diverse or interesting. I still employed the same strategy of repeatedly punch out Austria/Prussia as soon as the 'respawned'. It was a bit touch and go at times due to taking higher losses and not receiving as many replacement but I eventually got up to a pair of 20-stacks camped outside each of their capitals and I would punch each in succession, using the PPs gained to keep Spain out of it.

Once Prussia was out (Prussia Prostrate card), I was able to shift an army, crush Spain and then occupy Portugal to cut off that scoring avenue for the Allies. After that, it was just repeatedly punching Austria as soon as they spawned (before they can combine up armies) and then knocking out Brit nuisance raids (which really don't do anything except liberate a few minors which honestly don't mean anything in the long run).

I ended up that game with a score of 364 to 132 (Epic victory). Yes, it was harder but it required me to do absolutely nothing different
(strategically) to win. To be fair, they didn't play The Grand Alliance until somewhere in 1815 and it was too late by that point for me to lose much.

I think one the key culprits is how easy it is to just 1-turn sucker punch each nation. And that stems from the predictable and now that I'm used to the game, unfortunately poor battle AI. Now when fighting major battles, I just overload one flank with my best troops and cannon and then put crap (minors and stock infantry) opposite their heavier guns. That way I'm not losing much in the way of decent troops...just whatever they can kill in the zone that I'm attacking (which can be painful, but in the long run I destroy their nations quickly so it's not a problem).

The AI MUST cross the centerline to threaten weak position even when on the strategic defensive. There is just no reason to sit there with a 3 cannon, a 3 Cav, a 3 Inf, and 2 Inf and let me match it with four 1 infantry while I maul another flank with all my elites. I have to admit that I was 'forced' to try this tactic due to losses in early battles when I tried to fight 'correctly' (ie, a solid line all the way across). But once I started doing this my losses dropped dramatically. I imagine if I started another game doing this from the beginning, it would have been much easier.

Anyways, I like the game, I think it has potential, but it needs some additional tweaks to enhance it:

1) The battle AI needs work. As indicated above it's child's play to beat it when attacking (it's a little dicier when defending because EVERYTHING crosses the line but even there it could be better about shooting with opportunities rather than moving troops that aren't going to get to shoot this round anyways).

2) Add 'Commitment rolls' so you aren't guaranteed to subdue nations one turn after their capital falls. This might give Russia a chance to do SOMETHING.

3) Make territory worth something. Tie the number of recruits or cards or something to territory owned. As it stands, I don't really care about the Brit's nipping at my heels. It doesn't cost me anything except a few points of score to let them liberate nations (and honestly I can make that score back by remaining in place and playing 'Consolidate the Empire' rather than chasing their stacks around).

4) As I've mentioned before, limit recruitment such that basic infantry has to be selected at least half of each year's allotment.

I can't see even being able to play as the Allies as doing much if the battle AI remains the same. MP could easily save the game because players are not going to be this predictable. But even there, they get one shot to win a battle because each time their nations spawn they will punched in the face and forced to surrender before the Brits or Russians can intervene.

Hopefully some additional development takes place based on feedback. Without out, I think this is fun game at first, but quickly becomes 'solved'.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/2/2016 8:39:08 PM

SteveD64

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

I agree about the battle AI. Once you've figured out the AI is playing defense, there is almost no risk to overloading your left flank and steamrolling it.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 2

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/3/2016 10:22:49 AM

Solaristics

Posts: 195
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I still employed the same strategy of repeatedly punch out Austria/Prussia as soon as the 'respawned'.
...

Hopefully some additional development takes place based on feedback. Without out, I think this is fun game at first, but quickly becomes 'solved'.

I reached a similar conclusion a few days after release (see my earlier posts). I haven't made a day one purchase in years, and now I remember why. The game has a lot of nice features, but I have no interest in playing it at all now since I "solved" it. The best fix to me is to deal with this rinse and repeat strategy against Austria and Prussia. Defeating them should be a major accomplishment, hard to achieve, and have longer term consequences, as per history. If they can stay in the game longer, then Russia can join the battle, and we have a better game.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 3

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 2:33:36 AM

gdrover

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/4/2008
Status: offline

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

(in reply to Solaristics)

Post #: 4

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 3:58:54 AM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdrover

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

That would help a bit. Have you considered lengthening the enforced peace period? That would also help.

