July update

July update (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815

Message

Marshall Ellis -> July update (7/13/2002 12:10:19 AM)
Hello to all: Just wanted to drop a line and give you the latest status and ask a few questions. Latest: The combat system has been rewritten and will allow more tactical control (Optional) of the battle field. We are working some diplomatic issues with minors and are doing more graphical work on the interface. Question: What is your opinion of the behavior of minor countries in a game such as this? Should minors act on their own (If not allied with a major) and be controlled by the AI or should minors be treated as in many board games and ALWAYS be controlled by an available major nation? Should both be available? Thanks for the support

U2 -> (7/13/2002 12:26:42 AM)
Hi First of all thanks for the update. I think minor countries, like in most games, should be left alone until under the influence of a major country. Therefore the AI should handle them but perhaps just "locking" them until they become a part of one of the big countries is easier. Thats my opinion anyway. I think it would be very hard to let the AI run such small countries and let them act and have an impact on the game. With enough programing time though............ Dan

ABP -> Minors (7/13/2002 1:49:12 AM)
Hi Matrix, Nice to hear from you. This is really a question that is hard to answer. It is in some was up to yourselves and how good you are at programming and predicting behavior. On one hand it could be great if minors had a game plan of their own and where not merely puppets to be influenced/controlled by the big countries. On the other hand it can be hard to predict how each minor should act so that its actions are in its best interest. Should the minor be active in trying to solicit support if threatened? Should they gang up if attacked? If you choose to have minors with their own AI, you could just as easily ask if there should be public opinion in the game. If you just conquored a minors naybor state, should he then be friendly still? I think the best solution is to leave them "sleeping" until attacked. Upon attack they should seek assistance from a major power. You could consider something like diplomacy between major and minor powers where you are requested to assist a minor ally if it where attacked. You could also consider if it should be posible to aquire control of a minor through diplomacy, maybe as a contest between the majors or by investing money or "glory-points".

Marc Hameleers -> (7/13/2002 3:24:57 AM)
Hi Well, i think that they should be active. EU gioves us great examples of how minor nation scan be active, and it increases the reality if they are not just dummies waitint to be taken over Marc

eg0master -> (7/13/2002 4:33:20 AM)
Th variant with active minors is more interesting, and the best of both worlds is to leave this as an option. maybe even add the independant minors as an add-on in a patch if it would delay the release date substantially. The passive minors are good enough since it is "what we gamers are used to" in these kind of games. The active minors will be a nice and welcome option.

Le Tondu -> Good News (7/13/2002 8:43:44 AM)
Nice to see the report. thanks. As for Minor powers, I'd like to see an option for both -depending upon the situation. In other words, I'd like to see the ability for the game AI to take over a minor power that was previously played by a human and vice-a-versa. Games like this might need a minor power to be played by a player who gets into the game late only for him to take over a Major power for a player that drops out --causing the minor power to revert back to the control of the game's AI. Just a thought. Now, I don't want to see this game take a real long time because you guys are so nice to listen to us and put in everything we can think of, but I would like to say that the more options that we can have as gamers, the better NW will be. Rick :)

jwarrenw13 -> (7/13/2002 9:34:17 AM)
Some sort of uncertainty with at least some minors would be very interesting.

Preuss -> (7/13/2002 12:13:41 PM)
Thank you for asking our opinion on this matter. Like the other guys, I don't want to see the game delayed by hefty programming changes. Most minor (long term) states like Bavaria, Sweden, Denmark and Saxony had their own goals and needs for survival, having land hungry neighbors like Prussia, Russia, and Austria to contend with. So, I'd like to see them able to choose their own courses and their allies perhaps with some bias toward one or another because of their historical needs... The latter 'kingdoms' and duchies formed by Napoleon would of course, being puppets, do nothing but act as auxiliaries of the French. Either way...this game sits atop my "must have" list.

