Napoleon's Campaigns 2 Wish List

[berto]

By the way 15 days turns... is that planned for NCP2??
On NCP1 its 7 day turns. I woudl keep them even if it means a loooong grand campaign.

++1

In addition to the Grand Campaign ... i would strongly suggest to do some intermediate campaigns (1 or 2 years "Coalition" campaigns).

Hey, even I could go for that!

Seriously, one of my problems with long grand campaigns (IMHO, okay? I know I'm in the minority) is that the longer the timeline, the more it deviates from history, the more "fantasy" it becomes. It then just doesn't resonate with me.

But shorter "mini-grand campaigns", based on each of the distinct and separate Coalition Wars? Those I could relate to and fully enjoy playing.

Current NCP scenarios are too short (in most you start with all your forces ready for the kill)...

Extend the scenario starts backward in time a bit, a month to several months, therefore. Second drafts are usually better than the first. Existing NCP1 scenarios just need some revising.

[veji1]

I understand Philtib's and Aldertag's points. And de way I see it obviously NCP2 would be following the option 1 underlined by Aldertag.

But i must say that even if it is a very tedious task, the recutting of the map is for me a mustdo. I am a fervent AACW player, I have been playing it on and off since it was published, love it. But i didn't buy NCP1 because of some of the limitations a NCP2 should correct :
- Not enough scope for the player to shape the game, ie you start with a campaign where your troops stacking and OOB are largely predetermined, and so is your goal (run to vienna, go for Wellington, go for Moscow, etc...). Not what i wanted from a strategical/grand operationnal game.. It also meant less replayability
- timeframe too short or limited to too narrow a theatre (Peninsular...)
- Not enough diplomatic interaction, ie super foreign entry mechanism where players jostle to get Austria, Prussia, etc.. in with them...
- Problem of scale with the map. with the Ability of troops to move pretty fast and the limited options, the map wasn't detailed enough to offer real variety.

For NCP2 there are obvious things to do :

- A "diplomatic" engine that allows for the super foreign entry mechanism, doesn't need to be too fancy but really must give variety, lead to countries joining either side (obviously mainly coalition), or giving military passage to one side, etc... This would have to come with some sort of "peace settlement" engine. You cannot be at war with all all the time. for the game to have a flow the players should be able to reach partial settlements with weakened members of a coalition... sort of a "foreign exit" mechanism, that would for the coalition player to think long and hard about a country's situation :
ex : You play coalition in 1806 in a 1805-1808 game and you have UK, Russia, and Austria still at war, with Prussia having just joined. But on you "foreign entry" ledger you can see that Austria is on the verge of reaching the exiting the war threshold. PLus it has a very very low National moral due to objective cities (Vienna, Venice, Salzburg, Prag) being french occupied.. you could wish to lure the french away in the east but if you don't counterattack really soon, Austria will bail out, probably leaving the french with military passage but nothing for you, so you have to be aggressive and bring the war to their territory...

- A basic production model similar to the one in AACW but maybe blunter : you woul just go for the main options of calling for a class of conscripts, or several, or calling for volunteers, or general mobilization, and then this would lead to reinforcements appearing in your pools and new troops showing up in you main cities. you could by investing extra money ask for a focus on cavalry, artillery, light infantry or logistics... So lot less detailed than AACW but still giving you a role. The only more detail part would be for navy where you would invest for commissionning of ships with just the ability to say if you want more ships of the line or frigates...for the coalition these options would have to be for each of the different nationalities you control, with some options too costly for some countries, or impossible..;

- Either you do a real grand campaign, and in that case 2 week turns seem the best compromise, either you do scenarios of 1 to 3/4 years and then I think the 1 week turn would be best suited to emulate napoleonic war of movement... With a simplified production system, turns without war operation going on (because of winter of 2 sides being in buildup phase) would be fast so the pace wouldn't be too slow. 1 week turn allows for a player to really enjoy the operationnal aspect of the game, emulate the fan type of campaigning that leads to concentration right before the big battle, etc...

- The map would have to be recut to have more regions.. this is very tedious i understand, but Europe was a lot more built up than the US during the ACW, and regions have to be small enough to emulate the road network subtleties.. otherwise we end up with a stack meet stack game...

- rework the leader aspect of the game so that napoleon's ratings don't benefit too much his subordinates...