(in reply to gdrover)

Post #: 5

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 4:51:44 AM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

Yes, I think that would help strategically. But I still think the battle AI needs to be tweaked as well or else Russia will just move in and be punched as well.

Not crossing the center even with a major advantage in that sector is what is killing it.

_____________________________

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 6

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 4:56:22 PM

Solaristics

Posts: 195
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdrover

Great feedback guys.
I'm thinking that we will change the 'knockout' to a percentage chance every turn, so that Russia (or other allies) have a better chance to get involved.

Turn 1 = 10%
Turn 2 = 20%
Turn 3 = 30%, etc.

So the result is that a nation gets knocked out usually 3 - 5 turns after its capital is occupied.

Thanks for considering the changes. I'm not a fan of RNG for major game events. Why not just delay the surrender for what ever you think is a reasonable number of turns from the capital falling (the statistical average of your different RNG percentages perhaps)? Also, as I've mentioned earlier, and some others have concurred, please also consider a corresponding extension to the time of the peace treaty.

(in reply to gdrover)

Post #: 7

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 6:05:42 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

_____________________________

(in reply to Solaristics)

Post #: 8

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 7:49:06 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

It just reduces how many times in a game you can actually declare war on a nation. If the delay was 2 years then instead of being able to defeat Austria and Prussia 10 times each in the 1805 scenario you would only be able to do it 5 time. You might also face a slightly larger army when you did the whack a mole on them.

I also think the France Declare War card should be used up each time it is played. Put a few more in the deck (maybe 3 or 4) and get rid of some of the Minor Nation Joins and Bribe cards. Then you would have to think more about who you wanted to declare war on.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 9

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 8:39:44 PM

Solaristics

Posts: 195
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I'm curious what the longer peace treaties accomplishes (other than giving more time before I can punch them again)? If that is the case, then clearly they are too easy to punch out and simply delaying that isn't a huge help IMO.

What do you envision the longer peach treaties doing to make it more difficult?

Fair question. I don't see the longer peace treaty making it more difficult, it is just to reduce the number of times I have to play whack-a-mole, which is so tedious I've stopped playing. If it were possible to make defeating Austria and Prussia more difficult, so that it only happened 2 or 3 times a game each, then there would be no need for changing the treaty length. It just might be difficult to balance this for all player abilities, where less experienced gamers may struggle to defeat them at all at increased difficultly, while an old grog may still be able to beat them many times. The treaty length hardwires a decent length of time between resurrections.

Of course, this might be able to be handled in the difficultly level settings, but my feeling is it may take a while or be hard to balance this all properly, and a longer treaty length will make the game less tedious in the meantime.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 10

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 8:47:11 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

Changing the number of time you can beat up on Austria and Prussia will have an effect on the game. You get a lot of points for beating Major nations and for winning major battles. Just doubling the length of the peace will reduce those a lot as you almost always get a major battle win when you defeat a nation. Plus after a few beat downs the reconstituted army is only 8-10 point so you can just overwhelm them easily. Giving another recruiting time between wars would make it a little bit tougher though ultimately it probably would not change the outcome unless the battle AI was improved.
If the Declare War card was also used up each time then you would not just be able to keep beating up every nation, you would need to choose which one you declared on or wait until GB drew them into the war. It would change the game though, there would be a lot of times when not much was going on.

(in reply to Solaristics)

Post #: 11

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 9:00:01 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

Each time they come back in (respawn, whatever), they get 16 new units (on Emperor, 12 on General). So whether they come back in 1 year or 2, they�ll have roughly the same forces (what they had left + the 16 or 12 new units).

I think something has to be done to make it more difficult to just punch out Austria/Prussia at will (ie, not a desirable strategy). Whether that�s improving the battle AI, having nations not surrender immediately so other Allies get a chance to intervene, something else, or some combination, I believe that has to be the focus.