Caranorn -> (7/13/2002 9:04:42 PM)
I have mixed feelings about how to best treat minor nations. While it is true that all nations (whether created by Napoleon or having existed before) had their own war aims and motivations, none were able to pursue those aims independently. That's what makes them minor countries. Bavaria might have had it's own interests to pursue, neverless it lost and gained territories during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars at the whim of the major powers. It's contribution to these wars is through it's aid (or lack thereof) to the main beligerents. So I feel minors should only exist as diplomatic and economic factors prior to war entry. They should have no control over their armed forces, which would be either inactive, partially controlled (an expeditionary force, supply tracing, fortresses and garrisons) by a major or fully controlled (all armed forces and military structures controlled). But again, the minors should exist as at least semi active diplomatic powers (that is not only the majors' diplomatic or military actions should lead them into the war (or out of it)). Marc aka Caran... P.S.: For those mentionning the EU engine's minor countries, consider that it is not at all logical to see all those minor countries pursue military expansion policies (worse, see two vassals of the same major power declare war one on the other and have the major unable to intervene without taking huge stability hits and declare war on one of them).

sol_invictus -> (7/15/2002 12:04:34 PM)
Thanks for the update; this game has the potential to be a true classic. I would prefer that minors act upon their own agenda and not be simple, mindless pawns; as long as the AI can reasonably handle it. For instance, if France liberates certain lands held by the other powers and then grants those lands autonomy, then this should raise the standing of France in the eyes of certain other minors, as they see France as a potential liberator and not a conquerer. As long as the minor nations react in a realistic manner in response to an action of a major, then all should be well. I would think this would be doable. I am encouraged to hear that there is now more tactical control being possible. It doesnt have to be extremely detailed, just something to add a little tactical spice.

Caranorn -> (7/15/2002 6:13:11 PM)
The problem is, who is to prevent France from taking territory from your minor next time;-) Very few people ever felt liberated by Napoleon's actions. The major exception is of course Poland, but they felt Napoleon did not go far enough. In the end, changeing one overlord for another did not bring much benefit to the people, and the rulers obviously had their doubts (most rulers who received new territories first lost some or all of their old, Napoleon was recreating Europe at his whim). They went along with his policies as long as he was winning, when the tide turned they either proclaimed neutrality or defected right away. We should not equate the people of a minor country with it's rulers. Their aims were quite different. And finally, Napoleon very rarelly served either's purpouses (but that is also true for Austria, Prussia or Russia). Marc aka Caran...

Marc Hameleers -> (7/15/2002 10:16:44 PM)
Well, to be honest, there where plenty more nations that felt liberated at least for a part. The dutch were happy at the time when the french came, and installed a revoluntionary republic. Then the dtuch revolutionariesmadea mess,a nd Napoleons brother Louis came to the throne in the Netherlands. He was unpopular at first, but managed to gain the sympathy of the Dutch people pretty quick, and had to be replaced eventually by Napoleon cause he was too mcuh King of the Netherlands and to little lackey of Napoleon. Other movements in Europe were there, that supported the French ideas, and wanted to see Europe Modernised to some extend. Now after a while it was clear that napoleon was not the one to do that, but it is to easy to discount the fact that many Nations at first were happy wiht Napoleon to some extend ( the smaller german states, the Netherlands ) In any case, i feel that nations should have their own goals, and act accordingly, and not act as just provinces that wait to be conquered. As far as not wanting to see two allies of a third nation fight, that happened often, then and now.. In fact the US even just passed a bill that allows them to invade the netherlands ( an ALLY!!!) if there are ever americans facing charges in the international court in the Hague! ( wich is UN, and not dutch ) Marc

Le Tondu -> Let's hold our horses for a moment. (7/16/2002 12:07:49 AM)
In support of Marc, I have to point out that there were other places that were happy about being liberated by the French. Northern Italy is a great example. In most part, they hated the Austrians. And they were liberated by the French twice. The Northern Italians were happy even though they were looted for the most part. I am sure that one could find happy people in any place where the French went AND I am sure that the opposite was equally as true. I think that the common people of the time hated to see any army come their way. Heck, the Russian army raped and pillaged as it went through countries that they were allied with! The Austrian Emperor found them to be necessary evil whenever they were in Austria. All in all, there is more than one way to look at things regarding Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era and to say it was any ONE way and not another, is plain foolishness. It is foolish because we then begin to tread upon the subjective. Such things as personal opinion take hold which can be greatly influenced by the propoganda of the time (and the present). I am astounded by the intense fighting that can take place on other discussion boards regarding Napoleon and his era. It is as if the Napoleonic Wars were being fought all over again. The feelings run VERY high in those places. Right isn't a matter of correctness, it is a matter of numbers and who is meanest. A most disgusting situation indeed! I propose that we don't do that here. Let's keep things civil and enjoy our hobby. Honor both sides that fought with respect and let our machismo be won or lost on the computer screen with NW or any other Napoleonic game --NOT here. I am NOT pointing fingers at anyone here AND I know that everyone has a right to voice their own opinion. I am just pointing out how things could go if we aren't a little careful. That is all. At one of the first re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg after the ACW, mid-way through when Pickett's Charge was being re-enacted by the actual veterans who fought there, a very interesting event took place. The Union veterans threw down their muskets and went out into the field where so many had died and embraced the Confederate veterans with tears in their eyes. If men who fought each other can lay aside their differences and be civil, we who NEVER actually fought each other should be able to do it with ease. Does anyone disagree with my proposal?