- Have 4 or 5 main scenarios :
1/ summer 1805 to end date november 1808 : The most known campaign, France and Spain (lukewarm ally) start at war against UK and Austria, with Russia close to tipping point and Prussia still away. The game ends when either the allies manage to force the french into accepting a sort of white peace (national moral + VPs) which basically amounts to a french defeat, or when the french manage to force a coaltion surrender or manages to leave the UK without continental ally, otherwise playable until the end of november 1808.
2/ early 1809- end 1811 : France (with german and italian minions with hardly any troops) starts at war in spain and against the UK, with fairly low morale and not many spare troops. Austria very close to tipping point, prussia historically weak, Russia long shot to get involved but possible. French victory is to : force UK troops out of Spain and Deprive UK of any continental ally except spain. Coalition victory, force french through national moral to accept defeat, ie some sort of peace settlement where they loose many parts of Germany and Italy and retire from spain.
3/ Russian Campaign early 1812- end 1813 : Probably a scenario by itself
4/ Germany-France campaing : early 1813 to end 1815 : France and Poland and german and italian minions against UK, Russia, Prussia, Spain, with Austria close to tipping point. Basically the goal for France is to manage to isolate UK and Spain by beating Prussia and Russia (with a peace threshold for Russia that means french player doesn't have to go back to moscow but to inflict a few defeats and threaten again russian territory) and avoiding austria in or beating it too. For Coalition, french surrender. Events for minions switching side if their territory is occupied etc..
5/ Waterloo campaign : march 1815-end 1816 : France against UK with Prussia and Russia very very close to tipping point, Spain and Austria further away. For the french the goal is to hold out till the end with a national moral high enough and a national moral low enough for the other continental powers that they would sign a white peace (Basically Napoleon is allowed to stay in Power). for the coalition, french surrender..

Basically leave a hypothetical grand campaign to modders, and have an addon in mind for the Revolution wars (1791-1794, 1796-1798, 1799-1801).

That would be my wish. With the key feature being the mechanism that checks each member of the coalitions (wether french side or british) side for their implication and leads to separate peaces or war declarations...

[Prins van Oranje]

I'm of the opinion that the game needs improvements, not a major overhaul. I like the feel of its command and control features, so I would hope that these essentials are not signficantly altered. The 7-day turn suits the era and the nature of Napoleonic manuevers. If that makes a 10yr campaign 480 turns then so be it.

I like the scenario lengths as they currently are: there's a good distribution of long-to-short ones, enough to suit all tastes I would've thought.

I think the one of the more pressing needs is to provide the player with more information when combat is resolved. In the case of 'marching to the sound of the guns' I would like to see information supplied that is specific to the corps that does the marching, so that it is distinct from the info we get about the corps that initiated the combat. A greater explanation of exactly what is going on in combat would certainly help - like which forces arrived too late to make any difference, and why did my heavy cavalry sustain so many lossess when the infantry hardly any.

A production system along the lines of ACW seems to me to be very problematic for NCP. Napoleon was essentially about conquest, so a France that is not geared to full-scale war production would be contrary to the game's purpose. Surely every state in Europe was arming as fast as circumstances allowed back then, so it would seem pointless to give players the option of scaling back war production for cultural benefits or the like? Or do we want to give Napoleon the chance to conquer Europe culturally rather than militarily? In 1809, Austria melted down the royal gold and silver to pay for the army - given the option, would any player decline the opportunity to do the same? No self-respecting megalomaniac would?

I would certainly like to see historical figures like Tallyrand and Metternich have a role in the game. I'm not sure how you could incorporate a diplomatic feature, but it would most certainly add to the game's depth and enjoyment.

[arsan]

A production system along the lines of ACW seems to me to be very problematic for NCP. Napoleon was essentially about conquest, so a France that is not geared to full-scale war production would be contrary to the game's purpose. Surely every state in Europe was arming as fast as circumstances allowed back then, so it would seem pointless to give players the option of scaling back war production for cultural benefits or the like? Or do we want to give Napoleon the chance to conquer Europe culturally rather than militarily? In 1809, Austria melted down the royal gold and silver to pay for the army - given the option, would any player decline the opportunity to do the same? No self-respecting megalomaniac would?

