First Impressions?

[Sol Invictus]

Probably more like Summer 2009.

[archita]

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! leure:



sigh

[Quitch]

I tried the demo channel scenario, and won after a shaky start. I liked the ability to fine tune the orders, I had small ships stationed at all the harbours with the big fleets sitting behind them in the channel waiting to intercept any French fleet which tried to break out... wonderful

How does the game handle multi-nationalities in a single scenario? I'd love to see an option for only one nationality to be under my control, so I can curse the Spanish as they fail to support my advance.

Rather disappointed at the lack of a full campaign. Feels like quite the step back. Surely at least some basic diplomacy is exactly what we'd expect to see in a new game, rather than just some new stats, a new map and new scenarios?

[rasnell]

I guess I just made some bad choices for my first three scenarios, but I'm disappointed enough to shelve this for a while until all the patches. I burned 10 hours in very disappointing games.

Can anyone suggest a scenario that seems to be working and is a balanced challenge?

Here are my specific complaints, experiences:

The Jena campaign, 1806, 19 turns: Horrendously unbalanced. I didn't even lose 1,000 men per turn while the enemy usually lost about 10 times that per turn. The end was 8,000 French casualties and 60,000 enemy casualties. So absurd that I didn't even have to worry about attrition, recovering strength and morale, etc. I had a backlog of 40-some recruits that never came into the game. I guess it's because I didn't need them, the losses were so low.

Scenario 6: Trafalgar, 11 turns: The objective does not match actual game play. It's Navy only, no Army will arrive, despite what the objective game text says. A tremendous waste of time.

Sun of Austerlitze, 1805 campaign, 15 turns: Just as unbalanced as Jena, with casualties of 35,000 French and 100,304 coalition.

Once it is patched and working, I like that replacements will come in without micromanaging.

I never saw an auto-garrison, a wonderful new feature if it actually worked. It appears the conditions for this to happen are so complex that I never saw it in three scenarios and 10 hours of play. Great concept, non-existent in gameplay at this point.

The font sizes and the message box are still way too small -- just like all previous Ageod games. Mouseover or rollover info on the tabs don't work (reported separately in "my bug collection.") The small fonts are getting to be an issue for us oldtime wargamers.

Ageod has always listened well to its customers and is quick to make significant upgrades and patches. IMHO, this is their worst of three launches -- a surprising disappointment with how polished BOA and AACW were at release. Perhaps Ageod raised expectations so high with the two previous successes. This game looks more like the first version of a Paradox game.

Sorry to be so blunt, but Ageod has never missed these basics before on their releases. Did something happen where there was not a beta testing team or was there a rush to beat Christmas sales?

My criticism is even more pointed when the U.S. dollar becomes so weak that a game like this costs $50. (I'm going to find it very hard to enjoy a download game with no box and no printed manual for $50). It just isn't worth what the previous games definitely were. Plus, it looks more like an expansion -- same everything, just different location of the world and different art. I know there are many new things happening, but it's all part of the background calculations, etc.

I remain hopeful that my opinion will change dramatically after the fixes are announced.

(I'm sorry that I started out grouchy to begin with because of the 6 days that it took to purchase the game. Some of this is not Ageod's fault: Three days of battling with Visa to authorize an international transaction; never did work. PayPal in French and took another few days to get the English instructions; a download file so huge that I can't possibly do this on my stupid satellite internet unless I set aside three days for downloading (thanks to another gamer for sending me the generic setup which worked fine with my purchased activation code).

[Pocus]

It is true that some bugs exists, but it is not different from AACW 1.00. Given the complexity of the rules involved, one can say this was pretty much expected.

As for the unbalanced scenarios, I suppose you are speaking of scenario played in 1.01c, because some of Napoleon abilities were over rated by the engine in 1.01a. For the rest, you should try scenarios which were much more harder for the French Empire. For example 1812 or 1813.

[Clovis]

I guess I just made some bad choices for my first three scenarios, but I'm disappointed enough to shelve this for a while until all the patches. I burned 10 hours in very disappointing games.

Can anyone suggest a scenario that seems to be working and is a balanced challenge?

