Too many battles? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

plasticpanzers -> Too many battles? (8/17/2005 5:44:22 AM)

Not a complaint as i like the fighting part of the game
but nationally it seems that countries will continue to
shovel 50-80,000 man armies off to their distruction
over and over again and never ask nor accept a cease
fire or peace treaty. In my current game i have more
Russian and Austrian (and Turkish) POWs than was in
their entire army at Austerlitz but they continue to
fight. Perhaps the diplomacy and country programing
can be tweaked a bit to allow for more effects of the
continued distructions of mulitple armies over years
of time.
Tim



ian77 -> RE: Too many battles? (8/17/2005 2:01:09 PM)

Do troops becoming POWs count as losses when calculating NML? The thought of our boys starving in POW camps should weaken NML IMHO.

Perhaps the number of POWs a power holds should cause an ongoing negative effect to the NML of your enemy, giving a reason for players to keep POWs alive instead of trying to just wipe them out...

Ian



ericbabe -> RE: Too many battles? (8/17/2005 5:35:37 PM)

POW's don't actually lower NML in any way. That's a good idea though and only would take about 2-3 lines of code to implement.

One of the design areas I didn't get a chance to implement was that I wanted to make the various ways of gaining and losing NML scale according to your level of feudalism. High feudalism nations like Turkey and Russia might not care so much about losing lots of peasants, but similarly might have a harder time recovering lost NML through luxuries. Similarly, low feudalism nations like Britain and France might be more concerned when their trade is disrupted.




siRkid -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 12:55:24 AM)

NML should be affected by POWs.



ian77 -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 1:02:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

NML should be affected by POWs.


I agree, they must count at least the same as casualties, and if we want them to be cared for by their captors they should have an ongoing effect on enemy NML.

Ian



plasticpanzers -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 3:48:59 AM)

I also think that post battle reports should be more
clear who was "attacker" and "defender" and also should
include not only men lost but men captured.
Tim



Joram -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 5:29:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

I also think that post battle reports should be more
clear who was "attacker" and "defender" and also should
include not only men lost but men captured.
Tim



I second that. I often can capture just as many people as I kill. And what ticks me off most is that the captured ones don't seem to affect the enemies NML.




Latour_Maubourg -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 12:39:56 PM)

Try this one. If you play France. Go and sit with your whole army in Burgundy, which is in the middle of the Russian and Austrian route to Paris. First they will attack with you with a normal descent army, You beat them and they fall back. Next turn they attack again with a depleted army. You beat them and they fall back. Next turn, you can guess it....
I think the AI army should check what the quality and quantity is from the opposing army compared to their own and then decide to attack or wait for reinforcements. Because its a bit pathetic that when I have 250.000 soldiers and they attack with 30.000 troops with no reinforcements nearby. Even 250.000 against 80 or even 100.000 soldiers is normally a win for the human player. Even more pathetic is 10.000 irr. cossacks attacking a huge army. Just my 2 francs.

L-M [:)]



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 2:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers
Not a complaint as i like the fighting part of the game
but nationally it seems that countries will continue to
shovel 50-80,000 man armies off to their distruction
over and over again and never ask nor accept a cease
fire or peace treaty...
As Prussia I faced a horde of low quality Turkish troops attacking into Poland and after 7-8 battles that all ended poorly for the Turks, the Turkish Empire surrendered.

I am not sure what their national moral was before these battles.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 2:17:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram


quote:

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

I also think that post battle reports should be more
clear who was "attacker" and "defender" and also should
include not only men lost but men captured.
Tim



I second that. I often can capture just as many people as I kill. And what ticks me off most is that the captured ones don't seem to affect the enemies NML.




I don't know, I got to disagree with this statement

I have posted (think it is in the war room) about how I defeated a Country in three months, based on the size of the battle and losses they took, which besides the losses, the number of POWs

I defeated Russia in one month, and they had a 1000 morale at the time I entered Russia, they surrender the next turn, with a -500 something morale (and they got 500 points to there morale for surrendering)

the thing is, a big battle does not effect the morale long, if there is a gap, between battles, the morale will climb again

HARD_Sarge



ian77 -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 3:12:12 PM)

H-S, Eric has confirmed that POWs do not effect NML at present. The drop in enemy morale was down to size of battle and the huge casualties d' hammer handed out.