AACW production and economic system deals exclusively with war effort,. don't worry, there is nothing about cultural colonization.
But you can choose how much to indebt you nation or over conscript or overtax the population to fund your wars losing national moral and VP by doing so.

[Adlertag]

If we consider NCP2 will be an improved NCP, as PhilThib said, and therefore will keep its current system and its huge work on historical details, I still think that 7 days turn is a maximum.

So the job is focused on how to fit a possibly long campaign to that current system and its inherent limitations and not the reverse, that is : deciding the campaign will last, say, 10 years with 15 days turn to keep it playable and then searching by all means to adapt the current game engine to fit well with this new parameters.

At last, it seems unreasonable to have a whole 10 years campaign.

[veji1]

and lets not forget that a 10 years grand campaign requires a very dynamic diplomatic model, while scenarios lasting 1 to 3 or 4 years offer the scope of a grand campaign (50 to 200 turns...) while still being manageable with a somewhat crude individualised "foreign entry (and exit)" mechanism for the different countries involved...

Of course I would dream of a grand campaign, but on the bases of NCP1, it seems too far a goal. a game similar to the one I outlined would already be very exciting and I would sure buy it !

[PascalB]

I'll post my 2cts...

For a true campaign we have to stay in the logical features.
For leader improvements we have to begin the campaign in the birth of the conflicts when their names appeared. So for me, this campaign must start in 1799.
For the end limit, I'll see more interesting period as a "what if". Coz it's a campaign with historic features but not strictely historical, Napoleon is not forced to abdic in 1814, so, the end is not really to be in 1815. An end limit fixed at 1816'll be a bit more interesting for me. At these date, many conflicts begun to occur with all nationalist revendications throughout Europa.

So here're my wishes for time lenght and turn based time :
1 week turn and a start in Jan 1 1799 till Dec 31 1816

[veji1]

well the problem with that is that you have a grand campaign of 800-900 turns.. Simply unplayable except for Monster games fans à la WITP...

[arsan]

and lets not forget that a 10 years grand campaign requires a very dynamic diplomatic model, while scenarios lasting 1 to 3 or 4 years offer the scope of a grand campaign (50 to 200 turns...) while still being manageable with a somewhat crude individualised "foreign entry (and exit)" mechanism for the different countries involved...

Of course I would dream of a grand campaign, but on the bases of NCP1, it seems too far a goal. a game similar to the one I outlined would already be very exciting and I would sure buy it !

+1!
If the game will be strictly based on NCP1 i don't see how a 10 or 15 years "historical" campaigns can be made.
Or it will be completely ahistoric or so harnessed by events (like on EU1 or EU2) that the problem would be how to make sure the historical events have any kind of meaning with the current game situation.
Like herding cats!

For a full 10, 15 or 25 years long meaningful campaign that reflect all the diplomatic changes and politic evolutions that happened on the revolutionary and Napoleonic era a VGN like game (full strategic, diplomatic, economic and social game system).
Maybe for a VGN2 game??

[Beren]

That´s what i said from the beginning, the SCALE, with the NC1 scale is impossible ....

Let´s wait for RoP that is a 7 years game and we can approach better to this situation

In my opionion it should be a 2-player game, french and allies, against different coalitions (Great Britain the head of all of them) (with an entry level for each major and minor power, a very simple diplomatic engine) (this was my first try designing a card driven boardgame ).

Each province wit a manpower and economic value, and that´s all .

[PhilThib]

RoP is scaled with 2-weeks turns

[Beren]

Well, that confirms my theory then ...

As i have seen in RoP, areas are smaller arent they?... in that war the mobility of the armies were very very very small in comparison to the napoleonic wars and a 2 weeks-turn fits very well, then you can have a very good mix of strategic and operational levels.

But in Napo wars, 2 weeks will led to a strategic level, for example the 1805 campaign longs was of about 2 months, only 4-5 turns from the french frontier to Moravia... independent corps will lose their identities as you need all corps together to crash the enemy.

My vote is for 2 weeks turns then .

[veji1]

Hmm... I really think 1 week turns are the only way to get the flavour of Napoleonic campaigning properly... 2 week turns does not let the player campaign with his corps spread out and concentrate for the battle, he has to campaign with a big stack surrounded by mutually supporting corps, it lacks subtlety and manoeuver, which is the salt of napoleonic warfare...

