First Impressions?

[Nial]

Don't get me wrong. I love flavor. But it is not the MOST important part of the game to me. And lets face it. I doubt more than 15% of the people that play these games know what regiments fought where. In AACW we had all the regiments that were known. But were we required to use Grants or Lee's specific OOB? Of course not. If one wants to make a tactical game that OOBs actualy make a diff. in the mechanics of winning? Hey, Im all for that. But this is not a tactical game. So here we are. We can either have exact or as exact as we can get them OOBs and stick to that no matter how short this games hard drive life? Or we can fudge a bit to give this game a bit more punch and it's hard drive life will increase expodentialy.

On a side note. I never leave the Order the same anyway. I always change my forces around to reflect my views of whats the best combo to win. I tend to think that alot of others do this as well. In that case all we need to know is what numbers and types of units were in each army prior to any given campaign. Not exact OOBs. Because Im going to change it anyway.

Now I maybe wrong. It wouldn't be the first time *laugh* I may be the only one who feels this way. In which case I will of course go along with the majority view. *smile* As If I have a choice.

This is of course just my humble opinion.

Nial

[tagwyn]

Vunderbar!!! Excellent! Tres Manifique!! Bon! T

[DennyWright]

We can either have exact or as exact as we can get them OOBs and stick to that no matter how short this games hard drive life? Or we can fudge a bit to give this game a bit more punch and it's hard drive life will increase exponentially.

Nial

For me, Nial is 100% correct. Accurate OOBs are great, and proper uniforms are wonderful, but is this a game or a simulation?

The playability suffers at present for the historicity of the simulation and this seriously diminishes 'hard drive life'. Programs like BoA, AACW, EU3, M2TW (after lots of patches and mods) are on my PC for good. NC? I'm not so sure.

[Adam the VIth]

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

I understand the frustrations AGEOD must feel when they receive negative feedback -- I'll admit, it is hard to describe "what is missing."

But here goes:

I'm pushing around the pre-built units that someone else positioned on terrain I might not have chosen, with few options other than go smash into the enemy. Sorry, that isn't fun. It would be fun if it were a tactical game and then I could make tactical decisions in a battle -- but that isn't this game.

I'd be happy smashing units into someone else on the operational level if they were "my units" -- organized into armies of my choosing, according to my style....but they're not.

So what am I doing? I'm trying to recreate Napoleon's operational successes, or avoid having them happen to me. With pretty ironclad scenario timelines, it is RUSH, RUSH, RUSH to accomplish some historical goals in a set period of time. Again, that's not fun.

A game should be a "choose your own adventure book" sort of thing. This game just does not do that.

I think comparing this to BOA is best: in BOA, you can play the long campaign, which takes you through 8 years, beginning with small-scale warfare and eventually all the way to big battles between massed regulars, naval activity, etc.

BOA does not allow you to create your own units (like AACW), but the timeframe allows for so many choices. You have multiple fronts: the Lake Champlain region, Louisbourg, the Ohio River Valley -- you have to choose where to commit, whether to balance, or to favor one theater over another. That's what I (and I think some of the others) would really like.

So, to summarize: give me choices! More time to setup units (a pre-campaign phase), maybe some choices on forming additional troops instead of receiving replacements, some choices that might cause ahistorical events to happen, etc. I know that most wargamers like to "feel ownership" of their armies -- give us some more options in how they are organized and what their makeup is.

Anyway, I know AGEOD will do their best to make the community (and not just one whining individual) happy -- and I patiently await the next release.
Good luck gang, this was a tough project and I know you'll continue to work to perfect it.....and I can wait for a grand campaign....and I don't care if it is ahistorical.

AC

[PhilThib]

That's a good analysis...we'll do our best to improve the game along this way

[Adam the VIth]

That's a good analysis...we'll do our best to improve the game along this way

THanks -- but your everlasting problem is that we all think the world of you guys and you've spoiled us rotten and now we expect the sun, the moon and two supermodels to boot.

