First impressions/suggestions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Victory and Glory: Napoleon



Message

Uncle_Joe -> First impressions/suggestions (3/25/2016 9:41:30 PM)

First off, I’m a huge fan of Napoleon in Europe (although it doesn’t hit the table anywhere near as often as I’d like). So when I saw V&G, it looked like an evolution of NiE and of course, I was all in for it (PC and board game) .

I picked up the PC game on Steam the first day and finished my first campaign (1805, General difficulty) last night. I had previously played a few turns to learn the mechanics and then restarted to get a full game campaign in. Result: ‘Epic’ victory. I enjoyed the game very much but I can see that it might not have a lot of replay value in the long term if it’s just France vs AI. Here are a few impressions/suggestions:

1) There should always be terrain on the battlefield (randomly assigned and including the middle ‘neutral’ zones). After the first 10 battles or so I noticed that almost all of them were starting to play out the same. I was able to use the same basic strategy almost every battle and won the overwhelming majority of my battles without much difficulty. Some random terrain might help break that up a bit, especially if there is key terrain in the middle ground. The cards can be used to place it for that battle, but it should always be present to some degree for variety in the battles and to encourage some differing tactics.

2) The AI is OK in battle, but again, it becomes somewhat predictable. Part of that is the system which greatly encourages very similar deployments (1 arty + 1 cav + 1 inf + 1 whatever). I understand what it’s encouraging but with a stacking limit of 4/sector, you kind of start to be pigeon-holed pretty quickly. If the stacking limit was even 5, at least you’d have some room for variety (ie, heavy on one of the arms). The problem is that the AI doesn’t really react to the battle itself. It it’s defending, it’ll sit back and wait, even if it’s being pounded by superior arty. In some cases it had strong cavalry that could have advanced and threatened the arty but it just sat and let me pick it apart. By contrast, on the attack, it moves EVERYONE forward leading to a predictable battle….sit and wait for it to walk into your guns and feed replacements into the line.
One suggestion for combat would be for cavalry charging a square, there should be a decent chance of the cav being routed/destroyed rather than simply Disordered. On the flip side, once infantry squares, cav should be given the option to pull up and not complete the charge (as in NiE). This way you can use your cav to ‘square’ the enemy troops but you’ll need infantry of your own (or luck and a lot of cav) to reduce the squares. Arty should work of course, but shooting at long range through friendly troops should be more heavily penalized based on the number of friendly troops ‘in front’ of the arty (ie, the penalty scales up the more units in the middle zone). This would encourage bringing the arty up (riskier) or else needing infantry to fire on the squares.

3) Territory doesn’t seem to matter much. I found myself annexing this or that, but the only real benefit I see is a generic score at the end of the game. Sure it opens up some movement options, but I never really had much of a problem before I annexed half of Europe either. ;) I think I preferred NiE’s income system where every territory lost/gained had an impact.

4) Lack of ‘income’/cost. Given that territory doesn’t seem to matter, there is no underlying ‘economic system’ in the game, there is no reason not to just pick all of the best units when recruiting. Early in the game this leads to some weird armies that are heavy on arty and cav. And unfortunately those unbalanced/a-historical armies are frighteningly effective. They just need a few infantry for the combined arms and then steam-roller the enemy. I’d prefer if infantry made up the bulk of the forces selected but if there is 3 and 4 strength arty/cav available, I’m going to grab those over 2 strength infantry… ;)

5) Diplomatic system – it seems like an lot of mechanics for not a lot of effect. Since you can’t sway anyone to your side (not even the Ottomans who will activate once and then only with a specific card), there isn’t a whole to do here. It’s just a little bit of damage control/mitigation. In NiE, Political Points were GOLD! You never had enough and they were used to compel or ask neutrals to join, to declare war (or peace!) and most importantly, to claim territory during peace accords. By halfway through my V&G game, I was barely bothering with my Political Points. The effect they have is so negligible on the game as a whole (nothing I can do except mitigate) and I honestly wasn’t concerned if some of the majors did DoW me. I used most of them on Germany/Italy just for form’s sake of preserving the Empire rather than for any practical game value (I’m not even sure what happens if Germany/Italy get too low lol ;) ).