AACW or ROP are not representative because in both cases, for different reasons, army were a lot less manoeuverable, so the scale in time and size is OK. But for napoleonic warfare through well connected german/italian areas, the areas need to be small enough and the timescale as well... And not all areas need to be the same size, the areas could get bigger and bigger the further east you go once you have reached poland...

[arsan]

Yes, the Seven years war lasted for... well, 7 years 15 days turns are OK.
But Napoleon usually ended his wars in something like in 7 weeks only that he started another one soon after...

[Beren]

Veji, if you want a decent operational scale, you will need turns of 2-3 days in a napoleonic campaign, even 1 day. In only 1 day campaigns changed drastically... and in 7 days, oh my god, a campaign was resolved... so watching the whole affair, for me 7 or 15 days is almost the same, as we are talking of strategical moves and not operational...

and if you want a game with an appropiate number or turns (not a WITP game) we need 15 days turns.

Only answer this simply question: Why do you want a great campaign game (10 years or more)? I think the answer is clear for all of us: to manage the diplomacy and the economics /recruitment, (apart from military of course).... if you want to fight operationally then you have NC1.

[berto]

if you want to fight operationally then you have NC1.

But NCP1 needs fixing, and that's stopped cold, ain't never gonna happen.

[Nial]

I guess the main question we are struggling with is do you want just a longer version of NCP1? Or do you want a real grand campaign that starts historicaly and then progresses not as history dictates, but as you dictate.

I for one don't want to nessesarily do things just like NAP. I'd like to have a chance to do things better than him. That to me is the whole point of a GC.

I don't want to live history. I want to change it. Otherwise why have a diplomatic model at all. Just set the historic dates that each specific country entered each conflict and be done with it.

I know re-doing the whole map is an arduous undertaking. But could not adjustments in key areas be made to slow down movement, and make the 15 day turn more palletable?

To be a real GC it must have the features associated with such. I vote for less restrictions, not more.


Nial

[berto]

In Europa Universalis III (just to give one example; I could also mention War in the Pacific and others...), most players will start a grand campaign (in 1399, 1453, whatever), then grow tired of it (because "losing"?) within 100-150 years and, in many cases, never play the game to its absolute end (1819, IIRC). This very question was asked recently at the EUIII Forum, and most players admitted to never playing beyond a hundred years or two.

We shouldn't assume that all NCP2 players will necessarily play the 500- (800-, 900- , whatever) turn game all the way from beginning to bitter (glorious?) end. I suspect that, with other "monster" games, many if not most players will tire of their current game well before the absolute, game-imposed end.

So, in this sense, maybe this concern about extreme game length is, practically speaking, a non-issue.

Anyway, to me, I don't see that much effective difference between a game that takes 250 vs. 500 vs. 800 turns. All are (theoretically) quite long, "monster" games.

But a fix to this is at hand: Like AACW, with grand campaign starts in 1861 (two versions), 1862, 1863 & 1864, offer NCP2 grand campaigns with different start data variants (e.g., 1799, 1805, 1806, 1809, 1812, 1813, and so on, depending on which Coalition War you want to start from)--with all of these variants ending at the same date (1815?).

<edit>

Players wanting a "medium-term" "grand campaign" would then have three options:

• Start at the earliest possible GC date (1799? or earlier, for the First Coalition), then play until they tire of it.
• Start at one of the later GC dates (1805, 1806, 1809, etc.) and play to the absolute end.
• Some combination of the above.

</edit>

[Nial]

I have to agree to a point. Even with AACW 120 game turns, I usually come to a point that I pretty much know whether I have won or lost. Having reached that point, I will at times continue for one reason or another. But not always. I could very easily live with 5-7 year campaigns if they are done right. My whole point was not about length so much as about content. I want control over as much as I can within the game structure.

Nial

[PhilThib]

That's pretty much what I had in mind

[Nial]

That's pretty much what I had in mind

[Prins van Oranje]

I would like the opportunity in version#2 to utilize the portions of the beautiful European map that have so far been negelected; ie, the ottoman empire and the east. Sometimes during a campaign on mainland Europe I will scroll over to Palestine just to have a look at its geographical features and to admire the work that went into its creation and bemoan its lack of utility.

[Pocus]

The map space would be much better used indeed. And the Ottomans should definitively be in.