In NiE (the game from which V&G seemed to evolve from), you almost NEVER wanted additional Allied nations to join in! Battles were often costly and losing territory was costly in the long run (and was harder to replace as well). In V&G, players are just chomping at the bit waiting for the next chance to punch out an Allied nation.

_____________________________

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 12

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/8/2016 9:06:17 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Each time they come back in (respawn, whatever), they get 16 new units (on Emperor, 12 on General). So whether they come back in 1 year or 2, they�ll have roughly the same forces (what they had left + the 16 or 12 new units).

I think something has to be done to make it more difficult to just punch out Austria/Prussia at will (ie, not a desirable strategy). Whether that�s improving the battle AI, having nations not surrender immediately so other Allies get a chance to intervene, something else, or some combination, I believe that has to be the focus.

In NiE (the game from which V&G seemed to evolve from), you almost NEVER wanted additional Allied nations to join in! Battles were often costly and losing territory was costly in the long run (and was harder to replace as well). In V&G, players are just chomping at the bit waiting for the next chance to punch out an Allied nation.

No later in the game they only get 6-8 units.

I don't think improving the strategic game, that is limiting how often you can go to war, will have any impact without a better battle AI and vice versa. Both need to be improved.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 13

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 12:29:17 AM

deeter

Posts: 27
Joined: 12/16/2015
Status: offline

In V&G's first beta version, Declare War cards were rare. The result was years of inactivity, so they decided to make it perpetual. Maybe not such a good idea. I think Empires in Arms is a good model in that declaring war without a causus beli could you big politically.

Deeter

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 14

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 6:00:03 AM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

Maybe the permanent cards should have a Political Point cost to use (or at least the France DoW's one should). Then give them a PP every few turns and it's all good. The same could go for 'Minor Empire joins'....give its PP cost.

_____________________________

(in reply to deeter)

Post #: 15

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 1:47:14 PM

Ron

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline

I completed the game on Normal and doubt very much I will be going back in again unless there is a massive overhaul of the game. Perhaps coming from Hannibal, my expectations were too high but V&G has been designed down so far gameplay has been reduced to the point of asking 'why bother'? For all the reasons noted here and elsewhere. From the very beginning it was simply park your Army and then whack a mole - whether British landings, Austria, Prussia or occasionally Russia by repeating the same 'battles' against the predictable and inept battle AI. Even when the Allied Armies were fielding 30 strong units and battle cards versus the 20 strong French there was no difference. From start to finish that was the 'gameplay'. On paper the strategic aspect and the card system sounded great but in practice it doesn't seem to matter much, and is not Napoleonic like at all! Whether converting Minors, forming minor nations, playing PPs etc., you were going through the motions but really what difference did it make? None I could see.

Harsh, and perhaps I'm biased for the reason above, but I can't recall being this let down in quite some time. It is not a premium game at all, probably worth only a fraction of what it is being sold for in hours played. I really like many of Uncle_Joe's suggestions and applaud you for being a positive contributor and hope the devs take it to heart to revamp the system and put some 'game' back into their baby.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 16

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 2:35:52 PM

vonRocko

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

I completed the game on Normal and doubt very much I will be going back in again unless there is a massive overhaul of the game. Perhaps coming from Hannibal, my expectations were too high but V&G has been designed down so far gameplay has been reduced to the point of asking 'why bother'? For all the reasons noted here and elsewhere. From the very beginning it was simply park your Army and then whack a mole - whether British landings, Austria, Prussia or occasionally Russia by repeating the same 'battles' against the predictable and inept battle AI. Even when the Allied Armies were fielding 30 strong units and battle cards versus the 20 strong French there was no difference. From start to finish that was the 'gameplay'. On paper the strategic aspect and the card system sounded great but in practice it doesn't seem to matter much, and is not Napoleonic like at all! Whether converting Minors, forming minor nations, playing PPs etc., you were going through the motions but really what difference did it make? None I could see.

