RE: Wish List thread

RE: Wish List thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition

Message

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/20/2009 1:16:24 AM)
When demobilizing/scrapping units, it would be nice to receive a small percentage (10-20%) of the Wood, Iron and Textiles used to make it. This would represent some of those materials being recycled for other purposes. By my logic, Money and Labor would not be recycled, it is expended producing the unit in the first place.

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/21/2009 10:19:08 PM)
Correct the withdraw from surrender issue in PBEM. The turn merger in PBEM is being prompted as to whether or not the parties involved in war want to vacate enemy territory. If there was some way to move this prompt to the beginning of the next turn (like the prompt for becoming an empire) and it would then execute movement next merge that would be awesome.

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/22/2009 2:44:22 AM)
Manual states the VPs from a surrender will not be modified below 4000 for a normal surrender or 2000 for a limited surrender by the casualties modifier, but it is. We have seen very low VPs in several surrenders, and it is a general concensus I think that it is very easy to get off too easy in a surrender as a result. Have seen below 2000 for regular surrenders routinely, around 1000 frequently, and below 1000 even on several occasions. Bump up the minimum amount of VPs if keeping the current system or fix the system so that the VPs won't actually be modified below X and Y as the manual states.

terje439 -> RE: Wish List thread (8/23/2009 9:54:59 AM)
I would like the ability to set the ammount of money I wish to give to other players/nations once and then have the game keep handing out that ammount every turn untill I turn it off again. Too easy to simply forget to give money to the people you are trying to help maintain an army...

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/23/2009 2:14:16 PM)
Idea, maybe other guys will disagree: I think the forager promotion should offset March attrition somewhat even at the high difficulty levels. The idea that it makes them totally immune to forage attrition while sitting still, but not at least somewhat resistant to march attrition to me seems incongruent . . . though maybe I'm not understanding what March attrition is intended to be. rant mode on [:@] What exactly is March Attrition supposed to model? Deserters? Disease deaths? Loss to bandits and skirmishing? Guys falling down and going on the rough roads as the march? Veneral Disease!? [:D] Soldiers getting out of breath from marching too long and having heart attacks? Or is it just a gamey way to make the game "harder?" I *despise* cheesy "difficulty" factors that involve contraditions of otherwise exquisitely thought-out and complex game ecologies . . . When you have mastered a game on parity-level against the AI or slightly handicapped and you think you need to play it on a higher-difficulty, you've worn it out IMHO, and it is time to move on to another game. Until we have real AIs, which is probably a generation or two away, high difficulty settings on compter strategy games will remain nothing but cheese. rant mode off

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/23/2009 10:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid Idea, maybe other guys will disagree: I think the forager promotion should offset March attrition somewhat even at the high difficulty levels. The idea that it makes them totally immune to forage attrition while sitting still, but not at least somewhat resistant to march attrition to me seems incongruent . . . though maybe I'm not understanding what March attrition is intended to be. Forager is already one of the most overpowered upgrades you can get. Suffering ZERO foraging casualties is pretty good... March attrition simulates a bunch of things: people not being able to hack the marching physically and falling behind (straggling) or falling out completely and dying, sickness, desertion, going marauding, etc. quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid I *despise* cheesy "difficulty" factors that involve contraditions of otherwise exquisitely thought-out and complex game ecologies . . . Actually the cheese is without march attrition. Have seen it firsthand. We have opted as a group to play with March Attrition to increase the realism. The "normal" difficulty level is dumbed down because March Attrition at anything approaching historical levels is an extra challenge to deal with. So WCS made it optional. And as an option, it works extremely well to minimize the kind of unrealistic force marching at will, without consequences, that you see in a multiplayer environment without it.

evwalt -> RE: Wish List thread (8/23/2009 11:00:18 PM)
I'll add my 2 cents to Mus's. March attrition IS 'underpowered' and it DOES include things like deserters, disease, deaths, loss to bandits and the like. For my part, I would like to see the FORGER ability toned down a little, perhaps a reduction of forge losses by 2/3 instead of complete immunity (and 2/3 is still pretty good). As I mentioned in the other thread, the upgrade BAGGAGE TRAIN reduces march attrition.