Marc Hameleers -> (7/16/2002 1:26:44 AM)
Well i agree with the principles... Sadly however, often it seems that it is easier for people who have fought eachother in a war to embrace then for people who have a misunderstanding and didn't fight yet. Strangely enough, the human race insists on fighting heavily once every couple of decades before realizing your point.... Marc

Hoplosternum -> (7/16/2002 6:31:43 PM)
Hello, Err... Love and peace? ;) Anyway, I think that it is more important how the major powers being controlled by the AI react to the way other major powers act on minors than the minors themselves. For example if France starts gobbling up Italian minors I am more interested in what an AI controlled Austria and Russia think and do than in whether Naples is able to follow its own expansionist policies against Tunisia or if it is just inert until a major power starts interacting with it. I have played EU and EU 2 (Computer game) and even EU the boardgame. I like the computer games but they are over a much longer period. With them (especially the second) you can take a small power like say Hanover and turn it into a European giant with colonies around the world. If you can do that in a napoleonic game over 10-20 years all it will demonstrate is a very very poor AI. Obviously there are certain similarities between this game and Empires in Arms ;) In that boardgame when a minor was attacked it was run by another major power. It was the same in the EU boardgame. This was used in the boardgames more as a way of deciding who should operate the minor and by trying to give the minors controller a stake / something to lose to keep him honest and acting in the minors interest (by fighting off the aggressor) rather than just cutting a deal (give me some money and I'll force march all my troops to death etc.). It didn't always work IIRC :) I do not think this is necessary or even desirable in a computer game unless the other major power has done something like say a Imperialism II like War Pact to guarantee the minor. I remeber in the EU boardgame that you would often try desperately NOT to be a minor nations controller. All rather gamey and not needed in a Computer game.

Caranorn -> (7/16/2002 7:18:55 PM)
I agree Le Tondu (though you should remember that there were two Marcs in this discussion, and you don't sound like agreeing with me;-). I play wargames for the military simulation. But I studied history and political science, so when a discussions draws near those fields I tend to veer in that direction. I feel a question on how minors should behave in a game is largely a matter of how the rulers and people felt etc. There was clearly a turning point in public opinion in the course of the Napoleonic wars. For country rulers I think this happened slightly earlier (as they saw Napoleon redraw the map of Europe at will and without regard for the old ruling circles). But very little of this allegiance shift became obvious in the military arena before Napoleon was defeated in Russia (and for most it took Leipzig or allied armis at their gates to take the final step). Marc aka Caran... from a pre 1804 french departement and post 1815 grand duchy P.S.: It is a fact that Napoleon seems to be either belowed or bedevilled in many parts of Europe he passed through. Of course this is due to the overall effect of the wars between 1804 and 1815, not the opening stages. The birth of modern nationalism during this period is also a factor in modern interpretation of Napoleon as a person. P.P.S.: Personally I feel that napoleon was a good or even great politician and above average general (almost genius early on with a steady decline towards mediocricity). I respect what he did, but certainly don't admire him.

ABP -> (7/16/2002 10:54:12 PM)
I know that there are many people on this board that have a keen military history interest. That just fine. I think though that it will be unfortunate from a gameplay point of view if the actions of minors should be too much guided by historic allegiance. If the minor counties always favour the same major powers and work for the same political goals you can almost only play the game once. This game should also appeal to those who want to see the result of "what if"-scenarios. If minors shall have goals, they must be more or less random. Therefore I say its better to leave them out.

