First Impressions?

[dinsdale]

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.

I disagree. It's quite possible as the Prussians to frustrate and slow the French down. It may not be as rewarding as smashing them in open combat, but post-Jena, Napleon redrew the map of Europe precisely because of the dramatic and devastating victory.

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.

Pocus has said the Napoleon modifier has been toned down. But essentially yes, for the first 3 European campaigns, Bonaparte was able to utterly destroy the Austrian, Prussian and to some extent Russian field armies.

There's a reason why his name is linked to Alexander and others in debates about the greatest military leader in human history.

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

The French and Indian war scenario isn't very balanced, neither is the AACW campaign. However, by acting differently to history, one may play through a fairly competative game. I would suggest the same technique in NC.

But if the Austrians leave Mack in Ulm, then generally, that army should be destroyed with barely a loss to the French. If the Prussians meet the French army early in 1807, don't be surprised if that army is destroyed too.

[rasnell]

But a game needs to be fun, challenging, and offer interesting choices to the gamer. It's wonderful to enhance our knowledge and history, but something that lacks fun or interesting alternate challenges for the individual is called a history book and not a game.

The released version is a decent first step and I'm hoping that there's much more to come with scenarios and an extended campaign.

[rasnell]

I checked my options. I was on the default standard attrition, not historical attrition.

Here's what the manual says:

Note: With the Hardened Attrition rule, a unit won’t get replacements unless in a depot!

None of the three options is called "hardened attrition." There is standard, historical for player, historical for AI.

If I'm in "standard," do I get replacements in large cities AND depots? If I am in "historical attrition," do I only get replacements in depots? (Manual is referring to a term that is not in the options so the game tool tip in options menu needs to be reworded or the manual needs to be changed.)

I had a lead of 770-555 by Turn 18 of the 1812 Russian campaign. I put my forces into depots and cities and set to passive. I played out the remaining turns until the end of the game (32 turns). There were no more real battles, no cities changed and I finished with 34 infantry, 32 militia and 9 cavalry that never came into the game.

I did nothing after the 18th turn, sat in place, was behind in cities 12-29, never got any of my replacements, and still won the game. My setting is "normal" on difficulty. (This now makes 5 scenarios, 4 days, and about 20 hours of the most boring game play that I've experienced since Pong.)

With standard default settings on attrition, am I doing this right?:
1. Place damaged corps, divisions, etc. in depots or large cities.
2. Set them to passive.
3. Expect to see replacements?

In the message window, there is an icon or filter that shows the arrival of replacements. It was greyed out for all 32 rounds.

What am I missing here?

[dinsdale]

But a game needs to be fun, challenging, and offer interesting choices to the gamer. It's wonderful to enhance our knowledge and history, but something that lacks fun or interesting alternate challenges for the individual is called a history book and not a game.

You can get those, but not by playing the French at Austerlitz or Jena.

What's the point of having a game based on the period, trying to mimic the warfare of the time, and then make it completely detached from the reality of the period?

Austerlitz, Jena and Poland were three dominant campaigns giving France unparalleled mastery of Europe. There shouldn't be balance, it should be very hard for the Coalition.

Maybe the French victory conditions need to be made harder; it's possible to win Austerlitz without crushing the Russian army for example, and maybe the AI can be improved to adopt the lated allied strategy of avoiding Napoleon and making him beat bushes chasing them.

I haven't tried Austerlitz as the Austrians, but it's a good challenge to play the Prussians or Russians in the next two campaigns. The Danube campaign as France should be tougher too.

1813 or Peninsular War as France should be exceedingly challenging, and 1815 almost impossible. If not, then there definately need to be some improvements made to the engine, or to events.

The released version is a decent first step and I'm hoping that there's much more to come with scenarios and an extended campaign.