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 2:41:06 AM)
Well if baggage train reduces it, then I guess one can't complain too heartily cause there is a "solution." Hardy also reduces the effects of the fatigue. I realize that Napoleon's winter campaign was a disaster, but my sense was that that was what supply was for. March attrition seems to me to be a double whammy, particularly when it can take out 20% or so of an army by virtue of traveling ONE province in one month. Like I said, a bit of march attrition would be fine (maximum of 5% in any given month). I just think we are playing with too high of diff thats all.

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 8:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid March attrition seems to me to be a double whammy, particularly when it can take out 20% or so of an army by virtue of traveling ONE province in one month. Maybe if you ordered a long OR forced march in the snow, otherwise you are talking up the numbers. What does this have to do with the wish list? Why are you complaining about the optional more realistic March Attrition rules we elected to use for our PBEM in this thread? quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid Like I said, a bit of march attrition would be fine (maximum of 5% in any given month). I just think we are playing with too high of diff thats all. Like I said, 15% March Attrition is closest to realistic march attrition in the game, according to Eric Babe from WCS. A maximum of 5% wouldn't achieve the goal of forcing players to make their moves realistically. You would replace the losses at the end of the move from your replacement pool and not even notice. March Attrition is being used to force people to move their troops intelligently. If you order long or forced marches in a snowstorm, you pay the price.

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 12:36:07 PM)
Do ship suffer "march attrition?"

evwalt -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 2:34:39 PM)
Ships do NOT suffer march attrition OR require supply (that I have noticed). Ships also don't draw replacements from the replacement pool. I think of ship strength as the actual condition of the ship, which can repaired at sea or in yards. Crew losses and replacement are ignored.

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 3:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evwalt Ships do NOT suffer march attrition OR require supply (that I have noticed). Ships also don't draw replacements from the replacement pool. I think of ship strength as the actual condition of the ship, which can repaired at sea or in yards. Crew losses and replacement are ignored. That is what my grumbling has to do with the wishlist thread, and that is why I still say March attrition is cheesy. If you are going to change the game ecology at higher "difficulty" levels, so that morbidity, mortality, and other non-combat military personnel losses are modeled, then the same ecological algorithm should apply to ALL branches of the service. Indeed, diplomats should be assassinatable and population (and infrastructure) in provinces should suffer as a result of foraging/plundering/sieging/battles. Without also modeling all these other forms of attrition, march attrition is cheesy. It is the same principle as changing the rules in chess to be "more difficult" by saying that there is a 10% chance that when you use your knight or rook they will automatically die, but the same is not true of kings, queens, pawns, bishops.

evwalt -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 6:26:31 PM)
Well, for march attrition, I would say that if you read historical works about the time (or even the American civil war), it is quite clear that units would lose quite a number of men over time to illness and such. Maybe the way to think about it should be that the game should have been designed with a HIGH level of march attrition that a player could reduce to make the game easier instead of a LOW level that was increased to make the game harder. As far as duplicating some time of march attrition in ships, I disagree. First, the crew numbers are much lower than army troops. Second, ships could simply (and did during this period) replinish their numbers by stopping merchant ships and impressing parts of their crews. As this can't be modeled, why worry about it at all? As far as killing diplomats, a BIG no-no during this period. I can't imagine any country authorizing the killing of the diplomat of any country during this period. The same with destroying population during battle (field battles just were not fought in populated areas), or sieges (sieges in the period were almost totally directed against the military works in a set format that all major powers knew) or plundering (which represents more the stealing of resources than anything else). The simple thing is, during this period, enemy populations were NOT a target of the enemy army. Their resources might be (as represented by plundering) but not the populations. The one exception to the above was the French Invasion of Spain. However, I believe the French would have (in game terms) declared Total War against Spain, changing the situation around.

