What if scenarios

[Franz Ferdinand]

I just read the latest post on the website about the game, and I am just wondering what are "what if" scenarios. We know that the US joining France in 1812 is one of them, but what are the other four? Also, kudos on the tutorial videos, hopefully these will encourage more people to try AGEOD games.

I know that the game will be out in a week, so sorry to pesk with so many questions, but how will peace treaties and such be handled? I assume it will look a lot like PoN, rather than EAW where there is no treateis but rather just total victory or defeat. I am asking because these were an important part (if rather not very polished) of MoTE, so I am just wondering if you guys are using the same system.

[loki100]

Diplomacy is going to be very like the system in Pride of Nations

[Pocus]

Although the code has been extensively improved and bugs traced down mercilessly!

[Respenus]

I just read the latest post on the website about the game, and I am just wondering what are "what if" scenarios. We know that the US joining France in 1812 is one of them, but what are the other four? Also, kudos on the tutorial videos, hopefully these will encourage more people to try AGEOD games.

I am glad that you are interested in the What If scenarios. I helped in their design (inspired by a thread on this forum where people aired their ideas and desires on what kind of Alternative History scenarios they would like to see), so I can help you with your question.

We have currently prepared 6 scripts that players can activate in the Options menu. The first one is the aforementioned War of 1812 Franco-American alliance, the second, however, is based on France being successful in its Dominican expedition. Because he retained Haiti, Napoleon saw no reason to give up Louisiana, leading to a cool-down in relations between France on one side and the USA and Spain on the other.

The third scenario gives France a new fleet in Brest so that the players can try out what would happen in Napoleon had focused a bit more on the navy.

The last three scenarios concern the behaviour of other continental actors. Scenario 4 sees Prussia as part of the Third Coalition, meaning that France will have to fight it at from the very beginning of the Grand Campaign. Scenario 5 has Paul I survive his assassination attempt, which led him to sign a defensive alliance with France. With Scenario 6, the French player can use extensive funding to revive the old Franco-Ottoman alliance.

Because some of these scenarios are counter-indicative, there is a system in place that ensures that two opposite scenario cannot be loaded at the same time. The descriptive text also warns you about which scenarios cannot work with one another.

We also have the text ready for a few extra What If scripts, however, due to time constraints, they will be added in the future.

[Drake001]

As a counter to scenario 4, I would like to see an option that locks Prussia from joining the coalition until mid 1806 at the earliest. For example, in accepting control of Hanover, it prevents them from going back on their assurance of neutrality to Napoleon...which is pretty close to what happened (the desire for aggrandizement in addition to fear of napoleon and losing their only armies...no mass conscription)

[stephen]

If I had a choice of scenerio's, I would like to refight the Campaign of 1815. I always felt that Napoleon did his "battle of the Bulge" taking his best troops which were not well equipped into Belgium. I can see his logic get between two Allied Armies. A major victory may stop the other Coalation members in there tracks. nd buy for him precious time to build up his forces further, or even gain a negociated peace.

The scenerio, Napoleon was to wait, build up his forces more and await the Allied main moves, this would unfortunately would have meant fighting on French soil..........He still may of lost, but knowing his talent for manouvre. He gained notable victories in 1814. Although went on to lose the campaign, as he had in Germany in 1813....For me though I would think it would make an interesting playthrough..........History is full of what if's.

[Respenus]

About Waterloo, do not forget that the Alternative History scripts get played out in the Grand Campaign, not the smaller scenarios. As such, you will be free to do whatever you want and use whichever troops you want in the decisive battles of your campaign (either in 1805 or 1815).

As for Hanover, giving it to Prussia would be a MASSIVE hit to French NM and VP and something that I do not think Napoleon would consider seriously. Remember, even if the consequence was Prussian entry into the war on the French side, there is nothing to keep the Prussians from turning against the French in the future after they use their resources to build up. Furthermore, in the normal Grand Campaign, Prussia (generally) remains neutral until the War of the Fourth Coalition, which started in 1806, so no problem there.