[Nikel]

A reference for the production system, if several medium campaigns are going to be done (besides the full campaign ), could be this:

Ray Johnson's Napoleonic Armies. A Wargamer's Campaign Directory 1805 to 1815. Arms & Armour Press, 1984,

[Nikel]

Perhaps this question is stupid, sorry

But if the grand and/or the medium campaigns are going to start in 1805, then at least the Grande Armée was already "produced", so?

Well, more regiments were added with the years, but most of them were already there


Just a little bump, I had nothing more to say right now

[PhilThib]

Yes, sure, but a lots of regiments were harmed / destroyed during the various campaigns, so a production system will be necessary...

And don't forget the other side, there are not only French guys....don't you want to play the spanish?

[Nikel]

OK, but then is more a replacement of the already existing units, at least for the first years? Well perhaps I should have played more AACW In the book cited appear the numbers of the regiments already available for the french army in 1805, and there were already many of them

And don't forget the other side, there are not only French guys....don't you want to play the spanish?

No, in the napoleonic wars I am a french player

[Nial]

I also think that as you conquer territory, you should be able to do at least some recruiting in those territories. Which would allow you to increase the overall size of your armies.

You could also recruit build from allied countries. I see it sort of like Kentucky in AACW. When kentucky comes in on the Southern side? You get the ability to recruit from that territory. Of course it would be much less of a available recruiting pool.

Of course both options should be limited due to the different political situation in Europe.

But you can tell I'm trying to squeeze every last buildable unit I can out of the game.

Personaly Id rather not have a strict hard cap limit on units available to be recruited/built. Though I can understand why a strict historicly minded player would want such a cap.

Either way, I'll mod what I want in the end.


Nial

[Nikel]

Yes, that was historical.

The polish fought in the french side even before the Grand Duchy was established, but then they raised more regiments, lithuanians included.

Or in a minor scale in Portugal and Spain. Look at Joseph abilities to command spanish troops, though it was not implemented

The bavarians fought in the french side till 1813 when they changed sides, Bavaria was taken by the coalition.


In RoP the limit in the number will be historical IIRC, so should be in NCP2


Again the book cited has this information

[Taillebois]

Scenarios. scenarios, and more scenarios. And a random scenario generator. And a scenario editor for those who want to create their own.

Your grognards will demand more long campaigns and more economic detail. And still they will grumble.
Your bank manager will demand more customers. And still he will grumble.

I run a venture capital company (http://www.equityventures.co.uk) but I've been playing wargames for years (with a 30 year gap). So my views are a mixture of free advice and personal wants.

To get more customers without annoying your grognards:

Scenarios. scenarios, and more scenarios. And a random scenario generator. And a scenario editor for those who want to create their own. Oh, I've said that already, as did somebody earlier. Make this game seem terrific value - as did Civilization2, Combat Mission, Sid Meier's Gettysburg. Pay once, to play forever.

Make Easy level really easy; you need new customers to get a victory within 20 minutes (Difficult can be as difficult as makes a grognard's eyes water). If that means switching off 90% of the realism (e.g. as The Operational Art of War "Standard Rules") so be it. For every grognard you want a 100 new customers who at least give it a try.

Show troop numbers on the unit cards. Almost every battle report I've ever read says "X arrived with 20,000" or whatever. I don't want to have to use Ctrl to see who is going to arrive "first with the most" because I don't want to have to put down the drink which is in my left hand.

Don't under-estimate the intelligence of your grognards; don't over-estimate the needs of new customers.

With AACW, NCP, and WIA you have made games that are highly respected by the gaming community. But, as one who nearly threw away AACW, I think you need to make your games more accessible without diminishing the detail that your fans like. And the Napoleonic era is probably the fussiest of all wargame genres.

So, my recommendation:

1. Scenarios. scenarios, and more scenarios. And a random scenario generator. And a scenario editor for those who want to create their own. (I've said that three times now in case the message isn't clear)!

2. Do it as an add-on pack for 20 euros which includes the original game. This is to get new customers and yet be worthwhile for at least most of your existing grognards.

Best wishes

David Tallboys


PS - you might want to do a poll and see just how many people have actually completed the Spanish Ulcer. How about a free expansion pack for those who send you a screenshot from the end of the game?