R.E.LEE -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 8:09:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evwalt Well, for march attrition, I would say that if you read historical works about the time (or even the American civil war), it is quite clear that units would lose quite a number of men over time to illness and such. Maybe the way to think about it should be that the game should have been designed with a HIGH level of march attrition that a player could reduce to make the game easier instead of a LOW level that was increased to make the game harder. As far as duplicating some time of march attrition in ships, I disagree. First, the crew numbers are much lower than army troops. Second, ships could simply (and did during this period) replinish their numbers by stopping merchant ships and impressing parts of their crews. As this can't be modeled, why worry about it at all? As far as killing diplomats, a BIG no-no during this period. I can't imagine any country authorizing the killing of the diplomat of any country during this period. The same with destroying population during battle (field battles just were not fought in populated areas), or sieges (sieges in the period were almost totally directed against the military works in a set format that all major powers knew) or plundering (which represents more the stealing of resources than anything else). The simple thing is, during this period, enemy populations were NOT a target of the enemy army. Their resources might be (as represented by plundering) but not the populations. The one exception to the above was the French Invasion of Spain. However, I believe the French would have (in game terms) declared Total War against Spain, changing the situation around. well put guy.

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 8:30:32 PM)
Attrition is modeled a bit differently in FoF. I find that dynamic less incongruous than the one in this game. But then I never played FoF at the highest "difficulty" settings so maybe I'd find it equally implausible. I guess what would convince me is proof: on X date Napoleon and his Grande Armee began their march from Lorraine to Warsaw (or wherever). At the start of this march this force was X strong, at the end of it it was Y strong, and Z proportion of those casualties were not combat related. A half-dozen case study examples of that sort which are well empirically documented would satisfy me that Z% casualties over the span of a month or so are reasonable as a result simply of an army being on the move, and not as a result of sniping, raids, or small engagements (I woud'nt think an army would be subjected to harassment engagements while marching through through their own territory, and since 'march attrition' can happen anywhere, it would seem logically that what it models is strictly non-combat losses) . . . I would be surprised if such detailed evidence actually existed in a sufficient quantity to arrive at a solid generalization about 'the period;' though not being a period expert I could well be wrong there. Please, if anyone can provide actual examples I would love to hear about them. I fully realize that disease accounted for a high percentage of casualties in many conflicts prior to WWII. My understanding is that the flu caused nearly as many casualties in WWI (summer of 1918?) as did actual killing? But "march attrition" as it is portrayed in CoG:EE, and attrition from disease are two different things. If I have a unit with forager promotion, who suffers zero casualties despite being out of supply, and then when he marches a hundred or 150 miles he suddenly suffers 15% casualties, it just doesn't 'feel' right.' I'm not trying to say units should be immune to attrition considered largely (meaning non-combat losses); it just doesn't feel right how it has worked in our PBEM. Much like guys have argued that the Insurrection thing doesn't feel right. Ships being able to impress unskilled personnel to replace losses is one thing; ships never needing any source of supply, being able to stay at sea for years straight and never suffering any attrition as a result is another. Not to mention the fact that, a crew of 20% impressed, unskilled sailors is going to be a very different kettle of fish than one of 35 or 50%. This is not modeled; well at least not convincingly. This also does not 'feel right' in the game. I also disbelieve that the detainment, imprisonment, or outright assasination of diplomats was so taboo and so uncommon that it is reasoanble for a diplomat "unit" to be effectively immortal and invulnerable to damage. Spies have been imprisoned, tortured, executed, etc. for as long as nations have disagreed with one another. It is inconceivable that a diplomat and his entourage would traipse into Austrian-ruled Warsaw (e.g.) provoke an insurrection, causing the entire nation of Poland to renounce her allegiance to Austria and resume independence, and then this same diplomat is allowed in subsequent months and years to wander around inside Austrian territory without being arrested?!? Having read one set of books about Napoleon, I'm also going to politely disagree with your sense that the civilian populations were effectively impervious to the horrors of war during this particular period. To my knowledge that has never been true.