Do know that our goal with the What Ifs was to provide players a fresh set of variables on a strategic scale (ie. what if Russia had allied with Napoleon), which is generally something that takes place at the very start of the game in order to change the entire dynamics of the Napoleonic Wars. Furthermore, there is only a finite amount of time available to programme and test each script (I only collected different ideas and wrote the descriptions, the actual scripting is done by others), so we are limited in how much we can do and the complexity of what we want to do.

Nevertheless, do not worry guys, we do have a few extra interesting scripts planned, some for France and some for other countries.

[Drake001]

As for Hanover, giving it to Prussia would be a MASSIVE hit to French NM and VP and something that I do not think Napoleon would consider seriously. Remember, even if the consequence was Prussian entry into the war on the French side, there is nothing to keep the Prussians from turning against the French in the future after they use their resources to build up. Furthermore, in the normal Grand Campaign, Prussia (generally) remains neutral until the War of the Fourth Coalition, which started in 1806, so no problem there.

So, I don't know how to put this diplomatically but this just isn't correct. He did consider it seriously more than a few times and Hannover was a major bargaining chip....the correspondences are full of of examples. Also, Britain declared war on Prussia early in 1806....why? Because Prussian troops occupied Hannover. Regarding a massive hit to NM and VP (even if that were accurate) why wouldn't Napoleon use the same logic you apply.....knock the others out of the war, build up resources and turn on Prussia later? He without a historical doubt did use Hannover as a chip....whether he meant to take it back later is up for argument.

The point of having an option for ensuring that Prussia remains out at least until mid 1806 is 1) that is actually what happened (and Hannover played a big role in it) and, more importantly, after a few rounds of PBEMs players will either be asking for it or make it a house rule because Prussia will not remain neutral until the fourth coalition and the 1813 events will have moved up 8 years. (I don't know if you all have a mechanism in the single-player campaign that keeps Prussia out of the 3rd coalition or delays its entry significantly).

[Respenus]

So, I don't know how to put this diplomatically but this just isn't correct. He did consider it seriously more than a few times and Hannover was a major bargaining chip....the correspondences are full of of examples. Also, Britain declared war on Prussia early in 1806....why? Because Prussian troops occupied Hannover. Regarding a massive hit to NM and VP (even if that were accurate) why wouldn't Napoleon use the same logic you apply.....knock the others out of the war, build up resources and turn on Prussia later? He without a historical doubt did use Hannover as a chip....whether he meant to take it back later is up for argument.

The point of having an option for ensuring that Prussia remains out at least until mid 1806 is 1) that is actually what happened (and Hannover played a big role in it) and, more importantly, after a few rounds of PBEMs players will either be asking for it or make it a house rule because Prussia will not remain neutral until the fourth coalition and the 1813 events will have moved up 8 years. (I don't know if you all have a mechanism in the single-player campaign that keeps Prussia out of the 3rd coalition or delays its entry significantly).

That you very much for the historical reminder. I know that Hanover was a massive bargaining chip; the possibility of never gaining it was the logic of having Prussia join the Third Coalition and try and wrestle it from French by force (ie. impetus for Scenario 4). Handing Hanover over was also one of the ideas I originally had, so as to have Prussia on the side of the French and have them sweep across Europe (Prussia and Austria vying for supremacy over German states). However, I decided against including it, gameplay wise.

The first reason is the aforementioned NM and VP hit. Imagine how this would look to the French populace. I am convinced that they would not look upon it kindly and consider it a sort of betrayal. If you can prove otherwise, however, please do so and I will reconsider my stance. Secondly, there are certain considerations that need to be taken into account on the Grand Campaign level. As I said, we have a limited number of spots and we went for what would change the dynamics the most at the start of the game. You must also consider that people will want to play GB or other Coalition members. So having Prussia march against Napoleon in 1805 was considered the more interesting alternative. Lastly, you have game engine considerations. I do not know if it is possible to limit a country in such a way, as to prevent it from declaring war until a specific point. Giving Prussia Hanover would most likely result in an alliance that would last the entire war, completely removing a strong opponent. In conjuncture with some other events, it would leave Napoleon the sole master of Europe from the very start (alliance with Prussia and Russia would only leave Austria and the UK).

