Pocus wrote:I have some left over popcorns. The screen is black for now, I hope I can watch the movie this evening though
r_rolo1 wrote:Nice coarse voice
I've given a small look ( will wait for the better quality video that vimeo says it's being uploaded ), but if you need some help regarding software for the recording, feel free to PM me ( I have some experience setting live streams in a semi-professional way, so I think I can giveyou some hints ).
ribaluigi wrote:Thanks Loki!
HerrDan wrote:Very interesting! Later after work I'll take a look at it! I'm really looking foward to hear your cat!
Kensai wrote:Great job, loki100!
wadeyboy wrote:Thankyou so much Loki. this is brilliant stuff. I really hope it becomes the start of a series.
I also hope it encourages others to do videos too.
Nice one Loki
HerrDan wrote:Amazing Loki, I really loved your cat in the background and I found it very funny when you said "the emperor is going to save us". Tough battle, I'd say, I still have to see the second video though, but it looks like your chances are small with so many prussian armies, and I haven't seen Moltke yet, I would really fear him if I played france...
HerrDan wrote:By the way please answer my question above about the retreat rules, I think that an army should have some control over the region it's retreating to, but what do you think?
ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it
ctlRetreatAdjCity = 5 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a city (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjFort = 30 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a fort (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjDepot = 25 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a depot (per level)
ctlRetreatLandLink = 10 // Interest in retreating toward a region, value per land link
ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250 // Coefficient applied to the interest if the region is the one where we are coming from
cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4 // retreat penalty (in interest pts) for each nmy SU in retreating region
loki100 wrote:the code is in 'GameLogic' in vgn\settings, so its fully moddable. Its an interesting file to read as it contains the rules for a number of important interactions (both military and civil) in the game.
Anyway default is:
Now the interesting ones are the first line. That says basically ignore MC in a retreat province. I guess its 0 so as to stop stacks just surrendering (as happens with naval landings) if they lose and prevents the common Paradox game strategy of surrounding a large army with masses of small forces.
You could set it higher and it would certainly discourage interest in retreating into an enemy province.
The next four set priority of choice. So if you have a choice a fort &/or depot is the likely choice (which may explain why my armies ignored the Vosges and went to Metz).
The last two amend this. The first weights the province you left by 2.5, so there is a rough bias towards retreating back the way you came - but of course this has no impact if you are moving out of a province having been static the previous turn.
The last adversely weights a province according to the presence and size of the enemy force there (remember that in my instance Metz was empty) - at least that is how I interpret the text.
So if you want to minimise the chances of retreating into enemy territory, then the MC value is the one to adjust. But, be careful as the risk is you leave a force with nowhere to retreat at all.
loki100 wrote:Well the AI does cope with it, in the sense that it is one of those functions over which the player has no control.
The problem line to me is the MC value. Clearly setting that at say 50% would mean you would rarely see retreats away from the safety of your own provinces. But you would also see more instances were there is no valid retreat route as that line is used to eliminate potential options. So you would see more outright surrenders, such as Napoleon IIII at Sedan, but I think you'd radically change the feel of the game in small unit density/colonial regions. There the inability to trap and destroy your enemy is a key part to the frustration (re fun) of trying to convert military power into a military victory.
So on balance, I prefer it as designed. I think as players we get too convinced about the level of control and the retreat rule and the randomness of stack selection and march to the sound of the guns are all excellent means to weaken our control. Even good generals and well trained armies did silly things.
loki100 wrote:Ok, here is video #4. I won't make any more recordings of this scenario unless something remarkable happens. My army trapped in Mainz surrendered (this happens with formations out of supply) so in reality the only remaining issue is whether or not Paris can hold out. All very realistic of course.
What I will do now is to make a few on economic management, colonial actions etc in the context of the campaign game. That may help people a bit to come to terms with the options in that respect.
HerrDan wrote:Yeah...ok..right..but now what really matters...WHAT ABOUT YOUR CATS?
Seriously now...really interesting to see it's much easier to have a historical outcome out of this happening (apparently) most of the times, it's basically what I expect in PON in general, to have the historcal outcomes happening most of the times, and by the way it must be a really tough scenario for the french! I mean as you're such an experienced player and even so it seems like it was really hard...
Great to see this kind of videos here in the forums, I think someone could maybe share this into the youtube so that it could maybe bring more people into PON.What's say ya?
loki100 wrote:ah, the cats slept through that recording.
I may try again and see if you can get a draw with the French, in any case I'll play this to the end and report back on the outcome. Thing is it now all comes down to Paris holding out, so very little of interest to watch which is why I think that is a good end point. Obviously in a campaign, you could prepare better, lots of replacements stocked up, better defense in Alsace etc and hope to wear out the Germans. In the scenario you are already (rightly) off balance.
I like that AGEOD don't balance their scenarios (except in terms of victory conditions) so you have weak and strong sides. It makes PBEM with the say AJE easy between players of different experience.
If anyone wants the recordings to stick onto youtube contact me and I'll pop them into a drop box. Its just I don't use gmail and its become very hard to set up a youtube account if you don't.
HerrDan wrote:Oh I really missed your cats here, I wish they were there meowing
It's great that the scenarions are designed in such a realistic way, they shouldn't be "balanced" at all, as the most fun part is to try hard to get a different result from the one that happened in RL, so that it's always a good challenge to play "the weaker" part in a war.
I'm pretty sure in the long campaign though, France has great chances to win this war, as it's a pretty much different situation when you have years to prepare for the future and become more powerful etc...
I'm really loving to watch these videos you made, it's indeed a very good idea.
Templer wrote:So great, Looki100!
The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 is the only add on I purchased for myself for PON so far.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests