if you start in 1792...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

if you start in 1792...

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> if you start in 1792...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 2:19:20 AM

Copper

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/18/2004
Status: offline

Is there some sort of random event that gives you Napoleon as a general, or are you stuck with the starting generals?

Post #: 1

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 4:22:50 AM

Copper

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/18/2004
Status: offline

64 views and no reply, haha, was it a stupid question?

(in reply to Copper)

Post #: 2

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 4:46:42 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I guess nobody knows.

(in reply to Copper)

Post #: 3

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 4:48:14 AM

GreenDestiny

Posts: 177
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Alamogordo NM
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Copper

64 views and no reply, haha, was it a stupid question?

No!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Copper)

Post #: 4

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 4:52:26 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

Napoleon is not available in the 1792 scenario. You do start with him in the 1796 scenario.
(Generals do come on as reinforcements at particular times - but he aint in that scenario.)_

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Copper)

Post #: 5

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 5:54:51 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

(Generals do come on as reinforcements at particular times - but he aint in that scenario.)_

Well there's a bit of historical realism gone down the tube. He should show up. ;)

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 6

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 5:22:09 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

Ya, he should show up, but prolly in Corsica teaching Maths. :p

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 7

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/2/2005 5:54:35 PM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Ya, he should show up, but prolly in Corsica teaching Maths. :p

Yes, Napoleon was not a general in 1792. He appears at the beginning of the 1796 scenario. He's not currently on the schedule to appear in the 1792 scenario, but we might consider scheduling him to appear at the end of 1793 or the beginning of 1794 or something like that.

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 8

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/7/2005 3:51:42 AM

EarlPembroke

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline

Has anyone combined the leader files to produce a true grand campaign from 1792-1815 (or 1820 in case Waterloo didn't turn out the same)? I'm sure this will be on a list of requests - to have the full campaign as a playable option. Like the game - just want more of it. :)

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 9

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/7/2005 5:32:56 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, If you want to get technical Napoleon was a product of the revolution. (Was he a major in 1972?) Still he should be a reinforcement. However some other person could rise but it would almost have to be a Frenchman causing the trouble between the French Republic and the English/European Monarchies. If you restore the french monarchy most of the root causes of conflict vanish.
It was Napoleons attempt at the contentinal system that provoked the British (His version of a reverse blockade/embargo)
I've always wondered what the impact would have been had he established more republics rather then a French Empire. (Beethoven would not have gotten mad at him)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 10

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/8/2005 4:21:56 AM

EarlPembroke

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke

Has anyone combined the leader files to produce a true grand campaign from 1792-1815 (or 1820 in case Waterloo didn't turn out the same)? I'm sure this will be on a list of requests - to have the full campaign as a playable option. Like the game - just want more of it. :)

Actually I did this last night if anyone is interested. Obviously, doing it in one night means it's not something to put into any kind of patch the way it is. :) However, I hope it will add something for being able to start in 1792 and play for years and years (since it seems you can play past the time limit).

Just a couple assumptions I made that I would love if someone can correct:
* I saw one leader had 1795 in the DiedIn value, so I used full years to indicate a leader should be removed. Should this be some kind of month total? When does it remove them - January?
* I gathered that turn-#_base0 is the turn someone appears. For example, I used 43 to indicate someone who was not in the 1792 scenario, but was in the 1796 scenario. If I counted correctly, March 1796 would be the 43rd month of the 1792 scenario.
* In line with the above, because I didn't have more info on exactly when leaders died or became available, I just used the full year to indicate "death" if they were not present in a later scenario, and I used the month of the start of the scenario to indicate a leader becoming available.
* For minors, I didn't apply the rule of if not present in a later scenario, kill them off. I figured that the reason the Polish leaders don't appear later is because Poland had been conquered (didn't Poniatowski assist Napoleon later?).

Speaking of Polish leaders, strange / disappointing thing happened. I'm playing as Sweden, and Russia is at war with Poland. Austria declares war on Poland, and I agree to Protectorate. I give ultimatum to both Russia (who ends war with Poland) and Austria (who continues war). Austria seems to have gained - without a battle - one of Poland's provinces. Just so happens that Poniatowski is in that province. So he becomes an Austrian leader (turns his back on his country to join the enemy instead of me????)!!? I get the other leaders and apparently the whole Polish army. Except for their best leader. And Sweden can use another good leader.