Consequently, taking all of these elements into account, I decided against a scenario to give Prussians Hanover. I remain open, however, to further opinions from you and from anyone else.

[Drake001]

What I am suggesting is not a what if at all but a mechanism for what actually occurred and gameplay. It isn't really an alternative.

The point actually isn't in giving Prussia Hanover, even though Napoleon did it twice (once in 1801 and once in 1806) without a formal alliance. (Amazing how when faced with the choice of resisting the revolutionary orge or gain territory what choice Prussia made, twice). Also, if Napoleon himself didn't believe the loss of Hanover would result in a massive NM and VP hit, why would you? More proof? In 1806 Napoleon even offered Hanover back to Britain when Fox took over and that was the closest they came to signing a deal. Proof? When it fell apart, Fox showed the document/offer to the Prussians - that Napoleon was taking away Hanover - and that was the final straw on the Prussian camel's back. I don't think he was much concerned about what the French populace would think even if they did care at this point which is doubtful. Losing Westphalia later? Probably more then.

I am not sure why they - France and Prussia - would need to be allied. They weren't historically. What Napoleon (who was a bi-polar diplomat) did was by giving them Hanover was to obtain an assurance of neutrality in the upcoming conflict with Austria and Russia and throw Prussia into conflict with Great Britain. No alliance needed. Don't know where I mentioned an alliance with Russia as well or where you got that notion. Giving Prussia Hanover doesn't necessarily mean alliance.

The main point is gameplay and historical (and gameplay reason is most important). Your what-if scenario will not be what if in a PBEM (and maybe not in single player as well I don't know)....it will be de rigeur. With 200 years of hindsight, the PBEM player of Prussia will join the coalition as soon as possible because it is the rational thing to do, rather than piecemeal fighting and taking on France alone. So the what if will happen whether you have it as an option or not (again, assuming there is no mechanism that I am unaware of). In that case, the game will start in a definitely unhistorical fashion, which isn't necessarily too bad...what will leave some players disaffected is how it will effect gameplay if France can never really get off the ground.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Great job Respenus, these scenarios are really interesting and they will exponentially increase game's replay value. I sorta wish that what if scenarios were also present in previous games. This is a great list, I cannot think about many other what if scenarios for this period, except maybe Sweden joining France in 3rd coalition or Denmark joining UK. Prussia discussion is interesting, but the question is would it tip the balance too much in France's favour. I think that Prussia should have some diplomatic restriction from joining the fight before 1806 without the what if scenario, playing MoTE Prussia has always been a wild card and a great annoyance if it invades Hanover in 1805 while France is fighting other great powers.

[Respenus]

What I am suggesting is not a what if at all but a mechanism for what actually occurred and gameplay. It isn't really an alternative.

That you very much for explaining this. I am afraid I misunderstood your original post and I apologise if my reply appeared as anything less than courteous.

The point actually isn't in giving Prussia Hanover, even though Napoleon did it twice (once in 1801 and once in 1806) without a formal alliance. (Amazing how when faced with the choice of resisting the revolutionary orge or gain territory what choice Prussia made, twice). Also, if Napoleon himself didn't believe the loss of Hanover would result in a massive NM and VP hit, why would you? More proof? In 1806 Napoleon even offered Hanover back to Britain when Fox took over and that was the closest they came to signing a deal. Proof? When it fell apart, Fox showed the document/offer to the Prussians - that Napoleon was taking away Hanover - and that was the final straw on the Prussian camel's back. I don't think he was much concerned about what the French populace would think even if they did care at this point which is doubtful. Losing Westphalia later? Probably more then.

I knew about Hanover being a bargaining chip, but I forgot the specific details, especially the Fox incident. You are also right, Westphalia would be a more serious hit to French morale than early war Hanover.

I am not sure why they - France and Prussia - would need to be allied. They weren't historically. What Napoleon (who was a bi-polar diplomat) did was by giving them Hanover was to obtain an assurance of neutrality in the upcoming conflict with Austria and Russia and throw Prussia into conflict with Great Britain. No alliance needed. Don't know where I mentioned an alliance with Russia as well or where you got that notion. Giving Prussia Hanover doesn't necessarily mean alliance.