Marc Hameleers -> (7/16/2002 11:06:26 PM)
Why leave them out? Why not make the minors have more or less randomized political ambitions ( and perhaps an historical setting as well ) I know it would make this game longer in the making, but i rather pay more and wait longer for a better game myself

U2 -> (7/16/2002 11:17:07 PM)
Hi I think the idea of one option with historical settings for minor countries and one with random is great! I have a question to Matrix or the great people that visit this forum: I was not here from the beginning so my question is with what do you buy or make armies with. Resources or money? Will this be a purely military/political or with some economy as well? Please help. Dan

Le Tondu -> (7/16/2002 11:18:06 PM)
What is really nice about making things like this Minor Power issue an optional rule is that it can make both sides happy at the same time. On a different note, -no problem Marc. Er, I mean Marc. ;) While it is true that there are two, I was referring to 'Marc Hameleers.' That is his username. When I want to refer to the second Marc, I'll use his username 'Caranorn'. It gets too confusing when there are two people with the same name. Usernames makes things real simple.

dgaad -> (7/19/2002 1:19:56 PM)
"Minor" Powers of the Napoleonic Era organized their economies and militaries according to one of five states : 1. Fully aligned with France. 2. Aligned with France but attempting to preserve a degree of control or possible neutrality. 3. Truely neutral 4. Aligned with Coalition but attempting to preserve a degree of independence or possible neutrality. 5. Fully aligned with Coalition. What does all this mean? Only states 2 through 4 need explanation, and since 2 is the obverse of 4, we need only explain two states. In the case of a state aligned with either the Coalition or France but which was attempting to preserve a degree of neutrality, there were a number of dynamics. Typically, the reasons for preserving either actual neutrality or some degree of control while in fact aligned included the following : 1. wishing to avoid the exposure of their manpower or territory to the vagaries and generally deleterious effects of war. 2. wishing to preserve existing internal power structures that would be hostile to full alignment. 3. awareness that the power with whom they have decided against (Coalition or France) may not ultimately win the current conflict 4. Preparations to leave alignment or switch sides (this happened more frequently than is commonly known). 5. Economic profitability of remaining politically neutral while providing goods, services, sundries, to one or the other power. In the case of a power wishing to remain fully neutral, nearly all the above conditions also obtain with only slight modification that should be obvious and therefore need not be explicitly stated. Historical examples can be provided for each of the above reasons for states 2 through 4. In game terms, while I know nothing about the game, I would suggest the following : In cases of Full Alignment, allow full control of military and economic matters. Political attitudes and alignment of minors should remain a variable based on factors not within full control of the players, but capable of being influenced by them. In cases of states 2 or 4, allow the player control only portion of the minor's military, or limit the use of the minor military to a portion of the map within the generalized interest of the controlling power, or both depending on the commitment of the minor. Economic policy would be less controlled than in cases of Full alignment. Neutrality need no explantion, but would require low grade AI to manage the country as an independent power based on the vagaries of the strategic situation. I should again stress that partial alignment with one side does not necessarily mean belligerent status. A country could remain politically neutral but provide men, arms, equipment and so forth, to one or the other belligerents. In rare cases a neutral that felt secure enough would deal with both belligerents simultaneously, or alternately (such as the United States!). Just ideas for you, my beloved Matrix peeps. Do you feel the love?

sol_invictus -> minors (7/20/2002 2:07:26 AM)
dgaad, that all sounds good but my concern is how the minor AI is modeled. Just what conditions will have to exist for Bavaria to completely ally with France or, gasp, with the Coalition. I think this is key because there must be a realistic way to handle the diplomatic interaction between the minors and the two opposing factions or it all could end up a mess. If they can't craft an AI that is capable of handling these things then they should just say so and make the minors a much more straightforward issue. Hopefully a credible Minor diplomatic AI is possible and we can be treated to a rich political/diplomatic model, because this would really add depth to the game.