Here are my specific complaints, experiences:

The Jena campaign, 1806, 19 turns: Horrendously unbalanced. I didn't even lose 1,000 men per turn while the enemy usually lost about 10 times that per turn. The end was 8,000 French casualties and 60,000 enemy casualties. So absurd that I didn't even have to worry about attrition, recovering strength and morale, etc. I had a backlog of 40-some recruits that never came into the game. I guess it's because I didn't need them, the losses were so low.

Scenario 6: Trafalgar, 11 turns: The objective does not match actual game play. It's Navy only, no Army will arrive, despite what the objective game text says. A tremendous waste of time.

Sun of Austerlitze, 1805 campaign, 15 turns: Just as unbalanced as Jena, with casualties of 35,000 French and 100,304 coalition.

Once it is patched and working, I like that replacements will come in without micromanaging.

I never saw an auto-garrison, a wonderful new feature if it actually worked. It appears the conditions for this to happen are so complex that I never saw it in three scenarios and 10 hours of play. Great concept, non-existent in gameplay at this point.

The font sizes and the message box are still way too small -- just like all previous Ageod games. Mouseover or rollover info on the tabs don't work (reported separately in "my bug collection.") The small fonts are getting to be an issue for us oldtime wargamers.

Ageod has always listened well to its customers and is quick to make significant upgrades and patches. IMHO, this is their worst of three launches -- a surprising disappointment with how polished BOA and AACW were at release. Perhaps Ageod raised expectations so high with the two previous successes. This game looks more like the first version of a Paradox game.

Sorry to be so blunt, but Ageod has never missed these basics before on their releases. Did something happen where there was not a beta testing team or was there a rush to beat Christmas sales?

My criticism is even more pointed when the U.S. dollar becomes so weak that a game like this costs $50. (I'm going to find it very hard to enjoy a download game with no box and no printed manual for $50). It just isn't worth what the previous games definitely were. Plus, it looks more like an expansion -- same everything, just different location of the world and different art. I know there are many new things happening, but it's all part of the background calculations, etc.

I remain hopeful that my opinion will change dramatically after the fixes are announced.

(I'm sorry that I started out grouchy to begin with because of the 6 days that it took to purchase the game. Some of this is not Ageod's fault: Three days of battling with Visa to authorize an international transaction; never did work. PayPal in French and took another few days to get the English instructions; a download file so huge that I can't possibly do this on my stupid satellite internet unless I set aside three days for downloading (thanks to another gamer for sending me the generic setup which worked fine with my purchased activation code).

AS far I know, both Iena and Austerlitz are the greatest Napoleon's victories... Did you tried 1812, 1813, 1814? It seems your results being close to reality. Do you tried with Prussia or Austria in 1805 or 1806?

Trafalgar scenario: as much I know, Trafalgar is a naval battle, no? Isn't too another scenario depicting an hypothetical French invasion of Great Britain in 1805? Do you played this one too?

Do you played EU2 1.0? HOI 1.0? I did. I wouldn't seriously compare NCP to these broken games, full of bugs, provoking CTD or so seriously flawed simulations Paradox forums were full of complaints.

Shelve NCP if you want. I'm not really sure your complaints are really so fair.

[Sol Invictus]

rasnell, it seems that NC has about as many bugs as the other releases by AGEOD, which are relatively minor and quickly addressed. It sounds like you are frustrated for several reasons and it may be better if you play something else for a bit and come back to NC in a couple of weeks. Also, did you really expect the French to not dominate the Coalition in the Austerlitz and Jena Campaigns? I imagine that Spain, Russia, and the 1813 Campaign will be much more difficult for the French. I also suggest that you give pbem a shot if you haven't before. I hope you stick with the game and come to enjoy it in a few weeks.

[pablius]

I guess I just made some bad choices for my first three scenarios, but I'm disappointed enough to shelve this for a while until all the patches. I burned 10 hours in very disappointing games.

Can anyone suggest a scenario that seems to be working and is a balanced challenge?

Here are my specific complaints, experiences:

The Jena campaign, 1806, 19 turns: Horrendously unbalanced. I didn't even lose 1,000 men per turn while the enemy usually lost about 10 times that per turn. The end was 8,000 French casualties and 60,000 enemy casualties. So absurd that I didn't even have to worry about attrition, recovering strength and morale, etc. I had a backlog of 40-some recruits that never came into the game. I guess it's because I didn't need them, the losses were so low.