In any case, I'm anxious to see if the editing works. Must have the syntax right as the game loaded & normal leaders appear at start of 1792 (plus one very good leader I created for Sweden).

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 11

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/9/2005 9:04:01 PM

Gilia

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

Could you please make the file public ? I tried it by myself but it seems i messed it. france and britain have plenty of generals and all other nations have non.

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 12

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/9/2005 10:55:52 PM

marc420

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline

Just a thought, but this would be a cool area to get some big improvements in the future.

A fuller leader system. I'd like to see more leaders, and also promotion of leaders over time. Something that doesn't necessarily product historical generals, but instead models the leaders you might really see.

Seems like there should be a lot more 1-star generals. I'd guess a division without a 1-star general has an average commander. But it still seems like there should be a lot more good 1-star leaders. These should be able to be assigned to a division on the strategic map. So I can take my good 1-star general and assign him to a guard div or a heavy cavalry, then they just move together on the startegic map until I reassign leaders.

The reason for more 1-star generals is that most of the 2-star generals could get promoted from them. The same for higher ranks.

I could see a nation having a number of leaders based on percentage of divisions (with some cav leaders and art leaders thrown in amongst these). Also based on percentage of corps and percentage of armies.

A nation always has 1 4-star general. And enough 2 and 3 star generals that some corps and armies have leaders, but not all. The ones that don't have just an average unnamed (and unremembered) leaders. Different nations could have different numbers of leaders by giving different percentages. One country might have a 3-star for 90%of their armies, while another might have a 3-star for 30% of their armies.

The number of leaders is fixed by the size of the army and this leadership rating. What isn't fixed is how good they are. You should lose leaders in battles (does that happen in ver 1.00, haven't seen it yet). Also each leader should have a retirement chance, based maybe on rank (4-stars are old generals, 1-stars are young) if you don't want track age. Also could be just a random event that retires leaders.

Leaders could get better with experience. Maybe a small random chance on Jan 1. Just being a camp leader should make a general a little better at handling his troops. But the main chance of improvement should come from battle and campaign experience.

Different countries could promote different ways. Some could promote the best of the lower rank. Others could promote based on a separate random rating of how much the king likes a leader. This era always seemed to have a bunch of incompent army commanders whom were highly ranked in society or were buddies with the king.

When a leader gets promoted, there could be a random change to his ratings. Most should go down. A rookie corps commander doesn't handle a corps as well as an experienced div commander handles a division. But sometimes they should go up. That's for the guy who didn't really have a knack for handling a div, but has an excellent sense of the bigger picture of a battle.

I guess I'm looking for a system that doesn't produce historical leaders, but instead gives more of the feel of always trying to find competent commanders. I think I'd like a game where you aren't always sure when you find a good commander, but you are glad when you find one, and you are upset when you lose him.

Oh well, wrote a lot more than I intended, but this discussion sparked an idea.

Don't know if I'll ever see it in this game, but this is my idea of what would be cool to play with.

_____________________________

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

(in reply to Gilia)

Post #: 13

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 12:05:43 AM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

* I saw one leader had 1795 in the DiedIn value, so I used full years to indicate a leader should be removed. Should this be some kind of month total? When does it remove them - January?
* I gathered that turn-#_base0 is the turn someone appears. For example, I used 43 to indicate someone who was not in the 1792 scenario, but was in the 1796 scenario. If I counted correctly, March 1796 would be the 43rd month of the 1792 scenario.
* In line with the above, because I didn't have more info on exactly when leaders died or became available, I just used the full year to indicate "death" if they were not present in a later scenario, and I used the month of the start of the scenario to indicate a leader becoming available.
* For minors, I didn't apply the rule of if not present in a later scenario, kill them off. I figured that the reason the Polish leaders don't appear later is because Poland had been conquered (didn't Poniatowski assist Napoleon later?).

Poland) and Austria (who continues war). Austria seems to have gained - without a battle - one of Poland's provinces. Just so happens that Poniatowski is in that province. So he becomes an Austrian leader (turns his back on his country to join the enemy instead of me????)!!? I get the other leaders and apparently the whole Polish army. Except for their best leader. And Sweden can use another good leader.

Thanks for the interest in modding.

The DiedIn value is unused... it was a scratch pad but we didn't really use it even for that. Your notion of turn base 0 seems correct. (NB: the naval modifier, if it's still there!, is also unused.)

The Austrian Poniatowski may simply be a surrendered general. The interface is a bit confusing and could stand some reworking in this regard.

