simovitch
Corporal
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:54 pm

Foreign Intervention values jumping around

Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:42 pm

using the latest beta patch RC 11, 1775 Campaign.

Twice so far the FI value has taken some major leaps back and forth between 40's down to 10's and then gradually back up to 40's. Recently it's jumped back at 100 but either way I never receive a message about what's going on except when a diplomat reaches France. The latest jump to 100 occured near the end of 1777. My NM is around 91 and GBR is on a rampage.

I'm just going on my challenged memory on reiterating the values in this post. Is this kind of fluxuation normal? Shouldn't it be a steady climb up or down?

Anazagar
Lieutenant
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:59 pm

Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:53 pm

simovitch wrote:using the latest beta patch RC 11, 1775 Campaign.

Twice so far the FI value has taken some major leaps back and forth between 40's down to 10's and then gradually back up to 40's. Recently it's jumped back at 100 but either way I never receive a message about what's going on except when a diplomat reaches France. The latest jump to 100 occured near the end of 1777. My NM is around 91 and GBR is on a rampage.

I'm just going on my challenged memory on reiterating the values in this post. Is this kind of fluxuation normal? Shouldn't it be a steady climb up or down?


IIRC there is an event that reduces the foregin entry levels quite heavily (something bout the british mounting an anit french coalition on the continent) few months later it's given back by another event (when those attempts fail).

Other than that it is quite gradual ( i think the only other scripted event with big impact is franklin in france)

Don Stone
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:14 pm

Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:22 pm

Yes. The "Perfidious Albion" event lowers the level by 50.

[INDENT]British diplomacy tries to setup a coalition in Europe in order to threaten France, whose support for the rebels is more and more blatant. Would Prussia and Austria become British allies? War threats loom over Europe, and France is worried.
[/INDENT]

The "Comte de Vergennes" event raises it by 50.

[INDENT]The Comte de Vergennes, Foreign Secretary of Louis XVI, has managed to appease the tensions in Europe. The other nations have assured France that they will not intervene in case of an Anglo-French conflict. France now has a free hand to intervene in America.[/INDENT]

Perfidious Albion fires sometime after the FI level reaches 50. Vergennes fires when 1) at least 6 months have passed since Perfidious Albion, and 2) the new FI level is at least 20.

Stryder99
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:06 am

Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:28 am

I know this is a grave dig, but I just got the game and began to play. :love:

I am playing the full Rev War scenario and I have a question. Why is it the Rebs never lose NM or FI points for losing strategic cities like the English do?

I am playing as the Brits and there are no Yanks north of Westchester NY, and none south of Appomattox. I have destroyed, more or less, the American Army, yet the NM or FI points never went down and now France and Spain declared war.

Is there something I am missing here? In the real world the ONLY reason the French declared war was due to 'Gentleman Johnnies' loss and surrender at Saratoga. So, to me, these declarations are completely ludicrus and nonsensical.

So my last question is this, Is the declarations of war by FR & SP a given? And is there nothing the English can do about it?

Stryder

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2674
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:41 am

Two separate issues:
NM should be responsive to loss of strategic cities. I have never seen a situation when you take a city you do not gain, and the opponent lose, NM. Perhaps in some instances you do not actually gain control. You have to have a 'regular' unit to control the city. To check this, look at the victory points page. If the city is red and not a flag of your side, you do not control the city.
If you destroyed the Continental Army, you should have NM from this action alone.

FI point may go down if the British do all the things they can and the Americans do not do what they should. I have seen FI as low as -5. However, for the most part British allocation of resource for diplomacy will only delay French and Spanish entry. In the actual war, many people credit Saratoga as the threshold event for France. Yet France and Spain were already engaging prior to this event. Success by the British is not tied to FI, only diplomacy.
Your diplomatic efforts are rewarded, but not by more than months can you change the historical entry date.

Stryder99
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:06 am

Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:21 am

Durk wrote:Two separate issues:
NM should be responsive to loss of strategic cities. I have never seen a situation when you take a city you do not gain, and the opponent lose, NM. Perhaps in some instances you do not actually gain control. You have to have a 'regular' unit to control the city. To check this, look at the victory points page. If the city is red and not a flag of your side, you do not control the city.
If you destroyed the Continental Army, you should have NM from this action alone.

FI point may go down if the British do all the things they can and the Americans do not do what they should. I have seen FI as low as -5. However, for the most part British allocation of resource for diplomacy will only delay French and Spanish entry. In the actual war, many people credit Saratoga as the threshold event for France. Yet France and Spain were already engaging prior to this event. Success by the British is not tied to FI, only diplomacy.
Your diplomatic efforts are rewarded, but not by more than months can you change the historical entry date.


Durk, thanks for the explanation. :) As for entry, yes the Spanish and French were definitely pro Yank, but I firmly believe that if the Yanks had not proven they could hold their own against the English and were in the process of folding, the European Powers would not have gotten involved.

Due, I believe, to the fact the English would not have been tied down in a protracted struggle. And once the colonies were secured, the English could then turn on them.

An England not tied down in a protracted war in the new world would have been far worse for them. Look at what happened once the English did finally secure peace in the colonies and were freed up for other operations.