Scenario 6: Trafalgar, 11 turns: The objective does not match actual game play. It's Navy only, no Army will arrive, despite what the objective game text says. A tremendous waste of time.

Sun of Austerlitze, 1805 campaign, 15 turns: Just as unbalanced as Jena, with casualties of 35,000 French and 100,304 coalition.

Once it is patched and working, I like that replacements will come in without micromanaging.

I never saw an auto-garrison, a wonderful new feature if it actually worked. It appears the conditions for this to happen are so complex that I never saw it in three scenarios and 10 hours of play. Great concept, non-existent in gameplay at this point.

The font sizes and the message box are still way too small -- just like all previous Ageod games. Mouseover or rollover info on the tabs don't work (reported separately in "my bug collection.") The small fonts are getting to be an issue for us oldtime wargamers.

Ageod has always listened well to its customers and is quick to make significant upgrades and patches. IMHO, this is their worst of three launches -- a surprising disappointment with how polished BOA and AACW were at release. Perhaps Ageod raised expectations so high with the two previous successes. This game looks more like the first version of a Paradox game.

Sorry to be so blunt, but Ageod has never missed these basics before on their releases. Did something happen where there was not a beta testing team or was there a rush to beat Christmas sales?

My criticism is even more pointed when the U.S. dollar becomes so weak that a game like this costs $50. (I'm going to find it very hard to enjoy a download game with no box and no printed manual for $50). It just isn't worth what the previous games definitely were. Plus, it looks more like an expansion -- same everything, just different location of the world and different art. I know there are many new things happening, but it's all part of the background calculations, etc.

I remain hopeful that my opinion will change dramatically after the fixes are announced.

(I'm sorry that I started out grouchy to begin with because of the 6 days that it took to purchase the game. Some of this is not Ageod's fault: Three days of battling with Visa to authorize an international transaction; never did work. PayPal in French and took another few days to get the English instructions; a download file so huge that I can't possibly do this on my stupid satellite internet unless I set aside three days for downloading (thanks to another gamer for sending me the generic setup which worked fine with my purchased activation code).

The Austerlitz and Jena scenarios maybe a lost hope, since the unballance maybe "historically hardcoded"...Playing as the prussians there seems to be no way to avoid total defeat but to retreat, reorganize and bet on the AI to spread thin...wich it seems to do, but given the slim chances of a fully active prussian army and the short lenght of the scenario...the chances of linking with the russians in a meaningfull way are few...an option to extend the scenario for the coalition would be welcome...I won the scenario buy points without even engaging in a single mayor battle...but it was no fun to win by just letting the french army to wander around...Haven´t play Austerlitz with the Austrians yet

On a more positive note, the 1807, 1809 and specially the 1813 campaign give a much more ballance and fun experience since there are more overall choices to make

[rasnell]

I'll take the helpful advice about the more balanced and more challenging scenarios. Not knowing any of this history, I guess I really chose poorly for my first 10 hours of frustrating play. And I won everything overwhelmingly.

I question setting up scenarios that are so historically accurate that you can't possibly alter the outcome or have any sort of competitive playability.

So Napoleon repeatedly seized cities where he killed 10,000 entrenched people and only last 3 to 5 men? That's what I'm talking about. Very unrewarding and frustrating.

However, I'll shelve this for a while and come back to the more balanced scenarios that you've noted.

Yes, Pocus, I quit after the 1c patch.

It's hard to top how good BOA and AACW are at this point and they offer far more balanced challenges in every scenario.

Anyone have an answer as to why replacements never arrived? I had 40-some units on the screen waiting to come in but they never did. Is that because my losses were so minimal that they never arrived? Do they only fill existing slots or actually add to your forces if you invested in them -- like new recruits in BOA?

[pablius]

I'll take the helpful advice about the more balanced and more challenging scenarios. Not knowing any of this history, I guess I really chose poorly for my first 10 hours of frustrating play. And I won everything overwhelmingly.

I question setting up scenarios that are so historically accurate that you can't possibly alter the outcome or have any sort of competitive playability.

So Napoleon repeatedly seized cities where he killed 10,000 entrenched people and only last 3 to 5 men? That's what I'm talking about. Very unrewarding and frustrating.

However, I'll shelve this for a while and come back to the more balanced scenarios that you've noted.

Yes, Pocus, I quit after the 1c patch.