We have almost the entire war in single scenarios. Aside from minor excursions in Flanders, Southern Italy, or adding the pre-Imperial period, we have the Napoleonic Wars. A campaign game, or linked scenarios would be great, but essentially the campaigns should be identical. It's not as though Austria can mobolize another 50 divisions or the Prussians revitalize their army 10 years ahead of time, so a linked Austerlitz+Jena+Poland should look very similar to playing the three seperate.

IMHO some imagination in creating alternative history might be needed. Prussian involvement in 1805, a Wellington landing in Flanders 1809, or similar might spice up the game with new challenges.

[Pocus]

Replacements are to replace thing Rasnell. If you did nothing but wait on your depots and cities, they won't be used up.

[rasnell]

Replacements are to replace thing Rasnell. If you did nothing but wait on your depots and cities, they won't be used up.

But I had suffered losses and attrition and was setting on the depots and cities.

What about the standard attrition question? Does that setting mean you SHOULD get replacements on depots AND cities?

[DennyWright]

I think that in most scenarios players should pick the side that lost historically - that's where the challenge is. You can't do better than Napoleon in his early career - the guy was unstoppable.

But take the other side and try to find a way.

With the Waterloo scenario, I played as Britain/Prussia (yes, I know they won). The first thing the AI did was to scuttle back to Paris then wait for an opportunity to catch my forces stretched out on the way to attack them.

The Peninsula War is also a good challenge.

[rasnell]

The thread is called first impression and I'm sorry that mine wasn't very good in the first five scenarios that I tried.

Maybe I should start a new thread called second impressions because it's getting a whole lot better.

Thanks to Dinsdale, I'm now playing Danube as the French. Now that's more like it. I thought I'd just sit back and do nothing and watch how I could win another boring round.

Well, that didn't work and I've got my hands full now and it's only the fourth turn.

Take heart, Pocus. It took me six tries but I think I finally found the scenario that has the flavor I've come to expect from Ageod. I'm still waiting to see if I can figure out how to work the F2 and F3 screens. The manual is very weak in that area.

Next I'll try Denny Wright's suggestions and see if that's the challenge I was looking for.

[Pocus]

F3 has still to be populated, I confirm. In the next patch we will issue a first try on F3 options for the 1812 scenario, where each side will get some options to receive new units (not just replacements) using the F3 page (Basically you ask for infantry or artillery units, and you pay the cost with your replacements, if you find you have too much iddle ).

As for the scenarios balances, if you take the side who whon historically, I suggest you crank the AI difficulty. Something I noticed is that most players have no difficulty playing against an AI in many games, with a difficulty setting favoring it (like when you play Civ4, I generally play on Emperor or more) but for the AGE serie of game, they don't give any advantages... That is not fair for poor Athena

Last, it is true that some scenarios are much more interesting and challenging if you play against a buddy, even if we know that most of you don't want to hear about the word 'PBEM', this is always a rewarding experience.

[Pocus]

Note on replacements: if you run the 1806 scenario, Prussian side, 2 replacements should be used by your units. If you don't have that, then this is a weird behavior. Getting replacements definitively do work in the game.

[Nial]

Well, I've thought about this post for a bit. Almost didn't post. But I have to say. *sigh* There is really very little to do in this game. Move.....watch, move watch, rinse and repeat. It really strikes me as a tactical game, without the tactical combat. You start with a set OOB. You have almost no control over the make up of your forces or whom commands what. They are placed in pre determined positions. Most scenario's are too short to spend the time rearainging or reforming them to the force composition Id prefer.