6) I never had much trouble beating each of the Allies in turn. (Austria three times, Russia twice – once by Treaty of Tilsit, Prussia twice – before forcing them out, and Spain twice). I had 2-3 ‘uber-stacks’ and they pretty much steam-rolled all opposition. The rest is just feeding in replacements. I never once had to defend the Empire for long and I routinely just marched to their capital and forced them out within a few turns of their DoW. In between waiting for the DoWs, I’d simply get into position for the next one and then ‘Consolidate the Empire’ repeatedly while I waited.

7) Naval system – It feels a bit too cut and dried. In NiE, it was a bit more dynamic and often became a cat and mouse game between the Allied and French/Spanish squadrons. The Brits had an advantage in NiE, but it wasn’t so pronounced as in V&G. In addition, it seems much harder to avoid contact in V&G leading to instant death for leaving port unless you’ve built up a massive numerical advantage later in the game. In any case, I didn’t feel any need to waste activations on losing squadrons for no purpose. In NiE, the French could spread out a bit to threaten Brit lines of amphib invasion. If the Brits massed to ‘search’ they got one roll. So they often broke down into smaller groups to hunt, which lead to a more dynamic feel of back and forth. In V&G, I just let my fleet rot in port and let the Brits amphib where they pleased. In the end, I simply crushed any army they left on the continent (see ‘2’ and ‘6’ above).

Now with all of that said, you’d think I didn’t enjoy the game but I really did! Lol. I just don’t see a lot of room for replay in the long term as it stands. Maybe if it was multiplayer, the opponent could vary it up enough to replay but I’m not seeing much that I would need to differently to win in the future. Sure, I could give the AI artificial bonuses which make it harder, but I’m not a huge fan of doing that in a historical(ish) game. I mean, I could give them M1 tanks too and it would definitely be harder, but not much in the history department… ;)

I’m looking forward to the games continued development and hopefully a chance to play the Allies (and especially for multiplayer). In the meantime, I’ll try another campaign to see if maybe I just got lucky. ;) And of course, I’m looking forward to the board game!



gdrover -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/25/2016 9:57:25 PM)

These observations are all correct. Victory and Glory was meant to be a 'lighter' more fast-play and approachable game than NiE was. I intentionally pushed the events, economy, upgrades, etc. into the card play to streamline the gameplay. This certainly makes the game lighter on the details, but (I think) a more playable experience. This will allow the game (especially the board game) to hit the table more often. I love big, heavy games, but I also enjoy a good light romp sometimes as well.
The cards will drive quite a bit of re-playability as they play out differently every time, requiring a different approach and different results.
Also, 1805 is one of the easier campaigns. You are obviously a very experienced player and had no trouble beating the game at the normal difficulty level. I suggest trying the harder level and / or the 1813 campaign.

I still enjoy re-playing the game, even after almost 100 play-throughs during testing. The outcomes are often unique and surprising (because of the card system).



Uncle_Joe -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/25/2016 10:09:31 PM)

Yep, I understand (and appreciate) the desire to have a lighter game, but some of these changes I listed wouldn't make things 'heavier' or more complicated at all.

For example:

Terrain in battles. The rules are already there. Dealing out some random terrain every battle doesn't change the complexity (in terms of rules/playtime etc) but could greatly increase the re-playability of battles by creating variance rather than fighting across the military equivalent of a pool table each time. ;)

For recruitment, maybe just put a requirement of half of the units recruited MUST be basic infantry (and enforce it on both sides). That will lead to significantly less arty and cav on the battlefield and could easily change the feel of battles in the long run. As it stands, I always have enough to put the 'right amount' into any place at any time. This could also make the game 'harder' without actually increasing the 'difficulty' setting since the player will have to make do with less optimal forces each battle.

Finally, the AI could easily vary things up in battle more. As I said, there were plenty of times when I was attacking when the AI just sat and took the bombardment in the face rather than crossing the center and threatening my arty. Having 3 and 4 strength cav sitting on the bombardment line is just criminal lol. At least move up and have a chance to inflict losses or get off the line and put expendable infantry up there to take the shots while waiting for the 8 turns (if that is the 'strategy' it is pursuing).

As I said, I don't want to just artificially increase the Allies capability and playing in 1813 with a horrible starting position (that I didn't create! lol) isn't all that appealing either. ;) But a few changes such as those I listed here could make the game more 'difficult' without ANY additional complexity and while making the game more interesting to reply (IMO anyways).



gdrover -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/25/2016 10:11:29 PM)

I considered adding terrain to every battle, and we still may do it in an update. My only fear was that it could be that the player gains more advantage from it than the AI, and that worried me.