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 8:53:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid Attrition is modeled a bit differently in FoF. I find that dynamic less incongruous than the one in this game. But then I never played FoF at the highest "difficulty" settings so maybe I'd find it equally implausible. Hilarious that you find the historical reality implausible. [sm=00000030.gif]

evwalt -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 9:11:59 PM)
I'll look around for some numbers about march attrition in the Napoleonic period, but I think you are correct that such numbers are harder to come by. However, look at the American Civil War, with its 50+ years of technological improvement, and there is tons of information on march losses. I submit it would be at least that bad in Napoleon's era. I don't believe that the game requires a source of supplies for ships because, quite simply, their supply is built into the game system. You simply don't see the supply ships delivering supplies to warships. Also, compared to land armies, even the British navy is equal in manpower to, what 2 or 3 divisions at most? It is simply a drop in the bucket. Also, while I am sure a ship suffers "attrition," it is simply too low a number to matter as such men could be easily replaced. I must disagree on impressed sailors as well. The important skill set of sailors was ability to sail, NOT ability to fight. Thus, I don't think that a larger percentage of impressed sailors would lower fighting ability. The British navy had large numbers of impressed sailors, didn't seem to hurt them. For diplomats, I believe they are simply representations of a countries diplomatic ability. I agree that, in your example, a diplomat would cause a insurrection then be allowed to wander around later. The point I am making is that the diplomat himself would NEVER do such a thing, it would be some peon that would do it. Now, that peon may be expelled, killed, whatever, BUT the high ranking diplomat would never be touched. As for civilian populations, I don't think I have ever read of them suffering much in open warfare during this period. Some exceptions: France in her Spanish Invasion (as mentioned earlier) AND civil war type actions (represented by guerrillas in this game). Having said that, I do see a point there. When a guerilla unit is formed in a country, is it built using "Men" out of the province where it is created? If not, maybe it SHOULD be. That would certainly represent civilian losses in such a situation.

evwalt -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 9:16:35 PM)
For a WISH (and sorry if this is repeated elsewhere). I noticed when I was doing some modding that there was a unused portion of the leader table for when a general died. Perhaps this could be activated to remove older generals from play, thus allowing the introduction of other generals without upsetting game balance. If you made their removal turn variable, like random events, then a player would never know when a general would die (I assume of natural causes).

Mus -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 9:23:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evwalt I'll look around for some numbers about march attrition in the Napoleonic period, but I think you are correct that such numbers are harder to come by. However, look at the American Civil War, with its 50+ years of technological improvement, and there is tons of information on march losses. I submit it would be at least that bad in Napoleon's era. WCS the makers of the game have repeatedly stated that historical march attrition levels were actually a bit higher than Bonaparte (15%) setting.

Anthropoid -> RE: Wish List thread (8/24/2009 10:16:22 PM)
Mus I did not wish to suggest that "attrition" is implausible. Clearly non-combat losses of various sorts have been an historical reality since the dawn of military history. What seems implausible to me is the way that non-combat losses are modeled in game, and in particular at high "difficulty" levels." Specifically, it is the incongruity between "attrition" in some elements of the game, and invulnerability to it in others that I find implausible. You're not required to agree with me, and my feelings will not be hurt if you don't [;)]

Anthropoid -> Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 2:51:04 AM)
Something I would really like you guys to consider doing a bit of an overhaul on is the way Textiles are consumed by citizens. Innumerable times in turns I have painstakingly adjusted production in my cities so that the amount I am producing given my stockpile of raw materials (usually wool) and the amount the notice at the bottom tells my citizens will consume will, at the start of the next turn work out to be more than I want to build a particular unit (often a diplomat). Most of the time when the next turn rolls around, this balance sheet does not seem to work out, and my citizens seemed to have consumed more of the textiles than they were projected to consume. I get the impression that a good deal of the way economy works is meant to model the incomplete or imperfect control that a ruling regime may have over a nation, so a certain amount of randomnicity or of things that you just plain cannot control is fine. But because textiles are a national strategic resource, necessary to build military and political "units" I think that this should be less random. If it was not a problem, what would be very nice is if, each turn in the economy window, there were sliders for luxuries, spice, and textiles, heck why not food too!? The sliders would tell you what it is project your people want/need, and you could specify what you want to allocate to them and what to stockpile. Each turn there could be a certain amoutn of waste or loss/decay (which could account for randomicity). It could be that if you allocate only what they are projected to need, they will not get all they need and will negatively impact Nat Morale. But on the other hand, during those months when you want to be as CERTAIN as possible that you will be able to initiate that building project next month (a new corps or whatever) you should have the ability to basicaly tell the citizens "sorry, no textiles for you next month" and set their consumption level to zero, so that all that is produced in the ensuing month goes into the stockpile. There are already so many factors built in to prevent players from building too many military or building them too fast, this little random fluctuation in citizen textile production just seems unnecessary and it adds a bit of unfun-ness to the game that I think it could stand to do without.