There is almost nothing to do besides move your forces and fight the battle. Which you have no tactical control over anyway. You have no control over your supply generation. No way to raise more troops or supply. Replacements take forever to arrive. If they arrive at all. Most stratigic games that I have played and liked. Including my fav. ACCW. Have things for you to do. Like oh stratigic options to build, develop, train. Im sorry if this post seems too negative. But I really want to like this game. I love the period. Am a big fan of Nepoleonic warfare. But I have to say. There is really not enough here to keep my attention for very long. I tend to view this game as a hybred, but without the the things that make a strat game or a tactical game fun. To me, a strat game is about grand startegy. You know? Building, deploying, training and fighting your army. A tactical game is micro-managing the battle itself. Here, you have no building etc. And you have no actual battle management. So once again we are back to move watch, move again. Yes moving my armies around and having them in the right place at the right time to win is ok. But it is just a small piece of what I ( foolishly it seems) had hoped for from the successor to AACW.

These are once again just my humble opinion.

Nial

[rasnell]

Note on replacements: if you run the 1806 scenario, Prussian side, 2 replacements should be used by your units. If you don't have that, then this is a weird behavior. Getting replacements definitively do work in the game.

Could you please expand on how you think it should work in the game because my actual results and the manual aren't matching up.

What difference do the three different attrition standards cause in the options menu?

How specifically do you trigger replacements? Here's what I believe to be the factors, but it's not working:

1. Move corps, divisions, etc. that have serious attrition to a city with a depot, or a city larger than Level 4, or a depot.
2. Set the posture to passive.
3. You should start getting replacements if the attritioned units match what units are coming in from the replacement menu shown on F2.
4. The only exception is if the city or depot is under siege, in which case you get no replacements in that round.

Am I right on this info? Is there any more to know about how it is supposed to work. Because in the five scenarios that I've mentioned, it ain't working.

I haven't gotten far enough in Danube scenario to know yet, my sixth game test.

[Pocus]

see http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=56434#post56434 for further discussion on the topic please.

[Trapper]

I think this is a great game ,thank you for making it. I found the demo very fun and easy to play, so I bought the full download version a few days ago. I can highly recommend it to any fan of Napoleonic games. I am impressed and have enjoyed it very much. It's definitely my current favourite game and I play it alot because it has very good depth to it. I found the 50 dollar price fair as that is the normal price of all the good games bought in stores in Canada anyway. I prefer downloading because it's easier and I can play right away.
Cheers and thanks again

[DennyWright]

In the 80s OSG and Avalon Hill produced several games that covered separate campaigns of Napoleon. They were great at the time, and I really enjoyed them

Napoleon's Campaigns offers similar fare for the 2st Century - individual campaigns rather than ahistorical "Let's all gang up against Austria" affairs.

Napoleon's greatness was not that he built depots or ordered extra light infantry - nor that he arranged individual companies on a battlefield - he was the master of manoevre and choosing the right place to fight - exactly wht this game allows us to do.

[Adam the VIth]

Well, I've thought about this post for a bit. Almost didn't post. But I have to say. *sigh* There is really very little to do in this game. Move.....watch, move watch, rinse and repeat. It really strikes me as a tactical game, without the tactical combat. You start with a set OOB. You have almost no control over the make up of your forces or whom commands what. They are placed in pre determined positions. Most scenario's are too short to spend the time rearainging or reforming them to the force composition Id prefer.

There is almost nothing to do besides move your forces and fight the battle. Which you have no tactical control over anyway. You have no control over your supply generation. No way to raise more troops or supply. Replacements take forever to arrive. If they arrive at all. Most stratigic games that I have played and liked. Including my fav. ACCW. Have things for you to do. Like oh stratigic options to build, develop, train. Im sorry if this post seems too negative. But I really want to like this game. I love the period. Am a big fan of Nepoleonic warfare. But I have to say. There is really not enough here to keep my attention for very long. I tend to view this game as a hybred, but without the the things that make a strat game or a tactical game fun. To me, a strat game is about grand startegy. You know? Building, deploying, training and fighting your army. A tactical game is micro-managing the battle itself. Here, you have no building etc. And you have no actual battle management. So once again we are back to move watch, move again. Yes moving my armies around and having them in the right place at the right time to win is ok. But it is just a small piece of what I ( foolishly it seems) had hoped for from the successor to AACW.