The main point is gameplay and historical (and gameplay reason is most important). Your what-if scenario will not be what if in a PBEM (and maybe not in single player as well I don't know)....it will be de rigeur. With 200 years of hindsight, the PBEM player of Prussia will join the coalition as soon as possible because it is the rational thing to do, rather than piecemeal fighting and taking on France alone. So the what if will happen whether you have it as an option or not (again, assuming there is no mechanism that I am unaware of). In that case, the game will start in a definitely unhistorical fashion, which isn't necessarily too bad...what will leave some players disaffected is how it will effect gameplay if France can never really get off the ground.

It is here, however, that we come to the main crux of this issue. As far as I know - although you should not consider my opinion on the game engine sacred, only the Philippes can pass final judgement on what can or cannot be done - the only way you could guarantee Prussian neutrality in spite of the new dynamic diplomacy system, is to have Prussia and France sign an alliance, even a defensive one. Only good relations will not prevent a war. Regardless, this point is moot, as there should be an event in place that fires up the Fourth Coalition. I also tested the first year or so of the Prussian GC and I can assure you that you will not find Prussia jumping right in into a war with France.

Furthermore, unless you have a cassus belli or are in an alliance with a Coalition member or are a Coalition member yourself, you cannot declare war on France. I only got that opportunity once, when Russia for some reason wanted a defensive alliance with me and that gave me a reason to declare war on France. Even this, however, was a fluke in an older beta version and I have not seen any reports from other beta testers that Prussia would enter the Napoleonic Wars before its allotted time.

This was also the reason why we created this What If scenario in the first place. As things stand, what you describe as a fait accompli for human players of Prussia is not at all written in stone. We added this Alternate History scenario because we wanted Coalition players to experience early Prussian entry and because some French players might want the challenge of fighting such a massive war at the very start. Ensuring an even more secure Prussian neutrality by giving them Hanover would then actually be counter-productive from a gameplay point of view. Remember, one of our What If scenarios is a defensive alliance with Russia at the start of the Grand Campaign. Imagine a player choosing both ensured Prussian neutrality (possibly some sort of alliance) and a Russian defensive alliance! Austria would be run over and Napoleon would be master of Europe. We could prevent the player from running both such scenarios, but I cannot come up with a real-life answer as why that would happen (some sort of balance of power thing could come into play, but we do not know enough about Paul I of Russia to speculate).

I hope that my post has alleviated any concerns that you might have had. I remain open to suggestions and comments, so please let me know if my response is satisfactory.

@ Franz Ferdinand

Thank you for your kind words. The scenarios already in-game and those we have planned will most certainly offer interesting possibilities to players and I hope an Alternative History Napoleonic Europe will attract more players to the game.

[Drake001]

Thanks for the more than thorough reply. Very much. It sounds as if you have it right.

In the pbems I played on another game...COG.., Prussia would agree to join the coalition but wait to do so formally until the grand army passed Munich on the way to Vienna. Of course, the prussian were joined by a perfectly coordinated Brit landing.

After that in following games the French player would have to leave a substantial force behind or fight more defensively and now you have a whole different game. Thank you again appreciate it

[Respenus]

No problem. I originally did not understand your concern, which is why my response was lacking in answers. I also know that as I player, I would be pissed off if Prussia under AI or human control would just turn around and hit me in the back the first chance it got.

As concerns What If scenarios in general, AGEod really likes to keep their games historical (even Pride of Nations which runs for 70 years!). There were always, however, options for some sort of ahistorical approach through ledger events (Revolution under Siege Gold being the most recent example). Wars of Napoleon only goes one step beyond with the changes to the game start conditions for some extra butterfly effects.

If you decide to play the GC, be sure to give the early Prussian war entry a go and try to see if you can meet them on an even playing field. Maybe have Paul I survive and just fight against the Prussians and Austrians. These kinds of combinations are what was our goal behind the What Ifs, ie. to make things more interesting for the players from the get go.