It's hard to top how good BOA and AACW are at this point and they offer far more balanced challenges in every scenario.

Anyone have an answer as to why replacements never arrived? I had 40-some units on the screen waiting to come in but they never did. Is that because my losses were so minimal that they never arrived? Do they only fill existing slots or actually add to your forces if you invested in them -- like new recruits in BOA?

First, I´m not an expert, but a couple of months before the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon performed a flanking manouver that ended with the surrender of several thousand austrians at Ulm, with much fewer losses on the french side...It is in fact possible to recreate this at the Austerlitz scenario, if you look at the starting positions you see that the french corps can indeed march to the east of the austrians at Ulm and at the same time attack from the west...

Regarding replacement, they only fill losses on existing elements, no new units will appear unless scripted in the scenario...that´s my understanding at least, there´s no "unit creation" procedure in NCP...

[Clovis]

First, I´m not an expert, but a couple of months before the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon performed a flanking manouver that ended with the surrender of several thousand austrians at Ulm, with much fewer losses on the french side...It is in fact possible to recreate this at the Austerlitz scenario, if you look at the starting positions you see that the french corps can indeed march to the east of the austrians at Ulm and at the same time attack from the west...

Regarding replacement, they only fill losses on existing elements, no new units will appear unless scripted in the scenario...that´s my understanding at least, there´s no "unit creation" procedure in NCP...

indeed there's no production system.

[rasnell]

Does this make sense for the design and intention: No matter what you spend to get new troops, you're not going to get them unless you sustain enough losses for replacements?

Why shouldn't they come into the game because they've been recruited and paid for?

This must mean that NCP does not distinguish between replacements and reinforcements like AACW, right? I'm not sure why we'd go a step backward with a new game release.

Pocus, was it really intended to hold units in reserve until losses require them? How hard would it be to give us the option to let them come in as newly drafted recruits? Is there a historic reason for avoiding this?

[Pocus]

This is the same function as the replacements pool of AACW. What is not in is the reinforcement screen, with the 'tin soldiers in wooden box'. With focused military campaigns and 3000 possible units, the AACW system would not fit in NC.

[rasnell]

This is the same function as the replacements pool of AACW. What is not in is the reinforcement screen, with the 'tin soldiers in wooden box'. With focused military campaigns and 3000 possible units, the AACW system would not fit in NC.

Could you help me understand better: What is your design intent? How are these replacements supposed to come in? When units survive but need reinforced; go to a large city; click on passive stance to get the reinforcements?

If the unit is eliminated, then this means no replacement at all? If you have virtually no losses, also no replacements and that's why I would end scenarios with 45-60 unused units?

[caranorn]

I can't speak for Philippe, but the game mechanics are simple. 1) You can use replacements in two ways, replenish elements (parts of a unit) that had become depleted (showing red color in the element's icon while hovering the mouse over it's parent unit (1st and 2nd Grenadier Regiments of the Imperial Guard in attached image)). 2) You can recreate a destroyed (or never existing) element in a unit (brigade, not within a division). What you cannot replace is an entire brigade that was destroyed (all elements were destroyed).

And yes, that means that in general, if you are very successful in battle, you won't have a use for replacements.

P.S.: Note that historically fresh troops at a depot could not simply be whipped into an all new unit. What could be done was to form a new battalion for an existing regiment but that was unlikely (it's really outside the scope of this game), or form a provisory unit for some special task (many such in Spain) (which I'd like to see in game to a limited degree (additional (locked) garrisons at important depots to represent troops waiting for their next assignement).

[joram]

Rather disappointed at the lack of a full campaign. Feels like quite the step back. Surely at least some basic diplomacy is exactly what we'd expect to see in a new game, rather than just some new stats, a new map and new scenarios?

My initial impressions based on the demo so far have not been favorable. It is pretty but doesn't really add anything new to Ageod's otherwise fine gamebase. I'm also really disappointed in the lack of a full campaign. I sure hope it's not going to be offered at some future point for a price, it should have been here since the beginning!

[rasnell]

I can't speak for Philippe, but the game mechanics are simple. 1) You can use replacements in two ways, replenish elements (parts of a unit) that had become depleted (showing red color in the element's icon while hovering the mouse over it's parent unit (1st and 2nd Grenadier Regiments of the Imperial Guard in attached image)). 2) You can recreate a destroyed (or never existing) element in a unit (brigade, not within a division). What you cannot replace is an entire brigade that was destroyed (all elements were destroyed).