Harsh, and perhaps I'm biased for the reason above, but I can't recall being this let down in quite some time. It is not a premium game at all, probably worth only a fraction of what it is being sold for in hours played. I really like many of Uncle_Joe's suggestions and applaud you for being a positive contributor and hope the devs take it to heart to revamp the system and put some 'game' back into their baby.

I have the same feelings about this game as Ron. Hannibal was one of the best games I ever bought, and I guess I expected more from this one.

(in reply to Ron)

Post #: 17

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 2:38:14 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
4) As I've mentioned before, limit recruitment such that basic infantry has to be selected at least half of each year's allotment.

Not sure if this is really a "solution."

You get plenty of infantry from minors and you end up with tons of infantry which in the end you don't need, especially when you go into battle and you only need 1 infantry to get the Combined Arms Bonus.

Why not change the Combined Arms Bonus from 1 Inf, 1 Cav, & 1 art.... to 2 Inf, 1 Cav, & 1 art?

Losses would be higher and infantry more valuable. If infantry is more valuable, then folks will recruit more.

By requiring more Infantry on the battle line, it also will give the AI a boost in fighting, as the player can simply stack up on tons of art and Cav to win battles. In my games Napoleon is running around with 5 art and 5 Cav to 10 or 15 Infantry. This is totally out of whack with Napoleonic army composition.

As it is now, you bring your "nominal" infantry unit and then smash the AI with cavalry charges and artillery barrages. Requiring 2 infantry to gain the Bonus will allow the AI to deny Napoleon of the Bonus much more often by routing 1 unit and prevent players from having a line composed of 1 Inf, 1 or 2 Art and 1 or 2 Cavalry... which allow them to easily deny the AI the Bonus when trying to fight back.

The Combined Arms Bonus, would thus become more rare and more likely given to the defender (normally the AI). Right now, it's pretty easy for Napoleon to reap the benefits of the bonus almost continuously throughout the battle. It's no wonder the AI has so much trouble and is defeated so easily in battle.

< Message edited by Lava -- 4/9/2016 3:09:21 PM >

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 18

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 5:58:53 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

The point of requiring the infantry recruitment would be too limit the number of cannon and cav you can field so quickly. Of course as long as the battle AI will just let me stack up in one sector and ignore the others, it doesn't really matter. I can make due with significantly less cannon and cav now and in fact, I started picking extra inf later on just to soak up losses in the two sectors I ignore.

I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

But the fact that you can win against heavy infantry flanks with just cannon and cav is a problem in and of itself IMO (and I mentioned it in my first Impressions thread). Cav have no risk attacking infantry, even when they square. And cannon MURDERS infantry in square so what do you need your own infantry for? I think Cav should have risk of routing when attacking (maybe not eliminated) which would at least make you think a bit more about Cav charge, cannon kills every time.

It's also possible that none of that is necessary if the battle AI wasn't so predictably bad. If I was under more pressure on other flanks, I might not want to take the time to Cav charge/Cannon kills as much.

/shrug It really wouldn't take too much to make the game a LOT better. A few basic mechanical changes here and there could go miles and really breathe some life into the game.

Ultimately though, I think my territorial observations (echoed by Ron) are going to hold the game back from ever being great. There is just no reason to care about territory. Annexing and liberating? Who cares in the long run? It's largely immaterial since you don't derive anything except a few points of artificial 'score' for having it (and it's easy to get that score in other ways). So that derails a good chunk of the political system as well.

Maybe tie the number recruitment points to territory (1/territory? .5/territory?) and assign a cost to each unit:

2 Str Inf costs 1
3 Str Inf costs 1
4 Str Guards costs 2
2 Str Cav costs 1
3 Str Cav costs 2
4 Str Cav costs 2
1 Str Art costs 1
3 Str Art costs 3
3 Str Ship costs (who cares? :p )

It's simple and it would certainly would make me think a lot more about my recruitment. And I would certainly care a lot more about taking and losing territory. Put a default Annex/Liberate card that cost a PP or two and voila! A whole new game emerges! ;)

The problem is that I WANT to like the game and I do like the idea and presentation. But there just isn't a game there once you've played and beaten it a few times. Here's hoping that Glenn et al work on improving the game. :) I am purposely avoiding giving the game a review on Steam because I don't want to be a negative contributor but I can't honestly recommend the game at this point even to Napoleonic fans.