These are once again just my humble opinion.

Nial

Unfortunately, I have to entirely agree with Nial here. I LOVE BOA and ACW, but this game is just missing something....I think the lack of strategic (resources, economy, etc) and tactical battles, in favor of the operational level is what the problem is. I started replaying BOA when NC came out -- well, I'm still playing the same campaign from BOA and have already stopped NC.
Please don't take this as "flaming" the game -- I was a very early BOA player and I love AGEOD. I just think this game is lacking the punch of the other two.
The good news is, I know the game will evolve and eventually I'll get back into it.

[Adam Parker]

Unfortunately, I have to entirely agree with Nial here. I LOVE BOA and ACW, but this game is just missing something....

For what it's worth, yes I feel the same way.

AACW and BoA were the first games I already owned, that I recently put on my new PC. They are full, meaty feeling games.

With Nap Campaigns, I was left with the sensation that something is missing too. And unfortunately in my case, the part-finished art tipped me over the edge. I also found silly the 3d art where soldiers never face each other or just show their backsides to the player.

I will continue to keep AACW and BoA on my gaming machine for as long as these games remain playable by my OS and AGEOD supports them.

I really am looking forward to AGEOD finishing the fixes needed to the AACW rail map and bringing BoA Gold out.

But Nap poses a warning for BoA Gold: Please AGEOD, when you release BoA Gold, ensure it is finished, quality checked and up to the same standard as BoA's original art.

If need be hire your former artist back. Continuity in quality is very important.

This will be my last comment on Nap.

(Btw talking about quality, the release of Empires in Arms sure looks a mess. It is definitely not looking like a game that can be played out of the wrapper without much tweaking and updating needing to be done).

[DennyWright]

Upon reflection, I now find myself in agreement with the above comments.

Sad to say, I have stopped playing this game and gone back to ACW (still the best by far in this entire industry). NC just does not have the involvement that BoA and ACW have. There is little incentive to try again, to think up a new strategy, to devote another xxx hours to see how things turn out.

I love the Napoleonic period and have a room full of lovingly painted miniatures and scenery, dozens of books, CDs of Napoleonic music, etc.

But this game lacks too much to make me want to come back to it in its current state. leure:

[PhilThib]

That would enlighten me to know what is the "missing" thing you mention ?

NCP has the engine of the previous games, with even more features but true, we have no BIG campaign missing, because this is NOT the scope of the game and our engine is not ready to support efficiently such a thing leure: .


To be clear, no Napoleonic game worth the trouble can have a grand campaign without a proper and specific Diplomatic engine... and we do not have it yet. BOA and ACW did not suffer from this because they were one vs one struggles, and no diplomacy was really needed... look on how difficult it was to properly represent the Iroquois stuff in BOA or the Kentucky neutrality in ACW...

So if the disappointment comes from this, it's sad but I cannot afford right now to lose our time and our reputation on building a pseudo grand campaign that would end up in a nightmare of unrealistic tricks... just be patient, this will come in due time, when our engine is ready for it ... and it will be great (we shall not rush a 'campaign in arms' just to please .. and deceive... and finally disappoint! )

As for the graphics, I personally like them a lot and even consider them better than ACW on some points... of course this is a pure matter of taste and colors, and we have players that are also enthusiastic about them... and others who aren't... in all cases this is an endless debate...

Now the game has for sure lots of things that can be improved ... and we shall do so, so we are eager to see and hear what they could be (besides the GC issue)

I am all ears... Thanks

[rasnell]

For the first time, I feel like I've wasted far too much time on an Ageod game. I've now played every scenario, except the really long one, and it's so unbalanced. It's too easy. There's nothing to do. The F2 and F3 screens are irrelevant.

The French are so overpowered in every single scenario that you don't even need to use strategy. Just move and kill everything. The patch fixed some of the outrageous casualty numbers.