dgaad -> (7/20/2002 3:19:43 AM)
Upon further reflection : Minor Country States [CODE] State Belligerent Econ Mil Status Aligned Same as Aligned MP Benefit to MP Full Control Near Align 1 Same as Aligned MP Benefit to MP Partial Control Near Align 2 Neutral Benefit to MP In-Country only Neutral Neutral Poss Benefit Zero Control MP = Major Power (France, Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sweden) Major powers are either part of the French-Aligned countries or Coalition Forces (those against France) Significantly, Spain is not considered a Major Power. [/CODE]

pasternakski -> (7/22/2002 6:08:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caranorn [B]I have mixed feelings about how to best treat minor nations. While it is true that all nations (whether created by Napoleon or having existed before) had their own war aims and motivations, none were able to pursue those aims independently. That's what makes them minor countries. Bavaria might have had it's own interests to pursue, neverless it lost and gained territories during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars at the whim of the major powers. It's contribution to these wars is through it's aid (or lack thereof) to the main beligerents. So I feel minors should only exist as diplomatic and economic factors prior to war entry. They should have no control over their armed forces, which would be either inactive, partially controlled (an expeditionary force, supply tracing, fortresses and garrisons) by a major or fully controlled (all armed forces and military structures controlled). But again, the minors should exist as at least semi active diplomatic powers (that is not only the majors' diplomatic or military actions should lead them into the war (or out of it)).[QUOTE] Right on. The key, as I see it, is to analyze the minors for their historical tendencies and choices and to build those in. Sweden and Denmark, for example, acted with a considerable amount of independence in their own identified interests (and were subject to odd, even bizarre, consequences of the machinations of major powers), while Bavaria, Poland, Northern Italy, "Holland," and others were pretty much lock-step followers of their major power allegiances (once these solidified). Flexibility, therefore, is what I would like to see. Some loose cannons and some sycophants, methinks, with many freewheeling possibilities where appropriate. The interrelationships (alliance making and double-dealing among the more interesting happenstances) among the major powers should have considerable impact on the freedom with which minor powers can act. For example, if France and Austria are acting in concert, Milan ought to feel very constrained from fiddling around for fear of being squashed. Of course, when major powers with primary influence in a minor's sphere are at odds with each other, even the diplomats of petty nations know how to play one off against the other (until one or the other major power gets tired of it and grabs the flyswatter...). Great potential in the diplomatic portion of the game, I think. I trust the designers not to make it over-simple or over-Byzantine. --------------------- I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.

Didz -> (7/28/2002 1:59:44 AM)
My view is that neutrals should have an active part if only in the diplomatic arena. Both France, Britain and to a lesser extent the other major powers should be vieing with each other for the support and co-operation of these lesser powers. Britain with offers of financial aid and support, France with offers of liberation and/or expansion. Prussia, Russia and Austria will also be making overtures when possible but would have less to offer and in some cases will actually be seen as the oppressive power. The extent that these negotiations succeed and the consequences of success or failure would depend upon the countries involved. The Netherlands for instance seek independence initially from Austria and later from Prussia and France.

pasternakski -> (7/28/2002 3:12:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B]My view is that neutrals should have an active part if only in the diplomatic arena. Both France, Britian and to a lesser extent the other major powers should be vieing with each other for the support and co-operation of these lesser powers. Britian with offers of financial aid and support, France with offers of liberation and/or expansion. Prussia, Russia and Austria will also be making overtures when possible but would have less to offer and in some cases will actually be seen as the oppressive power. The extent that these negotiations succeed and the consequences of success or failure would depend upon the countries involved. The Netherlands for instance seek indenpendance initially from Austria and later from Prussia and France. [/B][/QUOTE] Great post, Didz. Concur completely (except with the spelling of Britain, of course). ---------------------------- I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

Didz -> (7/29/2002 12:53:11 AM)
Thinking more about this my vision of how the minor powers should be handled would be somewhere along the following lines. The rulers of all minor powers should have their own aims and objectives which may vary over time and according to the circumstances they find themselves in. Each minor power will seek to acheive its aims by negotiation with one or more major powers. The major powers may offer to assist the rulers of minor powers to acheive their own aims in return for a treaty or alliance. The extent to which they might be successful depending upon their ability to assist. Thus the minor power will be in constant negotiation with the major powers resulting in a state similar to those described by Dgaad in his post. In addition to this each state will have a public opinion status based upon the loyaltyof the population to the ruling house and their willingness to revolt or embrace republicanism should the French liberate them. Thus some states like Saxony, Bavaria and The Duchy of Warsaw and even Ireland and Scotland would fully embrace the support France whilst others like Hannover, Spain and Portugal would not be so supportive. Thus Napoleon may seek to negotiate alliances with the current ruling house during diplomatic phases or if public opinion supports it he may replace the current rulers with his own puppet government.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875