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 19

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 6:26:38 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The point of requiring the infantry recruitment would be too limit the number of cannon and cav you can field so quickly. Of course as long as the battle AI will just let me stack up in one sector and ignore the others, it doesn't really matter. I can make due with significantly less cannon and cav now and in fact, I started picking extra inf later on just to soak up losses in the two sectors I ignore.

I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

But the fact that you can win against heavy infantry flanks with just cannon and cav is a problem in and of itself IMO (and I mentioned it in my first Impressions thread). Cav have no risk attacking infantry, even when they square. And cannon MURDERS infantry in square so what do you need your own infantry for? I think Cav should have risk of routing when attacking (maybe not eliminated) which would at least make you think a bit more about Cav charge, cannon kills every time.

It's also possible that none of that is necessary if the battle AI wasn't so predictably bad. If I was under more pressure on other flanks, I might not want to take the time to Cav charge/Cannon kills as much.

/shrug It really wouldn't take too much to make the game a LOT better. A few basic mechanical changes here and there could go miles and really breathe some life into the game.

Ultimately though, I think my territorial observations (echoed by Ron) are going to hold the game back from ever being great. There is just no reason to care about territory. Annexing and liberating? Who cares in the long run? It's largely immaterial since you don't derive anything except a few points of artificial 'score' for having it (and it's easy to get that score in other ways). So that derails a good chunk of the political system as well.

Maybe tie the number recruitment points to territory (1/territory? .5/territory?) and assign a cost to each unit:

2 Str Inf costs 1
3 Str Inf costs 1
4 Str Guards costs 2
2 Str Cav costs 1
3 Str Cav costs 2
4 Str Cav costs 2
1 Str Art costs 1
3 Str Art costs 3
3 Str Ship costs (who cares? :p )

It's simple and it would certainly would make me think a lot more about my recruitment. And I would certainly care a lot more about taking and losing territory. Put a default Annex/Liberate card that cost a PP or two and voila! A whole new game emerges! ;)

The problem is that I WANT to like the game and I do like the idea and presentation. But there just isn't a game there once you've played and beaten it a few times. Here's hoping that Glenn et al work on improving the game. :) I am purposely avoiding giving the game a review on Steam because I don't want to be a negative contributor but I can't honestly recommend the game at this point even to Napoleonic fans.

Perhaps units could given point costs like above and those number determined the 'size' of your army instead of each unit counting as 1?

I try to create a 'standard' 20 unit army as soon as I can and it is almost never defeated. I try to get 3 foot art, 3 horse art, 2 guard, 3 heavy cav, 2-3 light-med cav and the rest inf.

If foot artillery and heavy cav cost 3 point each, medium cav, horse art and guard inf cost 2 point and everything else cost 1 then I would not be able to create my 'standard' army as it would cost 35-40 points. This would make the Corp de Armee cards really valuable, would force more armies to work near each other and give the AI a chance to use their larger numbers to win the odd battle or at least hold for a draw and make you retreat.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 20

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 6:38:58 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 21

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/9/2016 7:03:33 PM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

The criticisms are valid and the suggested improvements and tweaks are well thought out.
I really want to like this game: a playable, Strategic level Napoleonic game with the option to fight battles at the tactical level and yet not so complex and time intensive to make playing it regularly prohibitive.

I hope the designers really take to heart the thoughtful suggestions given on this forum. It would be a shame that a game with so much potential to become a classic, like Hannibal, would wither on the vine because it wasn't given the needed additional development it needs to become another Hannibal.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 4/9/2016 7:05:40 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 22

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/10/2016 1:03:58 PM

Ron

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.

That's an unfair accusation when it is quite apparent the intent is to improve the game. For the record, my line would be made up of 1 Horse/Foot Artillery, 1 Heavy Cavalry, 1 Skirmisher Infantry and 1 Improved/Guard Infantry. I went with this throughout the game for all Armies and only lost 1 battle the whole campaign, which as I recall was very early when I didn't have combined arms everywhere. Such a restriction would not improve anything; the Battle AI is really bad. I would not hesitate in giving a do not buy recommendation until major changes are made to the game.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 23

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/10/2016 3:05:07 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.