Anthropoid -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 3:42:35 AM)
Another thing that would be very nice is a symbol on the map to indicate provinces that just finished building something. I realize that there is a list of provinces that just finished building something in the Events page. But there is a nifty little symbol to indicate provinces that are building projects; why not one that indicates provinces that just finished projects too? It would be a roman number I in a little circle on teh first turn after the project is finished. If the cities production window is opened this this gets cleared out and nothing more appears on the map. If the city is not opened then the following turn a roman II appears. As it is, managing all the production in a large empire is tedious. Having to flip back and forth, else take notes from the Events page about what cities to open up makes it more so.

evwalt -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 3:59:25 AM)
I want a LOCK button for each resource sliders so you can lock a number in for 1 while still playing around with the others. Also, if the mob limit is NOT rounded, I would like it listed as #.# (ie. in tenths). That way you know how your ships affect your mob limit.

R.E.LEE -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 4:13:08 AM)
[:D]

Kingmaker -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 10:03:42 AM)
HiHi Seamus, when you get enough textiles to build your diplomate, do so, it seems it will take president, eg as Spain my textiles reached 107, the Developement page informed me that 11 textiles were going to the peasents, I just ordered the Diplo built, result on Developement page 0 textiles for peasents, but 1 Diplo due in 6 mnths. Evwalt try right clicking on the resorce/developement slider, that locks that slider while you fiddle around with the others, warning though it can get overriden if you go wild with increases on another slider, just keep an eye on it. All the Best Peter

Anthropoid -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 8:21:59 PM)
It is not that I'm worried about depriving the peasants AFTER I get enough textiles built up . . . every turn that I start to get close, (say I have 108 textiles in my reserve and will produce 35 this turn) it seems the projections for what the peasants are going to consume fluctuates up just enough to keep me under my 117 threshold to have enough to go ahead and build the damn diplomat next turn. In short, my damn peasants keep preventing me from attaining enough textiles in stockpile to be able to build the diplomat. I want to be able to deprive my people of textiles if I so choose. The game does not allow me to do that,and indeed, the random fluctuating up and down of peasants eating my frickin' textiles almost seems prone to KEEP me in the 100 to 115 ballpark perennially, unless I can get my per/turn textile production so high that even stupid amounts of peasant consumption is not enough to prevent me from exceeding 117 next turn. For example, in PBEM 109, my recollection is they were projecte to consum 21 last turn, and at that rate I should have wound up with about 120 in my pool (based on my stockpile of wool, and how many I was making). Instead, I wind up with 107 in my pool, and the new projection is for them to consume 35! The only solution to this seems to be to get their Nat Mor up to 1000 but even then they sometimes take my textiles. I don't like it when the peasants take my textiles. Please change. I like that the game has some 'randomnicity' and doesn't allow the player total control or total predictability. This textile thing is a step too far in that direction. If textiles didn't matter so much for building so many units, whatever, but as it is, it makes the game drag on, and on, and on as you keep delaying various projects because you are waiting to be able to build a diplo or a corps or Hvy Cav or whatever. quote: ORIGINAL: Kingmaker HiHi Seamus, when you get enough textiles to build your diplomate, do so, it seems it will take president, eg as Spain my textiles reached 107, the Developement page informed me that 11 textiles were going to the peasents, I just ordered the Diplo built, result on Developement page 0 textiles for peasents, but 1 Diplo due in 6 mnths. Evwalt try right clicking on the resorce/developement slider, that locks that slider while you fiddle around with the others, warning though it can get overriden if you go wild with increases on another slider, just keep an eye on it. All the Best Peter

evwalt -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/26/2009 8:41:58 PM)
Kingmaker, Thanks for the 'lock slider' info! That was really pissing me off!