But I agree with you that it would add more variability and more interesting strategies to the battles.

Thanks for the feedback!



prince_blucher -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/26/2016 4:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

For recruitment, maybe just put a requirement of half of the units recruited MUST be basic infantry (and enforce it on both sides). That will lead to significantly less arty and cav on the battlefield



This is a great point and one I noticed in the later game especially; I encountered numerous Prussian cavalry often 12 or more in a 25 stack, and 6+ British artillery in a stack.

+1 this is a very good suggestion.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/27/2016 4:41:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: prince_blucher


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

For recruitment, maybe just put a requirement of half of the units recruited MUST be basic infantry (and enforce it on both sides). That will lead to significantly less arty and cav on the battlefield



This is a great point and one I noticed in the later game especially; I encountered numerous Prussian cavalry often 12 or more in a 25 stack, and 6+ British artillery in a stack.

+1 this is a very good suggestion.


Yes and my armies were also fairly unbalanced in favor of Cav and Arty. Arty forces the battle and Cav is not only extremely powerful (ahistorically IMO...they aren't tanks) in the battles, they the can also inflict massive damage on the retreating enemy. I really see little reason to want to pick stock infantry.

Given that, assuming no change to the combat system is desired, then the next best thing is to have some sort of 'enforced' recruitment of infantry to keep the armies from becoming too far out of whack.

Assuming a combat system change IS desired, maybe make Infantry less likely to be outright destroyed when compared to Cav/Arty. Either give a penalty to the Cav/Arty or a bonus to the infantry on the 'damage' table?



*Lava* -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/27/2016 11:18:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Cav is not only extremely powerful (ahistorically IMO...they aren't tanks) in the battles, they the can also inflict massive damage on the retreating enemy.


Cavalry in the time of Napoleon, did indeed wreck havoc on a routed army. Clausewitz noted that during battle, even if the "victor" had more losses than the defender...

quote:

the most decisive losses on the side of the vanquished only commence with the retreat, that is, those which the conqueror does not share with him.


So, at lease in respect to pursuit by cavalry, the game is indeed historically correct.



stormbringer3 -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/28/2016 2:12:06 AM)

I've seen many instances where the AI will fire on an infantry unit. Then, when the firing is done, the cavalry units present will charge making the infantry unit form a square making it vunerable to fire. It should be just the opposite. I've also seen where the AI will have a choice on attacking units exactly the same but one has already fired/moved and the other one hasn't. More than it should, the AI will fire at the unit that has already fired/moved.
Hopefully the AI can be programed to use its' tactics better.
I also agree with the above comments concerning unit mix. I've seen armies consisting of almost completely cavalry and artillery.
These observations are meant to improve what I think is a great game.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/28/2016 2:25:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Cav is not only extremely powerful (ahistorically IMO...they aren't tanks) in the battles, they the can also inflict massive damage on the retreating enemy.


Cavalry in the time of Napoleon, did indeed wreck havoc on a routed army. Clausewitz noted that during battle, even if the "victor" had more losses than the defender...

quote:

the most decisive losses on the side of the vanquished only commence with the retreat, that is, those which the conqueror does not share with him.


So, at lease in respect to pursuit by cavalry, the game is indeed historically correct.



Yes, pursuit was one of their main roles and I think they fit well within the game. But the attacks on the main battle line are where I think they are a bit overstated. Since there is no negative consequence for charging a square (other than the chance of being disrupted for which you stand a good chance of happening regardless), it's too easy to mass up heavy cav and cannon and steamroller a flank. The AI won't pressure your other zones (unless it's attacking in which case they ALL advance) so you can be free to mass your best units in one zone to crush opposition as it comes in. I often won't even attack the last unit in a space so as to keep the battle going to increase enemy casualties.

And then the army DOES break, having a massive cav army gives you a good chance to cause significant extra damage as well (which IS historical, but on top of the tank-like nature of cav in battles makes them sort of no-brainer when compared to taking stock infantry with recruitment.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/28/2016 2:27:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stormbringer3

I've seen many instances where the AI will fire on an infantry unit. Then, when the firing is done, the cavalry units present will charge making the infantry unit form a square making it vunerable to fire. It should be just the opposite. I've also seen where the AI will have a choice on attacking units exactly the same but one has already fired/moved and the other one hasn't. More than it should, the AI will fire at the unit that has already fired/moved.
Hopefully the AI can be programed to use its' tactics better.
I also agree with the above comments concerning unit mix. I've seen armies consisting of almost completely cavalry and artillery.
These observations are meant to improve what I think is a great game.


