|
carburo -> RE: 1st post and a game opinion (7/21/2005 11:23:14 PM)
|
From my limited experience -I haven’t had the time to do anything continually for 40 years- I agree with Malagant’s warning against making the game so historically accurate that at the end there is no game left. I have a lot of books already, if history is what I want.
It would be rather boring playing under the historical accuracy rules. Imagine England starting in 1805: you would have Trafalgar (quick battle), if the AI is nice enough to sail against Nelson, and… hit the subsidize button a lot and read the papers until Napo invades Spain and you have something to do with your army. As Austria all you would be able to do while waiting for Leipzig is surrendering to France, but you could be sure that in 1810 Napo would accept Marie-Louise. I think some historical balance is already in the game: the French army is the best one by a huge margin (except for the Italian Corps), Russia in far from everywhere and can raise huge numbers, Austria and Prussia are comparatively weak and need alliances to survive, and Britain is safe behind it’s fleet, but have a limited army. I would welcome some ways of making it harder to deviate wildly from what seems historically logical, but that’s all. I can think of ships/fleets losing morale and strength after a certain amount of time out of one of its nation’s ports, or merchants not being profitable if they are too far from your bases. This would discurage/avoid the odd turkish merchant in the Baltic, but would leave it as a valid option if the player so wants. Historically, nothing forbade the turks from sending a ship to Sweden, except rationality. They didn’t do it because it was impossible, but because it didn’t make sense. Armies could be subject too to increasing drops in morale if the stay for a long time deep into enemy territory, so that a Turkish army would vanish in its way to Stockholm, or a French one in its way to Russia. Something I would like to see implemented is being out of supply affecting morale as well as causing casualties, and eventually making units disband. I think historical accuracy should be encouraged making “historical” decisions more sound under certain circumstances but not by taking options from the player.
I strongly support the idea of the intercept option. In my current game as France I have had Picton -with a 3000 men inf unit, all that is left of his army- plundering my provinces for three turns while being followed by the 7th Corps. I would add a way for this weak armies/units to surrender or disband automatically if followed by a significantly stronger army. It’s ridiculous when I have a corps following a roaming cossack/guerrilla all over France, and frustrating when I have to chase two or three.
On the more unit types topic all I say is: how many of us actually build plain and light cavalry if we can afford the heavy version? If there is no clear and meaningful difference between units, more types only adds to the confusion. In another post I suggested making light cav weak but easy to rally, so ideal to chase routers; heavies more able to disorder enemy units, sort of a powerful one-shot unit; and lancers weaker against other cav. I would also make all cav more vulnerable to inf fire, to discurage all-cav armies. I like the guard cav option though. An easy-to-rally heavy cav perhaps, but it has to be limited or would ruin everything. Could be linked to the number of other cav units: only one guard for every ten other cav maybe.
While I agree it’s absolutely ahistorical, I don’t find the tactical supply system particularly annoying, except when my caissons start facing the enemy cavalry and far away from my units. On the other hand, the enemy’s ability to build depots all the way to my capital, and sustain them for months, makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