Sorry to say that this is the first of your three games that I'm shelving.

I know several have mentioned that it's historically accurate that Nappy was so strong. Might make good history; makes for a very boring game.

I could increase difficulty to the hardest level or switch sides and see if anyone could beat Nappy. But there's just not much to do in the game other than move the pieces.

I'm also tiring of the micromanagement of assembling corps, watching your command limits, etc.

Sorry, guys. Just not fun this time around.

[DennyWright]

Dear Philippe

I am delighted with the graphics and I understand that a bad diplomatic add-on would do you - and us - a great dis-service. I am pleased that you did not go down the road of fantasy and allow wild alliances and backstabbing and completely understand why a Grand Campaign would not be the answer.

We have perhaps been spoiled by the incredible amount of choices that BoA and AACW provided. You want an army of cavalry? Fine - build it. You want Ambrose Burnside to invade Florida with one unit of militia? That's ok (if stupid) too. You have a tactic that might work, etc.

But NC starts each scenario at a point where the big choices have already been made. You don't build armies, you don't choose the best generals a la AACW, you cannot decide on grand strategy. You are already close to contact with the enemy.

Wars and even battles are won long before the first shot is fired. Perhaps an option to alter starting set-up could be offered one day? That is my poor suggestion.

I have the highest possible respect for you and AGEOD and for the games you craft for us to savour. NC is still better than any other Napoleonic game for PC that's out there. It just has a lot to live up to in its older brothers/cousins.

[PhilThib]

Well, you are lucky... one of the things I am working out right now is a longer/earlier 1805 campaign starting in the Spring where the French will be parted between two different strategic options and will have these kind of choices to do...

This is probably a good way to follow for the time being

[Steph]

Well well....i don't know BoA and AACW but...I agree with Rasnel on 1 point: as the army are facing eachother very soon, you don't have much choices except...shooting. It's true that 1/ for some scenari (the shorter) you don't really have to chose a big strategy and 2/ chosing Napi is a good way to increase your chances of victory !. The solution could be quite simple: start the scenari earlier, I mean x months ago: players would have to chose: how should I face the ennemy, what directions, what forces ??? that's what you have done before but i think you start the game too late. One more time, I come from Cossacks II: every players start with 10 peasants who have to build barracks, stables....the begining is always very boring (dealing with these 10 peasants is always boring) but players start at the same level: I have the feeling (maybe wrong) that French cannot lose in most of theses scenarii (with France, i won vs IA in most of them, and 2/0 in PBEMs).
You are very closed to a tremendous strategic game ! keep improve NCP.

[DennyWright]

Well, you are lucky... one of the things I am working out right now is a longer/earlier 1805 campaign starting in the Spring where the French will be parted between two different strategic options and will have these kind of choices to do...

This is probably a good way to follow for the time being

This is a VERY good way - I look forward to this enormously.

Thank you for listening.

[Adlertag]

For the first time, I feel like I've wasted far too much time on an Ageod game. I've now played every scenario, except the really long one, and it's so unbalanced. It's too easy. .

So, you don't have played perhaps the only one scenario which could give you a real challenge (and where Napoleon, despite his genius, doesn't save the world, at least his world...) ??

[Nial]

I have started but not finished all campaigns. Though I am still dissapointed with the lack of GC. I will give a few opinions of ways I think NC could be improved in the short term to allow players to be somewhat content till a GC is possible.

1) All scenario's have a setup period. ( start at least 4-6 turns before they do now ) This would allow us to fight with the army we want. In other words we can change things around prior to battle. More control of our starting forces.

2) Reinforcement ( new troops) options in all scenario's (limits are fine. But once again. It's all about the control.)

2a) Instead of money deciding whats available. Hard limits could be imposed. So if you want that extra guard unit? Fine. But it's worth 3 line units. So your overall reinforcement pool would be less.