Good luck keeping us happy!

[DennyWright]

Perhaps we could be offered a few choices at the start in the pre-campaign phase that would offer tough trade-offs. More poor quality infantry, delay an enermy corps movement by a turn, an extra high quality unit, extra ammo, etc.

[DennyWright]

Perhaps not?

[PhilThib]

I have to study that, because we do not have an interface / menu option that allows this trade-off from start. It may happen after the first turn though...I'll check the technical feasibility

[Chris38]

That's a good analysis...we'll do our best to improve the game along this way

But please not changing the game as it is...

10 different wargames, 10 different views of the wargame in general...

I personally prefer, but it's my own, i do understand Adam's opinion, historically correct or "possible" situations.

Yes, it's fun to try to invert History at Austerlitz playing the Coalition, of course ! I love it too !

But i think this possibilities must be an ADDITION to the "historically correct" scenarios...

I don't want to change History over years. I want to try to do better on the basis of an historically correct set-up.

Yes, if Coalition had better troops, better generals, better set-up, better politics,things would have been different at Austerliz.

But this is History-Fiction

[Hrothgar]

I agree with Chris38. I wouldn't mind things like an earlier start for the campaigns to allow the player to reorganize his forces to his liking, but as an addition to the historical campaigns already included, not as a replacement.

You are quite right that the Grand Campaign requires a functioning diplomatic engine. I look forward to your development of such an engine, and will love the ability to play the Grand Napoleonic campaign and make all the decisions available to a head of state. But, this game focuses on the decisions open to an operational commander. As far as I'm concerned, numerous interesting choices are present at this level, also, and I'm quite pleased with the job you've done. Nothing is perfect, but this is a fine presentation of Napoleon's separate campaigns, a worthy successor to your previous titles. And, thanks to its operational focus, it provides a an easier introduction to the AGEOD system for newcomers, and a lighter change of pace for veterans who want to play something with AGEOD's typical historical flavor, but aren't in the mood for shouldering the burdens of running a nation's entire war effort.

[Pocus]

'what if' or 'alternate setup' in additions of the historical setups have my vote too (I don't work on historical data ).

[pablius]

I would go with "what if" scenarios...and in other cases with longer scenarios or with more options to extend the current ones...Starting some scenarios earlier may help in some cases but I´m not sure it is the best option without the ability to create units..

Other than that, and here I´m guessing about the ability of the engine to handle this variables, a foreign intervention in reverse could add a lot to some scenarios...let´s say Napoleon inflicts a lot of cassualties to the russians in 1813...then an option in the ledger becomes available offering Russia a separate peace, with some chance of succes...

This would create another layer of complexity (and then, of choices to make) in how to handle the organization and commitment of troops...

[Adlertag]

I think "alternate setup" is seductive but a very difficult thing to add without losing too much of the game historicity. The border is narrow.
But option could exist, at least to satisfy every player.

[DennyWright]

Historicity is a big issue for me too. But one thing that AACW does so well is to allow you, from the starting point of whichever campaign you choose, to rewrite history but still retaining immense historicity.

In AACW, no-one objects to being able to raise a particular regiment a year before it historically took to the field, or to the Union winning First Manassas. We have to accept that, at some point, we need to do more than just recreate history; if that is 'all' we want to do, then there should be an option to let the campaign play itself out without any interference from the all-seeing, all-knowing 21st Century generalissimo sat in front of his PC.

Napoleon's Campaigns does exactly what it says on the box. We cannot criticise it for that. But for many of us, the starting positions are a little too restrictive. Every board wargame allows you to try an alternative setup or an option or two without it losing its authenticity or its historicity. I think the biggest burden is in the programming and the testing. I am no programmer (apart from a bit of BASIC back in the 70s/80s) but I would be happy to help with testing if that would be useful.