Once we get the first patch or two issued I'd like to put some information on our website on how to make mods to the game.

Eric

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 14

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 1:26:55 AM

Alaric_31

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

Greetings everyone, hello Eric, i'm glad you promote the use of mods, can be very interesting, have a question, in the main directory
there are some files named CmdName#, one for nation, what way (f any at this time) are these commanders used or adquired in the game?... i will like a game with more commanders, and think people are asking the same thing, the idea to link all scenarios in one
"grand campaign" scenario is a good point, i think.

Today i do not have got the time to enhance the commanders or add new ones, all day working with the "master" file in the data directory, i must say "Crown Of Glory" is the best napoleonic wargame to the date, enjoy it very much, for the moment i have reworked the production, upkeep and time to build the units, to reduce the impact of waste, i must say i like to make very much large armies, hope the work can be "inserted" with the future patch/es, nice to listen the developers are here to support the game.

and please let me share my work on the "master" file, only to give a idea to the forumers what can they do with the game, as say i have make the modifications for allow very large armies and allow the "small" major countries to build more units, i accept that some
people will dislike, but everyone can mod to his pleasure and historical thinkings, enjoy!...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 15

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 2:59:45 AM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alaric_31

Greetings everyone, hello Eric, i'm glad you promote the use of mods, can be very interesting, have a question, in the main directory
there are some files named CmdName#, one for nation, what way (f any at this time) are these commanders used or adquired in the game?... i will like a game with more commanders, and think

Hello Alaric!

I tried to err on the side of making units more expensive than not, so a cheap unit mod might satisfy a lot of players.

Whenever a nation participates in a battle with at least 2,500 total casualties, and that nation had at least 10,000 strength in the battle, then there is roughly a 7% chance the nation will receive a new commander (with random stats) that round in the province in which the battle was fought. The files you mention are the names of the new commanders.

Some of the feedback I've received from the beta testers suggests that this threshold may be too high, that we might want to lower it, say, to 1,000 casualties. I've gotten spontaneous commanders in games I've played, but they aren't very common.

Eric

(in reply to Alaric_31)

Post #: 16

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 3:03:25 AM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marc420

Just a thought, but this would be a cool area to get some big improvements in the future.

A fuller leader system. I'd like to see more leaders, and also promotion of leaders over time. Something that doesn't necessarily product historical generals, but instead models the leaders you might really see.

Seems like there should be a lot more 1-star generals. I'd guess a division without a 1-star general has an average commander. But it still seems like there should be a lot more good 1-star leaders. These should be able to be assigned to a division on the strategic map. So I can take my good 1-star general and assign him to a guard div or a heavy cavalry, then they just move together on the startegic map until I reassign leaders.

The reason for more 1-star generals is that most of the 2-star generals could get promoted from them. The same for higher ranks.

I could see a nation having a number of leaders based on percentage of divisions (with some cav leaders and art leaders thrown in amongst these). Also based on percentage of corps and percentage of armies.

A nation always has 1 4-star general. And enough 2 and 3 star generals that some corps and armies have leaders, but not all. The ones that don't have just an average unnamed (and unremembered) leaders. Different nations could have different numbers of leaders by giving different percentages. One country might have a 3-star for 90%of their armies, while another might have a 3-star for 30% of their armies.

The number of leaders is fixed by the size of the army and this leadership rating. What isn't fixed is how good they are. You should lose leaders in battles (does that happen in ver 1.00, haven't seen it yet). Also each leader should have a retirement chance, based maybe on rank (4-stars are old generals, 1-stars are young) if you don't want track age. Also could be just a random event that retires leaders.

Leaders could get better with experience. Maybe a small random chance on Jan 1. Just being a camp leader should make a general a little better at handling his troops. But the main chance of improvement should come from battle and campaign experience.

Different countries could promote different ways. Some could promote the best of the lower rank. Others could promote based on a separate random rating of how much the king likes a leader. This era always seemed to have a bunch of incompent army commanders whom were highly ranked in society or were buddies with the king.

When a leader gets promoted, there could be a random change to his ratings. Most should go down. A rookie corps commander doesn't handle a corps as well as an experienced div commander handles a division. But sometimes they should go up. That's for the guy who didn't really have a knack for handling a div, but has an excellent sense of the bigger picture of a battle.

I guess I'm looking for a system that doesn't produce historical leaders, but instead gives more of the feel of always trying to find competent commanders. I think I'd like a game where you aren't always sure when you find a good commander, but you are glad when you find one, and you are upset when you lose him.

Oh well, wrote a lot more than I intended, but this discussion sparked an idea. Don't know if I'll ever see it in this game, but this is my idea of what would be cool to play with.

These are great ideas.

One option we've been considering for the sequel is to allow players either to play with historical general stats or else to randomly generate the stats at the start of the game. If random stats, then stats won't be revealed to the player until they've been used sufficiently (maybe 20% each time the stat is used).

Eric

(in reply to marc420)

Post #: 17

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 3:41:04 AM

Alaric_31

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

greetings, is good to see you offering support to the game, and thank you very much for the fast answer to my question, Eric,

with best regards,

alaric.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 18

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/10/2005 3:54:19 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke

I figured that the reason the Polish leaders don't appear later is because Poland had been conquered (didn't Poniatowski assist Napoleon later?).

Yes. Poniatowski died in 1813 during the retreat from Leipzig.

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 19

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/12/2005 5:18:27 AM

EarlPembroke

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Thanks for the interest in modding.

The DiedIn value is unused... it was a scratch pad but we didn't really use it even for that. Your notion of turn base 0 seems correct. (NB: the naval modifier, if it's still there!, is also unused.)

The Austrian Poniatowski may simply be a surrendered general. The interface is a bit confusing and could stand some reworking in this regard.

Once we get the first patch or two issued I'd like to put some information on our website on how to make mods to the game.

Eric

Thanks for the reply, Eric!

I seem to have got it right as far as adding leaders. They are coming on relatively on schedule. So is there any way to kill them off in the game setup? And do they actually die in battle occasionally (thought I read that somewhere, but maybe confusing with another game)?

You were right on the Austrian Poniatowski, I think. After a later battle vs. Austria, he joined my side, so I guess he was liberated. Funny thing was later after the war, all Polish provinces except Krakow became my provinces, meaning I could control production in them. Krakow, ,meanwhile, was no longer a protectorate of mine and became an independent Poland - where ALL Polish troops & leaders congregated. Russia outbid me for Poland and got all those armies. And the Polish feudal levy as well as any troops I built moved to Krakow and became Russian satellite soldiers. At any rate, later I conquered Krakow and it became a conquered territory of mine while the rest of Poland remains a protectorate. I can still control production there (while I can't in protectorate Finland), and now the troops I build remain under my control. Interesting ...

One more thing - thanks for making it moddable!

BlueMonday - nice name. New Order fan? Thanks for the info on Poniatowski.

Gilia - Not sure how to make the combined leader file available, but you're welcome to it. I could email it to you - or let me see if there is a place in the forum to post mods.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 20

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/12/2005 6:06:12 AM

Gilia

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

thank you but i maked it work by myself. the campaign now starts 1792 an end 1820. i have combined all the leaderfiles and all the generals show up between 1796 and 1815.

http://home.arcor.de/killmesoftly/CoG/Scenarios.zip

just extract it to your CoG-Folder. Dont forget to make a backup from the 1792-folder in scenarios.

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 21

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/12/2005 6:20:29 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marc420

Just a thought, but this would be a cool area to get some big improvements in the future.

A fuller leader system. I'd like to see more leaders, and also promotion of leaders over time. Something that doesn't necessarily product historical generals, but instead models the leaders you might really see.

Seems like there should be a lot more 1-star generals. I'd guess a division without a 1-star general has an average commander. But it still seems like there should be a lot more good 1-star leaders. These should be able to be assigned to a division on the strategic map. So I can take my good 1-star general and assign him to a guard div or a heavy cavalry, then they just move together on the startegic map until I reassign leaders.

The reason for more 1-star generals is that most of the 2-star generals could get promoted from them. The same for higher ranks.

I could see a nation having a number of leaders based on percentage of divisions (with some cav leaders and art leaders thrown in amongst these). Also based on percentage of corps and percentage of armies.

A nation always has 1 4-star general. And enough 2 and 3 star generals that some corps and armies have leaders, but not all. The ones that don't have just an average unnamed (and unremembered) leaders. Different nations could have different numbers of leaders by giving different percentages. One country might have a 3-star for 90%of their armies, while another might have a 3-star for 30% of their armies.

The number of leaders is fixed by the size of the army and this leadership rating. What isn't fixed is how good they are. You should lose leaders in battles (does that happen in ver 1.00, haven't seen it yet). Also each leader should have a retirement chance, based maybe on rank (4-stars are old generals, 1-stars are young) if you don't want track age. Also could be just a random event that retires leaders.