Sort of agree but on the other hand, if the infantry fire disrupts the enemy infantry, there is less chance that they will square meaning they are much more likely to be overrun by the cav. So it's pretty much 'chicken or the egg'. ;) I can see reasons for doing it both ways but in the end, with the current mechanics I think cav is just overall more decisive so it makes sense to try and weaken the enemy with infantry or arty fire and then mow them down with cav too.



EdinHouston -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/28/2016 4:00:55 PM)

I had a few comments and suggestions I wanted to piggyback onto this thread. I just finished the 1805 campaign and won a 100VP victory on the normal difficulty level. I am an experienced Hannibal player so there wasn't a huge learning curve. Many of my comments are building on other player comments I have read in this forum.

1. Leader movement and movement in friendly territory - it is WAY too slow. I think leaders without troops should be able to move 3 regions, and armies in friendly territory should be able to move 2. Or else there should be a lot more 'strategic movement' event cards. I mean, in game terms, it takes 6-8 months to move from the north of France to the south. Really?

2. It would be very nice to see leader names on the units without right clicking, and to see leader names on top of armies on the map. Just like Hannibal.

3. I did not notice that cavalry was so overpowered in battle. But I did notice that later in the game, my cavalry had been whittled down and cavalry recruits had dried up, so that even when Napoleon won a victory, I could not pursue (this is exactly what happened to Napoleon in 1813 after so many horses died in Russia). Maybe my cavalry combat rolls were unlucky, I don't know, but I do see a tradeoff between using your cavalry in battle a lot in the early years, and running out in the later years. For example, it is very effective to force an infantry into square with a cavalry, and then pound it with cannons, but you do risk losing cavalry that way (the AI would do well to do more of this tactic, especially the Russians who have loads of cavalry).

4. I agree that more terrain would be a nice addition to add variety. Also, in large battles of 25+ unit armies, 5 units per right flank/center/left flank might be more interesting and fun.

5. The main issue I had with the naval campaign is the limit to number of ships in the line of battle. My 16 unit French fleet had trouble with a 3 unit British fleet, because the British can sink ships in a single shot. It was not uncommon for the British to sink 1 or 2 ships, while all 6 of my ships fire and are lucky to sink or capture one British ship. If a British fleet has 6+ units it is almost impossible to beat; a 25 unit French fleet could easily lose to a 7 ship British fleet, and even if the French won, they might lose more ships than the British. On the other hand, the 'Storm' card is extremely powerful, and is basically the only way to even the odds enough to make it worth risking a major fleet battle.

6. It is very easy for the French to have Napoleon's army next to Vienna or Berlin, wait until relations are down to <2 and then declare war. Chances are that you can severely defeat them and have them surrender long before the Russians arrive. In my game, I was at war with Russia the entire game, but it wasn't until 1812 or so that I fought them much, because by the time their armies got next to mine, Austria or Prussia had surrendered and they had to retreat to Russia again. I did not try to reach them in Russia because I was afraid that when Austria/Prussia became neutral again, my armies would be stuck in Poland. When I did have armies in Poland, the Russians immediately retreated, and knowing what happened in history, and having seen the 'Attrition in Russia/Spain card played on my armies in Spain, I wanted no part of a Russian Campaign lol. If armies could move 2 regions through friendly territory, or at least have a chance of doing so based on leadership maybe, it would really lessen this 'Blitzkrieg' attacks by France that make the Russian armies pretty meaningless until later in the game. Also, maybe Austria and Prussia could 'hold out' longer even when their capital is lost, as long as big Russian armies are coming to help?

7. The AI for Britain's own troops has a terrible tendency to invade via Denmark or Spain and try to move towards France by itself and get absolutely annihilated. When the British army came down from Denmark, I thought it would move towards Berlin/Vienna to help, but nope, it just headed to Belgium to get destroyed by either/both of the two much larger French armies nearby.