Ian



Hard Sarge -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 4:09:27 PM)

don't forget though, Eric is talking persay

there is also a slaughter rule or % that the Program looks at

and the number of your troops, vs the number of it's troops

HARD_Sarge



MarcelJV -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 5:48:39 PM)

I nailed England in one turn. landed in London had a battle between 123000 british and may 103000 French. Result was 65000 casualties for England, which I believe included POWs as I had a lot of those too. NML to a drop of 1300+. So if you have alot of small battles the NML will not drop as fast, but get a big battle and you can score and end to the war quickly.

I had a one month war as England, where I won two giant naval battles and France then surrendered.

I had in the next month one battle with Spain and they surrendered. Land battle was 100000+ spanish verses 53000 English.



ian77 -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 6:25:32 PM)

Yes indeed, BIG battle and a decent win means a hellish morale loss to the loser.

Ian



ericbabe -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 6:43:18 PM)

The magic number for a huge morale loss is 100,000 strength on both sides, and a total casualty result of >10,000. In this case, the total morale lost by the losing side is 6x the normal amount.

(At both sides >100,000, the glory won/lost is double the normal amount.)




Hard Sarge -> RE: Too many battles? (8/18/2005 6:59:08 PM)

LOL
was just comeing in to tell about my last win

Aus Declared war on me, but I Was waiting on it, marched into his Cap, and had a big battle, 110,000 French vs 126,000 Aus

it was a good battle, I only had time to circle the wagons before they were on me, and if not for a few groups of Trees that I was able to use as flank cover, I may of been in trouble, they all but encircled me, but I kept pouring fire into them (4 Art, 1 Horse Art and 1 How come in handy)

battle ended with them loseing 30,000 troops, and 7 Divs surrendered

Aus went from 1000, to -986 in one turn

HARD_Sarge



Latour_Maubourg -> RE: Too many battles? (8/19/2005 12:46:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The magic number for a huge morale loss is 100,000 strength on both sides, and a total casualty result of >10,000. In this case, the total morale lost by the losing side is 6x the normal amount.

(At both sides >100,000, the glory won/lost is double the normal amount.)





Yes but even after you woop their butt. They keep coming back... One thing I must admit though. I had a Prussian army of about 175.000 marching towards Paris. But the moment I started sieging Berlin via Hannover (1809) they hurried back (its not that that move came as a surprise because that army had been in Hannover already for 2 years). Nice that they have priorities. Stupid that they didn't see my army in Hannover up front. ie would you attack an opposing nation's capital without covering your flanks? And I do understand that's difficult to program those things.


L-M



Joram -> RE: Too many battles? (8/19/2005 2:26:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The magic number for a huge morale loss is 100,000 strength on both sides, and a total casualty result of >10,000. In this case, the total morale lost by the losing side is 6x the normal amount.

(At both sides >100,000, the glory won/lost is double the normal amount.)




Ahhhh! No wonder I can never get these quick wins everyone talks about. I rarely bother forming a large army of my own because I don't need to to whoop their butt. My army sizes average around 75k. So I've never been able to hit this magic number. :(
Seems kinda silly that I now have to grow my armies even though I don't need to.

Is there any reason why both sides need to be that high? And the total casualty figure actually seems really low. Even if they come in with 50k, I can inflict 10k of casualties on them. Maybe it's my difficulty level? How does that affect detailed battles besides allowing them to bring in more people?




plasticpanzers -> RE: Too many battles? (8/19/2005 5:41:11 AM)

For my own "personal morale" i would like to know how many i do capture and how many casualties i inflict for a battle. If it has an effect upon their morale more
the better. Of course after the battle i can click on
the POWs and count them but it just would be easier and
more fun to read it in a post battle report.


Another point. What happens when you inflict 3 losses
of 50,000 men upon an enemy? I busted up or captured
almost whole 5 Austrian armies. I had over 100,000
Austrian captives and they still kept coming!

Tim



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.28125