Anthropoid -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/27/2009 12:47:24 PM)
Since we had the discussion of attrition (in which I complained about the attrition of land soldiers but nothing else in the game suffering it) I have wanted to have a look about crew sizes, and the effect of crew quality. Reason is, someone stated that (a) crew sizes for navies of the time would be piddly small and don't need to be represented; (b) replacements could just come from impressed vagabonds at port. A crew with 30% vagabonds would not do so well as one with 5%, and in support of this claim, a wiki quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line quote: British crews excelled, in part, because they spent much more time at sea, were generally better fed, were well trained in gunnery (allowing a faster rate of fire), and were generally more competent, as the Royal Navy based promotion much more on merit rather than purchase. I am no expert of this period, so I am limited in the facts I can quote. But here is something I found very quickly here on the Ship of the Line page on Wiki quote: Mary Rose was an English carrack and one of the first to be able to fire a full broadside of cannons, being well equipped with 78 guns (91 after a 1536 upgrade). Built in Portsmouth, England (1509�1510) she is thought to have been named after King Henry VIII's sister Mary and the rose, the Tudor emblem. She was one of the earliest purpose-built warships to serve in the English Navy; it is thought that she never served as a merchant ship. She displaced 500 tons (700 tons after 1536), was 126 feet (38.5 m) long and 38 feet (11.7 m) abeam, and her crew consisted of 200 sailors, 185 soldiers, and 30 gunners. Although she was the pride of the English fleet she was accidentally capsized during an engagement with the French on 19 July, 1545. So in 1545, the pride of the English Navy had a crew of 415. The game is set in late 1700s. I will assume, since bigger with more guns was the prevailing theme in the evolution of warship in the era, that crews of 500 perhaps even 750 existed by the 1790s? As an example, the Rusian navy at start of 1792 scenario has 12 Frigates (200 crew??), 30 3rd Raters (500 crew?) and 8 1st Raters (* 600 crew?). Using these ballpark guesstimates of crew sizes, this works out to be 22,200 sailors, gunner, marines and officers. While granted this is a much smaller number than an army of 100K or an entire land force of 100,000, it is substantially more than the minimum land unit size (militia) which DO suffer attrition. I think the logistical/strategic part of the naval part of the game could do with a bit more detail. Ships should be limited/facilitated in some way by proximity to supply sources. They should also under certain circumstances suffer attrition of their crews. If March attrition is going to be one of the factors differentiating "difficulty" level, then it should apply also to naval units. One might even consider that it should apply to populations suffering losses as a result of plundering, housing foraging armies, or during sieges.

evwalt -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/27/2009 7:42:28 PM)
I never stated that ships would have replacements staffed with "impressed vagabonds at ports." They would gain replacements from impressed sailors, taken from stopped merchantmen, fishing vessels. Both the French and British did so over the course of the period. The US fought an undeclared war with the French over this practice and it was also a major reason the War of 1812 was fought between the British and Americans. The important skillset in the navies at this time was SAILING not FIGHTING. To turn a sailor into a good fighter took little time, it would take months to turn vagabonds into sailors. It is this reason also why there should NOT be a naval replacement pool. There WAS such a pool and it consisted of the sailors of merchantmen (not even necessarily your own merchantmen). Also, for attrition for ships, I don't really think that should play a role. Simply put, ships were much easier on their crews that an army marching though territory. Food for plentiful for the most part, physical strain (like marching 15-20 miles a day) relatively limited. The chance to catch diseases was also limited, simply because there were few people around to catch it. Look at the naval battle results. A MAJOR battle may have 2-3000 losses, it is simply a drop in the bucket. (Hey, but my beef here is the battle report should report ship losses, by type and maybe ships damaged as well instead of men lost). Also, for the population losses, as I mentioned before, the population was really never a target during this period (Spain the exception).

Mus -> RE: Textiles RE: Wish List thread (8/28/2009 11:38:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid I think the logistical/strategic part of the naval part of the game could do with a bit more detail. Agreed. I could actually get behind having to replace crewmen in ships through replacements that were lost in battle. I suppose rather than March attrition they would have desertion when you made Port, but I wonder what kind of numbers you would be looking at there? More detailed training funding system and a system whereby the quality difference in the various countries armed forces would be reflect through more or less training would be good too. Bottom line is the game started out pre EE as a much more land-centric based game and the detail towards the naval side was added later. But the more detail the better I think, as long as the learning curve doesn't get like my newest purchase, WITP AE. [:D]

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125