Everyone on this forum respects AGEOD and the immense contribution they have made, and are making, to history gaming. If we didn't care about them and their wonderful games, we wouldn't be here.

[PhilThib]

This is a valid point. I shall work some alternative setups with more leeway given to the players within the scope and limits of NCP engine (the problem being lack of suitable production tool)

[Padreigh]

Alternative setups would be grand.

And maybe some longer scenarios (my favourite scenario is the Peninsular Campaign... although I still have to figure out how to play with the Spanish. Bloody Frenchies keep on kicking my butt all over the place leure: ).
The option of raising new regiments would be much appreciated as well.

But all of this has been mentioned before. At the moment, NC is the game I like the least out of the three AGEOD games I got. But knowing AGEOD and considering the game's potential I am pretty sure that, in a few week's time, you'll need a crowbar to separate me from that game.

[Hobbes]

I must say at the moment that I agree. It has HUGE potential but I think BoA and AACW have a lot more playability. The scenarios I have played so far just seem to be mass brawls with little chance to make much in the way of strategic decisions.

I am sure given time it will be improved and longer scenarios will be a great help (although for me the Peninsular Campaign is too long for PBEM).

Cheers, Chris

[Dragoon!]

On alternative setups:
I think it'd be a good idea to create 'campaign' alternates to the scenarios that create open-ended campaigns by including a do-it-yourself 'opening moves' section of turns where you have to build up your forces and deploy them in a manner that you choose..In basic terms, start the 'campaign' scenario 10 turns early, and let the player marshall his forces and create the campaign 'hot spots' in the process...
for instance, on the Jena scenario-In this case, the 'campaign' scenario would start in early September, when Napoleon called up reserves. You'd have the task of forming and building your army and moving it into position you want to strike at for the start of hostilities...
I think that just by design, that'd create 'open ended' alternates to the standard 'battle-campaign' scenarios.

[Thyer]

I agree with those that want a grand campaign, with freedom to raise units as they see fit, as in AACW. To me, this game almost steps back towards the first title, BOA, which I enjoyed immensely as well. But now that I was spoiled in AACW with being able to marshall my own forces and conduct a grand campaign, I wish BOA had the same features now, although BOA had a grand campaign. I undertand that a proper political engine needs to be incorporated for it to be done historically correct, but to me, forget the politics, give me the ability to raise any historical unit of the era, whenever I please, and fight across the entire continent. IMHO, that would create a endlessly replayable scenario. Don't get me wrong, I love the smaller historical scenarios as well, but just give me one grand campaign scenario devoid of historical limitations other than those governing when certain units and leaders are available. I guess I will have to wait for NC2 to get what I truly want, having known that now, I would have waited and bought NC2 over NC1. I am a huge fan of AGEOD's games and always want more!

[Chris Stavros]

[ATTACH]1594[/ATTACH]

First impressions is based off playing the Austerlitz scenario.

The first thing i noticed was not all of the french Corps are available at start, and this makes things a little confusing.

Mack was able to escape from Ulm without a fight, which I felt was odd, as historically he did nothing until the French where behind him, and then only Ferdinand tried to escape.

The AI didn't try to defend Wein as far as I could tell, the Russians seemed to be lingering around Bavaria.

One thing I did notice, the AI does not properly concentrate it's forces, this is all wrong, I noticed that the Russians and Austrians seemed to have small corps moving all over, and where defeated in detail by my concentrated Grande Armee.

They also didn't seem to care about the points cities, as I took them one by one, leaving a Corps Garison, they never bothered to try and retake them.

The only real concentration I fought on the Danube was near linz.

I did like it, and what happened was close in some ways to the historical situation, what was missing was the allies concentrating after Wein falls for one last big battle. The only forces that managed to show up where extremly outnumbered by the Grande Armee.

