A couple of questions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A couple of questions

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 >> A couple of questions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A couple of questions - 4/22/2016 12:03:02 AM

amtrick

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline

I have been playing the game pretty intensely for a couple of weeks, and I want to say I think it pretty good, maybe even great. I saw the thread on the first parch and love the things the developers are doing and the fact that they actually listen to the customers/players. I did have a couple of questions/observations:

1. Why are there no Imperial Guard Cavalry units?
2. I think there should be some potential adverse outcome for attacking with a disrupted unit ... like maybe being eliminated. It is too easy to keep using a disrupted cav unit to make infantry "square".
3. I find it strange that you need a card to allow Napoleon (and only Napoleon) lead a 25-unit army, when (at some point) any allied general can lead one. And later in the game they can lead 30-unit armies. And the French never can.
4. Why is a arrival the Imperial Guard Artillery a random (card-driven) event?
5. For that matter why is the arrival of Berthier a random event?

Can anyone shed light or comment on these items?

_____________________________

RickD

Post #: 1

RE: A couple of questions - 4/22/2016 4:15:46 AM

Uncle_Joe

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

quote:

1. Why are there no Imperial Guard Cavalry units?

I consider the '5' strength Cav to be Imperial Guard Cav. They may not give the 'survival bonus' to Nappy, but they otherwise function in the same capacity on the battlefield

quote:

2. I think there should be some potential adverse outcome for attacking with a disrupted unit ... like maybe being eliminated. It is too easy to keep using a disrupted cav unit to make infantry "square".

Agreed and I've sent similar feedback. I think a chance of elimination might be too drastic (although I wouldn't oppose it, personally) but at LEAST make them fairly susceptible to Rout if attacking while Disrupted.

quote:

3. I find it strange that you need a card to allow Napoleon (and only Napoleon) lead a 25-unit army, when (at some point) any allied general can lead one. And later in the game they can lead 30-unit armies. And the French never can.

Napoleon was often outnumbered by his adversaries and this is just one way to represent it. I personally don't have an opinion on this one way or the other so perhaps someone else can chime in on this one.'

quote:

4. Why is a arrival the Imperial Guard Artillery a random (card-driven) event?

I think it's already too easy to just stock up on elite troops during recruitment so I personally don't mind having to wait for the right card to get the IG Artillery. Much of the game is card driven so this doesn't really seem far off IMO (the same question could be raised about Skirmishes which were more common for the French). It's just a way to limit it to something you can't plan on.

quote:

5. For that matter why is the arrival of Berthier a random event?

Probably for much the same reason...to create variety in the gameplay and again, to put an element in which you can't necessarily always plan for. I'm not always a huge fan of card-driven mechanics but in a game this simplistic (about a complicated subject matter), the cards provide some much needed replayability by not always allowing the player to follow the same path each game.

Hope it helps!

_____________________________

(in reply to amtrick)

Post #: 2

RE: A couple of questions - 4/23/2016 5:11:45 AM

amtrick

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline

Hmmmmm

1. There are cards for IG Infantry and IG Artillery, but only a promoted "5' unit that can't save the Emperor for IG Cav? Doesn't make sense.

2. It seems to me that the ability to produce and concentrate units was the French issue with being outnumbered, not that they didn't just do it. If British General Bumpkin can assemble a 30 unit army, it seems that Napoleon would if he could.

_____________________________

RickD

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 3

RE: A couple of questions - 4/23/2016 5:52:47 PM

Uncle_Joe

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

I don't necessarily disagree, but you'll have to wait for Glenn or someone else from Matrix for more 'official' answers. ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to amtrick)

Post #: 4

RE: A couple of questions - 5/9/2016 2:11:49 PM

mike0liver

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/9/2016
Status: offline

On the question of the size of army that Napoleon could command, I can see no historical reason for limiting this.
The size of his army during the invasion of Russia was pretty huge and, even taking account of limitations to the
number of men he could conscript, he frequently brought forward the call up to obtain sufficient troops. It was only
really in the last year (1814) that he faced limitations - but then he was only fighting in France so did not have huge
distances to travel.

Cheers,
Mike

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 5

RE: A couple of questions - 5/10/2016 3:06:16 AM

James Ward

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

What would be cool is if the command rating of the leader was the number of units they could command and there were cards that let you bring X number of commanders into a battle.

(in reply to mike0liver)

Post #: 6