And yes, that means that in general, if you are very successful in battle, you won't have a use for replacements.

P.S.: Note that historically fresh troops at a depot could not simply be whipped into an all new unit. What could be done was to form a new battalion for an existing regiment but that was unlikely (it's really outside the scope of this game), or form a provisory unit for some special task (many such in Spain) (which I'd like to see in game to a limited degree (additional (locked) garrisons at important depots to represent troops waiting for their next assignement).

I can't believe how slow or lost I am, especially after owning BOA and AACW. I simply do not understand why replacements are not coming into my games. I'm persisting, despite my unhappiness, and now am trying the suggested 1812 scenario.

No matter what I do, I'm winning, blowing away the Russians, and there's just no fun in this. I'm playing at normal. I'm killing them 3:1 (at least it's not 100:1 like before patch 1.01d.)

But I do nothing in the F3 window and I keep gaining replacements in the F2 window and they never come into the game. I don't get it. I assume this is not a manual replacement, that it happens automatically. I also assume that you take depleted corps, division, etc. into a large city with supplies and click passive so they can replenish?

I've got control of the territories and green links showing supply links. Yet I've got 49 infantry, 25 militia and 17 cavalry and their numbers increase in the replacement window; don't get used or appear in the game.

I'm lost. I don't get it. And yet I'm winning so overwhelmingly -- now in the fourth scenario that I've attempted -- that the game is not fun at all.

Surely one of these scenarios has to be a challenge to the French or more balanced? Please help me understand the replacements in even more basic terms. The manual doesn't give the basics, it just explains the F2 and F3 windows but not how to get the forces into the game.

Please note that I've never been a critic of this company, a troll, etc. But I've not found anything of interest or challenge in NCP. I've got to be missing something. It's the first Ageod game where I have to say -- gulp -- that it's BORING. I never thought I would say that.

Please assure me that better scenarios are coming, more challenging, more balanced, perhaps alternate history, and maybe even a full campaign. I've now tried Trafalgar, Austerlitz, Jena and Russian 1812 and I probably won't burn many more hours on a wasted cause.

Has anybody found any other scenario that challenges them?

[Clovis]

I can't believe how slow or lost I am, especially after owning BOA and AACW. I simply do not understand why replacements are not coming into my games. I'm persisting, despite my unhappiness, and now am trying the suggested 1812 scenario.

No matter what I do, I'm winning, blowing away the Russians, and there's just no fun in this. I'm playing at normal. I'm killing them 3:1 (at least it's not 100:1 like before patch 1.01d.)

But I do nothing in the F3 window and I keep gaining replacements in the F2 window and they never come into the game. I don't get it. I assume this is not a manual replacement, that it happens automatically. I also assume that you take depleted corps, division, etc. into a large city with supplies and click passive so they can replenish?

I've got control of the territories and green links showing supply links. Yet I've got 49 infantry, 25 militia and 17 cavalry and their numbers increase in the replacement window; don't get used or appear in the game.

I'm lost. I don't get it. And yet I'm winning so overwhelmingly -- now in the fourth scenario that I've attempted -- that the game is not fun at all.

Surely one of these scenarios has to be a challenge to the French or more balanced? Please help me understand the replacements in even more basic terms. The manual doesn't give the basics, it just explains the F2 and F3 windows but not how to get the forces into the game.

Please note that I've never been a critic of this company, a troll, etc. But I've not found anything of interest or challenge in NCP. I've got to be missing something. It's the first Ageod game where I have to say -- gulp -- that it's BORING. I never thought I would say that.

Please assure me that better scenarios are coming, more challenging, more balanced, perhaps alternate history, and maybe even a full campaign. I've now tried Trafalgar, Austerlitz, Jena and Russian 1812 and I probably won't burn many more hours on a wasted cause.

Has anybody found any other scenario that challenges them?

hum...and winter in russia? did you finish 1812?

[Pocus]

Rasnell, if your units don't suck up replacements, even if sitting supplied in a city, please check if you don't have Hardened Attrition checked. This rule asks the player to be on a depot to get replacements.