Leaders could get better with experience. Maybe a small random chance on Jan 1. Just being a camp leader should make a general a little better at handling his troops. But the main chance of improvement should come from battle and campaign experience.

Different countries could promote different ways. Some could promote the best of the lower rank. Others could promote based on a separate random rating of how much the king likes a leader. This era always seemed to have a bunch of incompent army commanders whom were highly ranked in society or were buddies with the king.

When a leader gets promoted, there could be a random change to his ratings. Most should go down. A rookie corps commander doesn't handle a corps as well as an experienced div commander handles a division. But sometimes they should go up. That's for the guy who didn't really have a knack for handling a div, but has an excellent sense of the bigger picture of a battle.

I guess I'm looking for a system that doesn't produce historical leaders, but instead gives more of the feel of always trying to find competent commanders. I think I'd like a game where you aren't always sure when you find a good commander, but you are glad when you find one, and you are upset when you lose him.

Oh well, wrote a lot more than I intended, but this discussion sparked an idea. Don't know if I'll ever see it in this game, but this is my idea of what would be cool to play with.

marc -
I think we have a lot of similar concepts for how leaders should work. Here's a link to a thread I did a short while back. LINK

(in reply to marc420)

Post #: 22

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/13/2005 3:41:49 AM

EarlPembroke

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline

Gilia - Thanks, downloaded it. Where did you find values for Gustav IV and Schulz? gustav IV, by the way, has a picture (I think) - number 94. Don't recall seeing those, tho Gustav IV I had added in mine just for fun ...

Also, (and I haven't looked at it much yet), what did you do with the Start2.txt file? I see that it has some values and locations for the start of a game, but what did you do to modify it for this purpose?

(in reply to Gilia)

Post #: 23

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/13/2005 7:03:26 AM

Gilia

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

I have made Gustav and Schulz only to see what is possible. I have taken some values from other Generals.

The only thing changed in start2.txt is how long the campaign will go. i have taken the end date from the 1820 campaign.

(in reply to EarlPembroke)

Post #: 24

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/13/2005 12:51:08 PM

Alaric_31

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

greetings, i want to advice a thing about commanders, there are 8 files in the main data directory (c:\Crown of glory\data) named as
CmdName1 to CmdName8 that are related to the posibility to pop up a leader after a battle, Eric tell this to me, some commander named in this files for the standard game are included in some scenarios, so there are a posibility to have two commanders with the same name in a given scenario, i have included 25 leaders for the standard scenario, some start the game deployed and each year after each nations receive some more generals, in turns 12, 24 and 36, in example i have added Gerard for the french and change in the file CmdName1 (France) Gerar for another name to disable the posibility to have two "gerards".

with regards,

Alaric.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to Gilia)

Post #: 25

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/14/2005 1:19:20 AM

Gilia

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

(in reply to Alaric_31)

Post #: 26

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/14/2005 1:30:35 AM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gilia

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

Heh.. it is reminiscent of events long prior to Napoleonic era. In fact, revolutionary France and Napoleonic France sent such minors into jitters so they were only just preoccupied with their mere survival.

(in reply to Gilia)

Post #: 27

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/14/2005 1:43:14 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
One option we've been considering for the sequel...

Doesn't rule 14.1 of the game producer's code of conduct state that you have to get the first patch out before you can use the dreaded "s" word?

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 28

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/14/2005 4:52:13 AM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gilia

Another Question:

Is it possible to make the minors more active ? Like Bavaria declaring war to Saxony and then fight it out ?
This would be great, the game will become more interesting and the minors will become more then just victims to dow or to form a protectorate with.

Sigh...would've been nice.

(in reply to Gilia)

Post #: 29

RE: if you start in 1792... - 7/14/2005 5:03:56 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Let's face it, we're spoiled. Going all the way to the 1990 edition of Balance of Power, that game had some interesting multipolar diplomatic streams. And EU2 clearly had active minor powers. In this game though, it might not work as well. The typical response to agression is finding a protector and do we really want nations winning new provinces because some random squabble occured between 2 single province countries? If that didn't happen, they would both deplete their limited forces. One would likely win. And both of those results just makes the map easier to gobble up. It sounds neat, but as I think through it I just can't think of a situation where having minor powers fight one another would add to the game. Am I missing something?

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 30