Finally, I really enjoyed the game, and wanted to thank the developers for another fun game. It would be nice to have a 'play the British' expansion, but I imagine it would be much harder to design a good AI for that.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/28/2016 8:52:10 PM)

I didn't find Cavalry too powerful in battle per se, but with the quantities I was able to get I felt like I was massing armor for the Blitzkrieg! lol. If they were more 'costly' somehow, I think they would be just fine but the same recruitment point that picks up a stock 2-strength infantry can also pick up a 3-4 strength cav which is solid in battle in it's own right, can make enemy infantry vulnerable even when it fails, can move and attack in the same round, can pursue AND guard against pursuit. Soooo, it becomes sort of a no-brainer to select them instead of infantry until the pool is empty and by that time I typically have cav-heavy armies which IMO should not be able to consistently destroy a more balanced army.

And yeah, I agree that it's too easy to just continuously destroy Austria/Prussia but I think that would be even easier if movement were increased (although that might actually help Russia DO something).

Also agreed on Britain's strategy....trying to face off against my field armies is madness. They should attempt to link up with Allied troops or else nip at the heels a bit more. The trouble is that even if they take territory or squat in my country, as long as I keep Paris safe, nothing else matters. This comes down my point above about territory not really having a value. I don't care if they dance around on the fringes or liberate a few minors...it doesn't cost me anything in the long run.

Historically, they supported the Portuguese but here, the whole Peninsular Campaign comes down to playing a 'Minor Nation joins the Empire' card while sitting in Portugal. The ONLY trick is getting there, but that was accomplished in my campaigns by simply plowing through Spain when they finally DoW'ed me. Given how quickly Austria and Prussia fold (and Spain as well when they are involved), there isn't a lot of time for Britain to land a force and link up to support. They arrive just in time to be kicked out when the nation surrenders.

Maybe there should be Commitment rolls like in NiE so that it's not guaranteed that sitting in a capital for a single turn is enough to force a nation out?



storeylf -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/29/2016 11:19:13 AM)

I never really found cavalry too powerful either. Critical yes, but not too powerful. I found that that there was sufficient attrition in cavalry, either losing the odd unit in battle, or in pursuit (if the enemy has any left then he can still kill some of yours) that I never really felt like I could make up more than 1 cavalry heavy army, and even then I'm not sure I would call it cavalry heavy, as opposed to what felt like enough cavalry for my main army to inflict good pursuit losses. Of course I might be winning battles differently to you so not seeing what you see.

Easier movement, as I have advocated elsewhere would make some stuff easier, however, as I have also advocated I am seeing that as part of some overall change to make the game somewhat harder to win by just beating Austria/Prussia. So in particular making Russia and/or Spain become much more important, boost the battle AI to hopefully make battles harder and hence a more expensive (making an AI that can beat you a lot is probably hard, but if it gives a better account of itself it may mean that your casualties become more pronounced as the game goes on). Tweaking the politics so that Austria/Prussia are not the constant easy VP. I believe that if the game is made a bit harder to win via changes to politics/VP/AI then the easier movement becomes more focused on allowing you to do the things you will need to do to then get the wins whilst reacting to other stuff (deal with Russia and/or Spain at opposite ends of the continent, whilst dealing with some British landings and any Austria/Prussia DOW).

I would also like to see a bit of random terrain in the battles or more terrain cards played by both sides, all major Napoleonic battles are known for some key terrain feature, and there are not enough cards for that. I think I only got 1 terrain card last game, and don't remember the allies playing any. I had a few in my first playthrough, but not exactly a lot.

I've tended to ignore the naval stuff so far, it certainly hasn't felt important to France at all. At some point I might try and see what France can do naval wise, but I can't comment much so far.



storeylf -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/29/2016 12:09:13 PM)

For the battle AI even some very simple things can help. I note for example that the AI when it is attacking has a logic something like this on its first turn if you just stay back to defend:

Sections = getOrderedSectionList() // always left, center, right.
for each Section in Sections
Units = getOrderedUnitList(section) // always Infantry first, forget whether it goes Cav/Art next
for each Unit in Units
moveUnitForward(unit)


If that was changed to
Sections = getOrderedSectionList() // actually make it random. Or based on what I have in each section.
for each Section in Sections
Units = getOrderedUnitList(section) // always Infantry first, forget whether it goes Cav/Art next
for each Unit in Units
moveUnitForward(unit)

That first piece of logic changing alters my thought process when defending.