[ATTACH]1595[/ATTACH]

[Kev_uk]

Its a good game; something sorely lacking in today's game market is a operational level Napoleonic wargame. Its has great feel for the period, looks ace, and is educational to an extent. I have really only concentrated on the Russian Campaign, and this plays good, but the Russian AI doesn't act that historical as historically they pulled back a lot of their troops until the clash at Borodino. In the game the AI seems to focus on the first engagements around Minsk and Vilnius, whereby the combined stack of La Grande Armee and associated Corps (under the combined move command) usually leads to a quick victory over the creme of the Russians. Then the AI seems to try and take a few Polish territories and that's about it. Napoleon can take Smolensk and the road to Moscow quite easily. And hold it.

Saying that, the game is really good. I did not play BoA or AACW, I have more interest in European theatres of the 18th/19thC, but I am glad I purchased Napoleons Campaigns; it has huge potential. If you could incorporate the diplomacy of EiA into NC then you would sure would have a winner hands down on all fronts, both military and political. Oh, and if the grand campaign from 1799 to 1815 was incorporated...but I digress.

I am not disappointed in the purchase. I have also downloaded the demo of AACW due to its political/economic aspect. This is the type of thing I would love to see in any operational level game, more economic and politics rather than just a military focus.

Kudos to AGEOD!

[lightsfantastic]

After two frustrating days of learning the hows and whys, I must say that I have never had so much fun. I have instantly been transported back in time to 1983 when I was just 13 and received a copy of War and Peace by Avalon Hill from my Parents for Christmas. (Yes I was a wargame geek even then.) Four hours into really getting into the Austerlitz Campaign I swear I heard my Mother tell me to get that game off of her kitchen table and get ready for supper.
Thanks

[smackontoast]

the only thing about this game is you carn"t bulid your armys you are always waiting for troops as in aacw you could just build them leure:

[smackontoast]

the only thing about this game is you carn"t bulid your armys you are always waiting for troops as in aacw you could just build them leure:

oh yeh in the eng and spain camp the spaish leaders are so bad you carnt even win a battle til wellington lands and then his army is limited due to the lack of man power adding unit creation would of bean better

[Boggit]

Because the diplomatic module ( with an AI able to use it) is yet to be done in 2008.

Is a full GC scenario definitely on the cards for a later update?

[jastaV]

I have played "Sun of Austerlitz" scenery some half a dozeen times in a week, and always from the French side.
Anytime I got unpredictable events dictated by opponent AI: so need to congratulate with engine creators.
BTW, I got best results while moving on Napoleon foot-steps: a very great game for historical accuracy, too.

JastaV

[samng]

I am not sure this has been raised. Does anyone feel that 1 week time scale
is a bit too coarse for short campigns like Waterloo? The most intense manuvering happened only within a few days. Do you feel you can
carry out lower level flanking moves with such time scale?

Thanks,
Sam

[Latimore]

I have lost as the Austrians in 1805, but no surprises there! Only how difficult the Austrian organizational limits make waging war.

Now I've lost as the Swedes in 1808. I thought I was doing well for many weeks, but the game has a bit of a learning curve, I believe, and I'm at the bottom of it.

For example, I have not yet discovered how to judge the strength and fighting ability of an enemy force, nor when to feint/retreat immediately. Intelligence of the enemy is something I will have to master before I can hope to do at all well.

I am confused as there does not seem to be an easily recognizable and visible to all "combat factor" by which to judge my own and the enemy's forces. I'm sure it's there, I just have to learn how to dig it up.

Only one complaint: The tooltip font is almost unreadable. My eyes are 60 years old, but that can't be the reason!!!

I was wondering if there is a font problem because I'm in the US?

Pardon the smiles - it's a phase I'm going through.

[Latimore]

I would like to add that I agree with other posters that some "alternative reality" scenarios would be fun in the future...different starting situations and perhaps different commanders...

I also agree that not being able to control production makes being a mere Army Commander (as opposed to Emperor! ) a bit sticky. At least I would like to know what troops are in the pipeline and when I can expect them... but again, this may be available information but I have not yet figured out how to find it.