Wow dude, aggressive much?

If I didn't care about making the game better, I wouldn't be wasting my time making suggestions. I'd just say 'this game sucks, don't buy it' and leave it at that. But I find those types of posts completely un-constructive. And honestly I have better things to do with my time than sit on a forum and bash a game (or other posters). But since it appears that Glenn Drover might have some interest in improving the game, I'm offering suggestions based on MY experience (which may very well differ from yours or anyone else's).

I'm not 'poo-pooing' an idea to make it more difficult, but for me (as in *I* get an opinion equally as valid is yours), I want MORE choice in battles, not less. The more valid choice you take away to 'optimize' your bonuses, the more you might as well just 'auto-resolve' rather than stack everything up the same way each battle and then just roll the dice.

IF you bothered to read my posts rather than assume that I'm just shooting your idea, you'd see that I'm GREATLY in favor of making the game more difficult (particularly through AI changes). I would prefer the system discourages players from creating a-historical compositions not through arbitrary enforcement of 'combined arms' but rather through encouraging that behavior with the mechanics...why DIDN'T Napoloeonic armies due this? Clearly because it didn't work. Cavalry rarely could just drive ordered infantry off the field and cannon couldn't just sit back and pound the squares over the heads of intervening troops. And it was more difficult to raise and maintain heavy concentrations of cav and arty.

Anyways, it's up to you how you want to interpret my posts. But I assure you they are aimed at bettering the game, not trying to ward off others from buying.

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 24

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/10/2016 3:31:14 PM

EdinHouston

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline

First of all, the game does not 'suck'. Not even close. I have had a lot of fun playing the game and already got my money's worth, given that it is a $30 game.

Now, could it be a lot better? Sure. But if the game as is wasn't fun and didn't seem like it could be fun, I wouldn't care or bother to make changes.

I do agree with the post about infantry not being strong/important enough. But maybe that is fixed by making cavalry less powerful, not infantry more powerful. For example, I think cavalry should be weakened when charging un-disrupted infantry. It's too easy to charge infantry with cavalry, force it into square while usually just seeing your cavalry disrupted, and then blow it apart with artillery and infantry attacks. Whereas in real life, sending cavalry to attack unbroken infantry able to form square could be suicidal for the cavalry. Also, I would suggest that infantry has a chance to move out of square when attacked subsequently by non-cavalry (maybe that is already the case, I am not sure, but if so the chances should be much higher)

< Message edited by EdinHouston -- 4/10/2016 3:33:48 PM >

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 25

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/10/2016 8:21:39 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

No, I don't think anyone here has said the game 'sucks'. At all. Quite the contrary, I think all of us enjoyed it to some degree but the replay value is hampered by the questionable battle AI and a few other mechanics which seem to hold it back.

And yes, I agree that cavalry should not be as strong against formed infantry. I would like to see it have a chance of being routed if it charges infantry (and the infantry squares). Right now, once your Cav is Disrupted/Disordered, it doesn't hurt to continuously take low-odds charges at squares and it seems the chances are fair that you'll break it. So why not charge the squares?

_____________________________

(in reply to EdinHouston)

Post #: 26

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/11/2016 12:01:57 AM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

No, I don't think anyone here has said the game 'sucks'. At all. Quite the contrary, I think all of us enjoyed it to some degree but the replay value is hampered by the questionable battle AI and a few other mechanics which seem to hold it back.

And yes, I agree that cavalry should not be as strong against formed infantry. I would like to see it have a chance of being routed if it charges infantry (and the infantry squares). Right now, once your Cav is Disrupted/Disordered, it doesn't hurt to continuously take low-odds charges at squares and it seems the chances are fair that you'll break it. So why not charge the squares?

Plus they still are hard to kill even after disruption.

I agree that Cav should suffer more after a charge. Sometimes you can 'charge' 2-3 turns in a row when in reality the horse would be winded and the unit very disorganized. Their main value was in making Inf form square and in pursuit. They perform a lot different in this game.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 27

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/11/2016 5:30:50 AM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

The problem isn't that Cavalry are too strong, the problem is that they are able to do things which historically would get then whipped out.

Let's say you have 2 groups of Combined Arms (1 inf, 1 art, and 1 cav) facing off at each other.

As it is, you take your Cavalry and charge an infantry unit, which forces it into square. You then smash the unit in square with art and infantry and it routes.

In actual fact, if you charged a cavalry unit at an infantry unit or an artillery unit, the enemy would immediately counter charge you with their cavalry. A cavalry battle should ensue and your cavalry unit would be forced to win that battle first before continuing to make an attack on the enemy. Even if you won the cavalry engagement, your cavalry unit would almost certainly be disordered. Given that it's commander continued forward to attack an infantry or artillery unit in good order they should easily be able to repulse a disordered cavalry attack without forming square and very possibly routing if not eliminating it.

That is why Napoleonic battles were first and foremost infantry/artillery fights. Cavalry wouldn't be charged against fresh infantry or artillery because they would almost certainly be counter-charged. The infantry line would have to first be weakened for cavalry to be employed.

So if you want to attack an infantry unit with a cavalry unit and win, that infantry unit should first be disordered. Once the infantry has been disordered, you could launch your cavalry at them, but first have to win against a counter charge from the enemy cavalry if they are on the field. Given you won that fight, you should then be able to continue your attack into the disordered infantry unit, which would force it into square.

Employing cavalry first on a fresh field of battle in the Napoleonic Wars was a good way to get them destroyed. In this game, again if you attack first with your cavalry against units which are not disordered, historically they would be immediately meet with a counter-charge. If they continued the attack they would be annihilated by the enemy artillery and infantry. In battle, it is the infantry and artillery which should be opening each engagement. If you are successful in disordering your enemy, that is when you send in the cavalry. But in truth, you are much more likely to have cavalry vs cavalry fights (while the infantry and artillery are battering each other) to drive the enemy cavalry from the field. Once the enemy cavalry has been driven from the field then you can use them (especially heavy cavalry) to launch attacks on the infantry which because they are not counter-charged should drive them into square or on rare events, overrun the infantry/artillery entirely.

So actually, the whole battle mechanic of using cavalry as your first attack is completely ahistoric and if done so, should be heavily penalized as a move only an idiot would use on the battlefield.

Given that you don't get a reaction move in battles (in this case a counter charge) heavy penalties should be applied to a cavalry unit plunging itself into an opposing line with a combined arms bonus... strong enough that anything short of heavy cavalry should be eliminated. Once you impose such a penalty, then it only makes sense to require 2 infantry units + 1 cavalry + 1 artillery to get the combined arms bonus and your main attacking force should first be infantry and artillery with cavalry the last to attack to take advantage of disordered units. Even then, if faced with opposing cavalry, penalties should be applied against infantry and artillery unless the attack is against opposing cavalry units.

As a Napoleonic general, you should be first attempting to destroy the enemy's artillery and then second to drive his cavalry from the field; all the time doing everything possible to weaken the enemy's infantry such that once you have the advantage both in artillery and cavalry the enemy is unable to resist a combined arms attack, forcing your foe to rout and reap a deadly harvest in the pursuit.

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 28

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/11/2016 1:43:39 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

The problem isn't that Cavalry are too strong, the problem is that they are able to do things which historically would get then whipped out.

They are very strong in this game, heavy Cav is 2-3 as strong as most infantry. They are very difficult to disrupt simply with infantry fire and even when disrupted you don't get a good attack on them with infantry.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 29

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor) - 4/11/2016 5:11:51 PM

EdinHouston

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline

Well if you weakened cavalry, especially if undisordered cavalry were in the opposing battle group, it would solve much of the problem addressed two posts above. Likewise, if disordered cavalry were more vulnerable, it would make it far more dangerous to charge with cavalry as a first move against an un-disordered enemy battle group.

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 30