As Caranorn said, replacements are not used to create brand new regiments from troops depots. They are used to refill existing ones, or are formed into ersatz bataillion which are sent to exisiting formations. Now there are several things to consider:

a) auto-garrisoning. I will check if the conditions are not too hard, this can be the case. Garrisons will soon use some of your replacements, by creating small detachments in importants places.

b) forming new units. We are studying that for a patch. With a certain level of replacements, we will give new units and some replacements will be substracted.

c) extended scenarios. Yes they are definitively planned, just give us some time.

[rasnell]

hum...and winter in russia? did you finish 1812?

They suffered more in winter than I did. I cut them off and got behind their lines, secured the territory loyalty and control, and kept hammering their supply wagons. I kept sending different corps to keep pounding the weak so they couldn't get away.

[rasnell]

Rasnell, if your units don't suck up replacements, even if sitting supplied in a city, please check if you don't have Hardened Attrition checked. This rule asks the player to be on a depot to get replacements.

I'll check my settings when I get back home. I don't recall that in the options menu, but maybe that's the source of my problems.

As Caranorn said, replacements are not used to create brand new regiments from troops depots. They are used to refill existing ones, or are formed into ersatz bataillion which are sent to exisiting formations. Now there are several things to consider:

What is a troop depot? Is this the same as a supply depot? I thought large cities are where you went to refill? Or any place that has a stack of supplies (in the supply view).

a) auto-garrisoning. I will check if the conditions are not too hard, this can be the case. Garrisons will soon use some of your replacements, by creating small detachments in importants places.

I'd love to have options to automatically draw from a force in the city; better yet use that pile of replacements in F2 that isn't going anywhere.

b) forming new units. We are studying that for a patch. With a certain level of replacements, we will give new units and some replacements will be substracted.

Of course, the downside is that I would have even more of an unfair advantage as the French.

c) extended scenarios. Yes they are definitively planned, just give us some time.

Would you agree that Napoleon was so awesome in the early battles, historically, that it's creating an unbalanced game if you try to follow history too closely? We love AACW because it really is possible to win with either side and you've got to fight and earn it. Lot of fun.

It's hard to write tone into messages. I know that you're responsive to your customers and are working extraordinary hours to keep tweaking and tinkering. BOA and AACW turned into amazing products. You've raised expectations so high and I guess that I expected more in your third try.

I know your track record. My grouchy gripes will eventually go away because you'll listen, tweak, fix, upgrade and improve.

Here are a couple of more suggestions:

1. I love seeing my morale and victory reports in the game screen without having to go to the ledger. But I'd never need to go to the ledger if you could also show enemy morale and victory points in the game screen (Hint, hint).

2. Is there any way to help us old folks actually see the messages, text and unit info with larger fonts or using more of the screen to display the message box, maybe even a popup message box?

3. Is F4 an undeveloped feature? In four scenarios, it has always been blank.

4. You need a shortcut key for next turn (F9).

(Pocus, as a personal note, I'm on the beta testing team for Out of the Park Baseball. I think that I'm awful tough on the game developer with how hard I push and test the game. So rough on him that I got invited back for a second year and I think he's developed the most comprehensive baseball sim on the market -- which is saying a lot because I've owned every competitor that I was ever aware of. Thanks for listening and never getting upset with my criticism; I still have high hopes for NCP ).

[Clovis]

They suffered more in winter than I did. I cut them off and got behind their lines, secured the territory loyalty and control, and kept hammering their supply wagons. I kept sending different corps to keep pounding the weak so they couldn't get away.

Do you play with historical attrition?

[rasnell]

Do you play with historical attrition?

If that is the default setting in the options, yes. I'll have to check my settings when I get home.

I took a ton of hits for weather, but they hurt far worse than me and it's so unbalanced that I can still beat them when I'm in the red and not getting any replacements at all.

[Pocus]

Some answers:

I confirm that the auto garrison feature has got some problems, which will be fixed in the next quick patch. Also, we will ease the conditions to trigger such garrison.

I just checked, playing the 1806 scenario, Prussian, normal attrition and got replacements, no problems. Perhaps you had no losses as you says? But at the very least if you have regiments in the red, resting them in a supplied town should have them refill.

There is a short cut to end turn: ctrl-F9, try it, it is there since some months. We are adding ctrl-shift-S for 'save turn' in the next patch.