3) Some linked scenario's. I know this is a half full glass, but it would be realatively easy to do, and would go along way towards giving players that epic campaign feel. Even if it is a poor substitute.


Once again these are just my humble opinions.

Nial

[Uxbridge]

[color="Red"]"1) All scenario's have a setup period. ( start at least 4-6 turns before they do now ) This would allow us to fight with the army we want. In other words we can change things around prior to battle. More control of our starting forces."[/color]

I was thinking the same thing only hours ago. Many of the shorter scenarios would gain immensely if they started earlier, especially 1805, with more options for the Coalition.

Wouldn't it be rather easy to just move the units in the current set-up back a number of areas or making formations appear as reinforcements, thus creating, as an example, "1805 alternative set-up scenario"? It may not work for all scenarios, but surely it would with many.

It's also a bit dissappointing that the 1815 scenario doesn't cover the entire "would-be" campaign. The game engine and scale is much better suited for that.

[caranorn]

[color="Red"]"1) All scenario's have a setup period. ( start at least 4-6 turns before they do now ) This would allow us to fight with the army we want. In other words we can change things around prior to battle. More control of our starting forces."[/color]

I was thinking the same thing only hours ago. Many of the shorter scenarios would gain immensely if they started earlier, especially 1805, with more options for the Coalition.

Wouldn't it be rather easy to just move the units in the current set-up back a number of areas or making formations appear as reinforcements, thus creating, as an example, "1805 alternative set-up scenario"? It may not work for all scenarios, but surely it would with many.

It's also a bit dissappointing that the 1815 scenario doesn't cover the entire "would-be" campaign. The game engine and scale is much better suited for that.

In many cases we would not have adequate orders of battle for that month before the actual campaign. In the case of the 1815 scenario (which is being worked on as far as I know), not all orders of battle (outside the Low Countries) are even known for the actual campaign start.

[Nial]

In many cases we would not have adequate orders of battle for that month before the actual campaign. In the case of the 1815 scenario (which is being worked on as far as I know), not all orders of battle (outside the Low Countries) are even known for the actual campaign start.

Huh? You have an OOB for the start of all the scenario's. What the he** would you need one from one month prior for?

If you start from the premise that all OOBs at all times must be exact? Then you are in deep doo-doo. For as soon as you allow people to buy/aquire new troops, There go your perfect OOBs, right out the window. Im less worried about exact OOBs than I am about having a good gaming experience. Course, that could just be me?

My personal opinion is that OOBs are not even an issue in a game like this. This is not a tactical battle where exact OOBs make a huge difference in how the game plays out. This is supposed to be grand strat. Individule units have little or no impact on how the game should play out. Leaders, numbers, and quality are what matters. Not what the units name is, or what color uniform they wear. Those things are called flavor. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Nial

[Uxbridge]

My personal opinion is that OOBs are not even an issue in a game like this. This is not a tactical battle where exact OOBs make a huge difference in how the game plays out. This is supposed to be grand strat. Individule units have little or no impact on how the game should play out. Leaders, numbers, and quality are what matters. Not what the units name is, or what color uniform they wear. Those things are called flavor. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Nial

I think Nial has a point here, even if he disregard many gamers inherent desire to see exact OOB's and uniforms. If you create a number of early set-up scenarios and state that they're not exact when it comes to unit organization, people will for the most accept that.

Regarding the 1815 scenario, I think it is even less important that the OOB's are fully correct, since it never came to an actual campaign after the sudden and conclusive victory at Waterloo. If you know, as an example, that Marciani's 2nd Division in the Ist Austrian Corps of Schwarzenbergs Left Wing had 8,900 men in 11 Battalions and 1 battery with 8 pieces of artillery, is it really necessary to know what regiments he had? The last piece of information is, obviously, hard to come by. A partial solution might be to simply use units that took part in the 1814 campaign and spread them between the divisions.

Anyway, since there never was an actual campaign, the besserwissers will be aqually in the dark!