As it stands I can rely in 2 things when I have Napoleons army. First is that passing initiative because I just want to defend will use up nearly all of my goes for nothing, there will only be a few moves by the enemy in between. Therefore I will only get to shoot a couple of non-artillery units in turn 1 against a couple of Infantry that advanced (it is always infantry first). I therefore want to max my chance of killing stuff with those few shots. Second I know that it will always be my left flank that is the first to be attacked, and therefore the only place I will get attacks on turn 1. Hence I put things like skirmishers and good stuff on my left as I know that I can kill a couple of units there in turn 1 putting that flank at risk of losing and leaving it unable to do much back to me on turn 2+.

If the order of sections the AI uses commands on is random then I no longer know which flank I will get to shoot a couple of times as it advances before my initiative is used up. My good skirmishers, horse Art or Heavy cav may therefore not take part in turn 1 by being on the wrong section.


Equally if getOrderedUnitList() changes to not always move infantry first but say maybe a cav than I may find that my skirmishers are less useful on turn 1. If getOrderedUnitList() changed to consider what it was facing in that section and consider the chance of the unit it moves forward being killed then it may have less chance of a bad turn 1 in that section, and therefore more attacks and casualties/pressure on me in turn 2.

For any AI predictability is bad. The above two points are currently highly predictable and hence provide for an easy turn 1 with normally its left section looking in bad shape.

The current AI could be kept, used on the easy difficult, but the middle difficulty could use a somewhat more unpredictable AI.

MM, that more I talk about it, the more I think the battle sub system seems a nice little well defined project for me to get back into AI programming. If the manual explains the rules enough I might try and motivate myself to have a go as a play around.



deeter -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/29/2016 9:54:48 PM)

Hi there,

I've been involved with Beta testing V&G and want to jump in here with a few observations.

First off, I've never played the board game mention by the OP, but several features he highlights would be welcome additions to V&G. I might even pay for a DLC that adds them.

Next, the talk of too many guns/cavalry is interesting because you don't need many to make a killer army. Just a go a long way. I usually only have two to three heavy cav, three to four heavy guns, several light cav for pursuit and the rest French line infantry and two horse artillery (if I can get them.) More than a few heavy cav just get in the way, I think.

Furthermore, if you max the heavy stuff out for one army, it won't be available for other armies later.

Third, the Naval game (such as it exists) is quite win able if you get all the ship reinforcements, play any naval cards and snipe at the smaller British fleets until you dominate the Channel, then it's off to London and the game is essentially over. There is also a tactic available to the player to win most battles, but telling would be a spoiler.

Fourth, I agree that Russia can easily be shut down by alternately beating up on Prussia and Austria. That needs to be looked at.

Finally, I really enjoy the game even though it's no longer a challenge and I find the developers very open to ideas, so here's hoping for further evolution to make V&G even better.

Deeter



James Ward -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (3/31/2016 7:20:19 PM)

I just purchased the game and so far I like it. The one thing that I don't like is it is slow moving the AI and the fading screens between battles or drawing cards etc make it seem even slower.



EdinHouston -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (4/3/2016 5:47:37 PM)

another suggestion, when France declares war, this gives Britain +2 political points. Like this and other threads are saying, its too easy to camp armies in central Europe and repeatedly knock out Austria, then Prussia, before the Russians can arrive to help, over and over.

Also, I would say everyone should get 2 turns to take back their capital, not just 1.



James Ward -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (4/3/2016 6:13:10 PM)

It is to easy to play whack a mole with Austria and Prussia.
Some things that might help is to put a limit on when you can declare war on a country based on how they lean towards you. After you defeat a major set the leaning to 10. If is higher than 2 then you can't declare war on it. Why would you declare war on your friend?
Another would be to make the enforced peace longer, say 2-3 years. From 1805 on France was at war with Austria 3 times, Prussia twice and Russia twice, if you assume 1815 was just a continuation of 1814, so it is not like France declared war on a whim.
Another would be to give a lot of VP's to Great Britain for declaring war say 20-25 per declaration.



jack54 -> RE: First impressions/suggestions (4/4/2016 1:04:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

another suggestion, when France declares war, this gives Britain +2 political points. Like this and other threads are saying, its too easy to camp armies in central Europe and repeatedly knock out Austria, then Prussia, before the Russians can arrive to help, over and over.

Also, I would say everyone should get 2 turns to take back their capital, not just 1.


Definitely agree, They need more time to fight back. An additional option would be to force France to take 'Another Key Area' in addition to the capital.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125