Troops depots are not structures on map, they are supposed to be in your staging area. This was a 'concept' of the Napoleonic era.

For the too small messages, it really depends of your screen resolution. Basically if you have a long screen, it should be no problems. But if it is, there is the possibility of scaling up the fonts in a file... although everything will be scaled up and some overlap can appears. That's one of the problem of DirectX applications, they are much less versatile than a plain windows application on user interface features... Without directX, I would be able to propose much more advanced thingies like scalable fonts, windows, buttons and such... But I disgress.

[Clovis]

If that is the default setting in the options, yes. I'll have to check my settings when I get home.

I took a ton of hits for weather, but they hurt far worse than me and it's so unbalanced that I can still beat them when I'm in the red and not getting any replacements at all.

no, it's the middle checkbox ( applying only to human player).

[Franciscus]

I would like just to add my 2 cents to this discussion. I will be frank. I knew that we would not get a full campaign, no diplomacy, etc, so I was and am convinced that the present iteration of NCP is more of a step toward a more full game later on, if this one is successful. As I wish that in the future we can indeed get a "complete" game, that was the main reason I bought it. I am sure this reason is debatable by someone maybe a bit more rational than I am (please do not tell my wife :niark
But the 1813 seems to be a much more balanced scenario. And I expect the the spanish campaign would be also, but have not tried it.

[Nial]

Hmm......first impressions. Have played a few turns of all scenario's. Quite a bit of one or two.

First off, I like the clean look. Like the faster turns. Love the map. No probs with any of the mechanics.

Bad. Not enough control. I can't recruit units? I have yet to see myself get any new generals. Certainly not any significant amounts. I think I misunderstood the focus of this game. I (obviously) mistakenly assumed it was going to be based on the same general base as ACW. I want to build my forces, not play canned OODs. I have played all Naps battles over the years. I had hoped I would have 'some' control over the make up of my forces? Without having to spend hours unforming and reforming divisions. I want to build Napoleons army. Not just fight it.

I do like playing the different scenario's. But as I have said. I have played all these battles before in one format or another. I have never even seen anything but a blank page in additional options. Are there any? Military options- ok, but the scenario's are so short! I haven't used any of them yet. Other than just to check out what they do. The only decent long campaign is Spain. And as a campaign it has some special issues and conditions that make it a bit too chaotic for my taste.

So, all in all Im a bit disapointed. Mostly my own fault for assuming that NC was like ACW.

Nial

[pablius]

There is, I think, an issue with what expectations each of us had. When I learned that there would be no grand campaign I was dissapointed but at the same time I adjusted my expectations to what was offered to me in NCP.

If pressed to choose, I would go with AACW just for the grand campaign and it´s open ended nature...even when I prefer the Napoleonic setting by far...But I don´t feel cheated either, I knew the game would be scenario based...

I´m also happy to know some improvments are in study, specially the option to extend some scenarios...I think that unit creation should be optional in any case, because although it can deffinitly add a lot to the game it also may get some people angry if forced upon...There are people that want to play as historical as possiblo too, even if the viable strategies in a given scenario are few. I´m always for more options.

[mjlaufgr]

For the record, Austerlitz is certainly not unbeatable as it stands. After the patches, I went from losing by 100 points to winning by 100 points as the Coalition.

[pablius]

For the record, Austerlitz is certainly not unbeatable as it stands. After the patches, I went from losing by 100 points to winning by 100 points as the Coalition.

Certanly, Jena and Austerlitz are not unbeatable, that is, in game terms, I beat jena by just retreating to Berlin with the whole prussian army...I don´t know exactly how are points gained, but I won by just sitting there...Austerlitz presented more options (do I try to defend Ulm or not?, etc) and at least the AI did try to mount on offensive where my army was regrouping just north of Munich...and the lenght of the scenario allows (barely) to link with the Russians and try a counter attack...

The problem seems to be, at least to me, not that I can´t win within the rules of the game, but that some scenarios don´t present enough options or variables to be "fun"...An as I said eariler, it may well be the case that it´s just the way it is because historically there were not many options...In a game that takes an abstract approach to tactical issues one option could be to insert "what if" scenarios...I.E: What if the Austrians and Russians actually used the same calendar? (among other things) and were in better shape and disposition to face the french offensive.