But what is irritating is that now that I am in mop up mode the French and Spanish say, "oh goodness, we need to stick our noses into the meatgrinder, even with no help from the English Colonies." :blink:

My NM is 113, and I had a good feeling as Washington died in Albany during the siege assault where I had pinned the Continental Army! :thumbsup:

Actually, I am looking forward to those nation's forces showing up, so I can kick them in the backside too. I have large armies just setting around garrisoning New England and the Deep South. They need 'playmates' to abuse. :neener:

But I suppose I am gonna have to figure a way to force up and down the FI points due to loss and gain of Strategic cities, probably through events.

The way it currently sits, and no offense meant to anybody, is not historically valid. Saying the French and Spanish will intervene, no matter what happens, is not, logical. :)

As an aside, I love this game. I am having a blast and looking forward to the 1812 campaign once I finish the Revolutionary War Campaign. :thumbsup:

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2674
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:33 am

One lovely thing about all of the AGEOD games is they provide historical parameters, but not deterministic controls. I pretty much agree with the designers that the French would intervene no matter what. This was such a great opportunity to humiliate the British, even if the Americans were not such polished soldiers.
The game challenge as the Americans, hang on until the French arrive.
The game challenge as the British, do just as you have done, control it all so that French intervention is meaningless.
This is a mostly perfect game. For play, I love this game, too. All games we can quibble about the history, but I do like the historical choices the designers have made, except for Charles Lee.

Stryder99
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:06 am

Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:40 am

Durk wrote:One lovely thing about all of the AGEOD games is they provide historical parameters, but not deterministic controls. I pretty much agree with the designers that the French would intervene no matter what. This was such a great opportunity to humiliate the British, even if the Americans were not such polished soldiers.
The game challenge as the Americans, hang on until the French arrive.
The game challenge as the British, do just as you have done, control it all so that French intervention is meaningless.
This is a mostly perfect game. For play, I love this game, too. All games we can quibble about the history, but I do like the historical choices the designers have made, except for Charles Lee.


Durk, good point. :D

And I agree with you about Lee. Next to Arnold, Lee should have been prosecuted as a traitor.

His dealings with the British, giving them intel on the Continental army while he was a 'prisoner', his miserable rantings on how the Continentals would never beat the British, and his inexcusable handling of the opening of the Battle of Monmouth should have sent the miscreant to the gallows!

Stryder

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2674
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:12 am

Traitor or not, Lee had some talents as a general, just as Arnold does.
Lee might need a value which does not allow him to work with Washington, but maybe he is a bit better than the values he has in the game.
I am not defending his actions, just saying, in the game it would be interesting if he posed an actual alternative to Washington. History can be such a harsh judge.

Stryder99
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:06 am

Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:02 pm

Durk wrote:Traitor or not, Lee had some talents as a general, just as Arnold does.
Lee might need a value which does not allow him to work with Washington, but maybe he is a bit better than the values he has in the game.
I am not defending his actions, just saying, in the game it would be interesting if he posed an actual alternative to Washington. History can be such a harsh judge.


Yes, both Lee and Arnold had qualities that were in their favor. Arnold actually had a good reason to think he was being snubbed and set out to pasture. His actions at Ticonderoga and Saratoga, then the credit going to Allen and 'Granny' Gates, then him not getting any credit for it would have made most any commander develop a grudge.

Then when the Brits evaced Philly and Arnold was given command as the military governor led to the next slight to him. When the Pennsilvania Governor began submitting stories to the papers that Arnold was war profiteering Got him in hot water. Then when Washington lambasted him for that, it was the last straw for him.

Although, at the time he did not know that the Gov of Penn had blackmailed Washington to relieve him and censure Arnold or he would withdraw his state's support for the war. So Washington had no choice but to give in to the blackmail.

Where I fault Arnold is after Washington offered him command of the left wing of the Continental Army he continued his treason. That's where Arnold made his mistake.

Now, as for Lee, I feel he was just a gloryhound out for himself. So when he was taken prisoner he provided a plan to the British with data on the Continental Army and ways to defeat it.

Then when he was returned in a prisoner exchange he did nothing but whine and say the US could never beat England.

Then at Monmouth his treason was made known to everyone. He initially refused command of the forward portion of the army, but when he found out Washington was going to give command to Lafayette he immediatly demanded command from Washington.

And we all know how that turned out. He ordered a retreat when he was ordered to attack. He was relieved of command and courts-martialed for insubordination.

So he continued his vendetta against Washington where he was disgraced and retired to Pennsylvania. I think the only reason he was not hung was that his passing of intel to the British was not known at that time.

A lot of people, me included, believe the retreat at Monmouth was treason from the get-go. Heck, The British plan for the battle was in Lee's own handwriting and was found in the Howe family archives in 1857.

But to say Lee is a viable replacement for Washington as commander in chief is not defensible. I feel if Lee would have been CiC he would have done everything in his power to help the British.

As far as I am concerned, Lee was a bigger traitor than Arnold. Arnold turned bad, but at least he really did try to help his nation. Lee was nothing but a drag on the war effort from the get-go.

History has been too kind to Charles Lee.

Sorry to ramble, but my disdain for Charles Lee knows no bounds. :D

Stryder

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:48 pm

Hey!! do not refer to American forces as "Yanks!!" Such ignorance. t

Stryder99
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:06 am

Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:25 am

tagwyn wrote:Hey!! do not refer to American forces as "Yanks!!" Such ignorance. t


Lol, considering I am a Yank, and was at one time an American Force... ;)

Stryder

Return to “Help to improve WIA”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest