User avatar
FENRIS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
Location: Marseille (France)

Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:06 pm

Shri wrote:Recruitment & Economics-
As France you do need Swiss, Dutch, Belgian, Polish and all the Germanic Brigades possible to make up the numbers.
But as England, you need the Spanish, Portuguese, Austrians, Prussians, Russians, Belgians, Dutch etc to fight hard to make up for lack of numbers.

But main problems for allies in early war was lack of training due to extreme shortage of ammo due to lack of money (esp. True for Austria also Russia had such severe gunpowder issues that they became a bayonet army in early war).
By 1808 or so, the British resolved this by resorting to "SUBSIDIES" la 7-year War. This needs to be portrayed, basically England should have unlimited or near unlimited money but shortage of conscripts whereas Russia should be extreme opposite with Austria and Prussia having somewhere in-between.
If English subsidies flow in, the allies should be able to field nearly equal armies (compared to France) with enough guns and ammo else they have to resort to a few jagers (skirmishers), cavalry and militia type massed armies.


+1
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807

"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)

" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I]
[/I]

veb_yw
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:29 pm

Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:51 am

I recently got into Ageod games. I am eagerly looking forward to getting this too!

User avatar
Shri
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:19 am

FENRIS wrote:+1


Thanks. I would really love it if transfer of money and war-supply being portrayed well. Basically England had near unlimited money with no worries of Inflation thanks to the reforms of the Young Mr. Pitt. France had an excellent War-Supply base due to the standardisation implemented under the gribeval system but lacked money and resorted to plunder to support its campaigns (if you look at the Peninsula campaign, the main reason the Spanish and Portuguese loved Wellington and hated Massena and other French Generals is that Massena just stole or gave useless IOUs, Wellington paid in gold).
Austria and Russia severely lacked money and WSU.
Prussia had some money and WSU but not enough.
The English subsidies solved all of this, despite having a population of only 8-9 million against the 25-30 Million French (depends on date and areas added), the English outspent the French 3:1, now granted the Navy ate 25% of this budget and having to pay for everything ate another 25%, but that still left a LOT for giving subsidies.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

veb_yw
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:29 pm

Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:44 pm

Looking forward to this :thumbsup: :w00t:

lecrop
Captain
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:27 am
Contact: Website

Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:31 pm

We need a new screenshot or something pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaasssssseeeeeeee!! :wacko:

Max 86
Civilian
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:36 am

Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:07 pm

Is this still being released this year? Just asking.

User avatar
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
Captain
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm

Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:18 am

lecrop wrote:We need a new screenshot or something pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaasssssseeeeeeee!! :wacko:


+1

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25435
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:02 am

Yes, still planned for this year!
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:09 am

lecrop wrote:We need a new screenshot or something pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaasssssseeeeeeee!! :wacko:


Yes give us a little something, a screen of some unit art, a couple of leader stats, an idea of how the recruiting part of the game should work, anything really !

Duke76
Corporal
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:59 pm

Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:57 pm

veji1 wrote:Yes give us a little something, a screen of some unit art, a couple of leader stats, an idea of how the recruiting part of the game should work, anything really !


"still planned for this year! " + any screenshot and real info yet = 2016 :bonk:

User avatar
Calvin809
Private
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:25 am
Location: MN, USA

Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:58 am

One think that I would like to see is being able to change the name of divisions or brigades in a stack and not just the name of the stack. I wish we could do that in CWII to make it more immersive. Of course it doesn't change gameplay at all...but it would be cool to be able to have an army organized like it was in real life. It would be nice to have a more streamlined way of organization. Maybe a spreadsheet of all units in an army and being able to create divisions or corps and move units around and name them all in one window instead of the drag and drop stuff (more of a gameplay thing). It may be a bit much for the engine though...also I only have AJE and CWII that I play so I'm not sure how it works with other games that use the engine.

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:20 am

In the Civ War game the Union was penalized victory points for not moving on Richmond because the Union player knew what would happen to his army if he tried.

If you are playing France will you invade Spain? Russia? Why would you invade Spain? An argument could be made for the enforcement of the Continental System vs Britain but it is a poor one. In this case the ultimate question is: Should you be penalized VP for not invading Spain? I would really dislike that. Also, why not invade Russia up to Smolensk and the Baltic states and return the ancient boundries of Poland? The Ukranians and Balts flock to Poland. (Anyone ever see the footage of 1944-5 of civilians fleeing west towards the Nazis away from the Russians?) Should you be penalized VP for not invading Russia?

Why did Austria declare war in 1809? Or even earlier? Why did they declare war? It wasn't just to regain lost ground that is for sure.

The system already calculates the percentage loyalty in a province. I would like to see it calculate a range between 0 and 100 - 0 being Robspierre Radicalism heads-are-off and 100 being Tsarist Russian Ancien Regime Serfdom, where 25 million peasants are privately owned and another 15 are owned by the state.

Each major power should have a range necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the regime.

If there was one thing, and one thing only, that you had to say defined the era it was the question of legitmacy. All was thrown into doubt.

Austria may be 75 to 85 for example. However, Strausburg as a city of reform and Napoleonic Code reforms in Bavaria and Northern Italy may be such that they would lose any future chance at effwctive control of these territories. And the influence would seep eventually into their own territories which could affect loyalty and revenue.

Such a mechanism would place pressure on states to act.

There are other things effecing legitmacy: battles won and nationalism. And these may be in some cases more important than the above actually but I would rather see the era captured - between 1775 and 1825 you walked into one world at the beginning and exited another at the end - than a VP penalty.

Last, I hope there is a strong diplomacy mechanism. You should not be able to enter a coallition without stating war goals to each other. And each of the allied powers should have conflicting victory conditions.

Sometimes those goals may be vague - defeating Napoleon - other times they could be very specific - what to do with Saxony or Poland, for example. Or who to put in Napoleon's place. Russia wanted Berdodotte. Everyone else opposed that because it would make Russia too strong.

Austria, Prussia and Russia - rather than spending their energy sending troops against revolutionary France - spent the early 1790's splitting up Poland because they knew its value to their security and did not trust one another.

Prussia could have been an ally of Napoleon. They made a defensive pact with France in 1806. They did not balk at the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine. They wanted to establish their own Confederation of northern German states. Instead Napoleon said no and offered Hannover to the British as a carrot for peace. War was declared by the Prussians. But suppose a French player would accept that proposition? And possibly marry into the Prussian hieracrchy?

All through 1813 and 14 Metternich, fearing too much Russian power, tried to keep Napoleon and France alive and well so as to act as a check to Russian ambition. After 1809, with good diplomacy, Austria could have been an ally of France. Austria married Marrie Therese to Napoleon because they did not want Napoleon to marry a Russian princess...telling.

Britain should only be able to offer subsidies to coalition partners; there needs to be a coalition for them to offer subsidies. (Britain and Russia, btw, had very tense relations in the late 1790's and early 1800's over the right to board ships). This is not only historically accurate but would also have a profound and extremely positive effect on gameplay....what should I do type choices for the players of Austria, Prussia and Russia.

Somewhere on the forum I read that the French were poor in line formation. Not true. They had the same philosophy as the British with regard to tactics: get close, discomfort the enemy and charge to disperse them. The French did it by moving rapidly in column (after the enemy had discharged their most effect volley....the first...and then still being in good order - which was easier to maintain in column...either firing at closer range or just charged (and the enemy would flee not face them on open ground. The Russians were good at establishing works - they weren't innately blessed with toughness or grace - which would make the soldiers stay and accept the bayonet charge.) The British just did the same but from a defensive posture. They would hold their fire to devastate the advancing enemy, who then became disordered, and then charge and they would disperse them.

User avatar
Shri
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:54 am

@Drake001

You have several facts incorrect, let me list some of them-

Austria married Marrie Therese to Napoleon because they did not want Napoleon to marry a Russian princess...telling.

The Hapsburg's were old past masters at the art of marriage-diplomacy to protect themselves temporarily; it was done as the HRE had been dismantled in the peace treaty by Napoleon and as a desperate attempt to keep the balance lands.
Emperor Franz later on gave a 'cold shoulder' to his daughter. Daughters and younger Sons did not matter, Empire alone was what mattered.
The Prussians weren’t much into this marriage-diplomacy.
Why Russia didn't agree for the marriage is because Russia wasn't desperate enough or rather Russia had never lost. Sure, they lost a few thousand, doesn't matter, the TSAR of All Russia was the Imperator and Autocrat of all Russia ordained by GOD, he wasn't going to let his sister marry an upstart Corsican Godless Corporal (as per the Tsar) who had gobbled the territory of France.
(As per Napoleon version) –
Why should I marry a defeated person’s daughter when I can marry my most powerful Adversary’s sister?
Oh (those old Kings think I am not a King), let me marry the longest ruling dynasty of Europe.
(You are looking at things from a 21st century prism, not from 18th and 19th century politics and ideology)

Austria, Prussia and Russia - rather than spending their energy sending troops against revolutionary France - spent the early 1790's splitting up Poland because they knew its value to their security and did not trust one another.

The 2 major partitions of Poland were done pre 1792, only the 3rd and residual partition was done once the war started.
The Prussians did send an army in 1792, it was stopped at the last moment on the French borders by Jean Moreau (the best French General of that time) & Kellerman (a German in French Service, these kind of things were very common pre 20th century, most countries in Europe used German mercenary soldiers and officers, Eg: the most Celebrated Military Commander of France before Napoleon was Moritz von Sachsen – Frenchified as Maurice de Saxe, 3 out of 4 major Russian commanders in the Napoleonic wars had names like – Wittgenstein, Benningson etc) and other Revolutionary Generals (Napoleon did not play a big part here) - see the 1st coalition for more details.
The Austrians and Russians together mobilised an army under Suvorov in the late 1790s (2nd Coalition), unfortunately the typical bickering that happened in an alliance took place and this whole expedition floundered. This is not just 18th century alliances, it had happened before and after, in the 1750s the Russians, Austrians and French failed to combine and defeat Frederick the great, in the First World War, the Triple Entente failed to defeat the CP (basically Germany + Allies), alliances are often tricky and each partner had their own priorities.
(BTW this is shown by the extra command points it costs to include an "allied" corps in your army unless Multinational Commanders are used- few and far in-between and again - This can be further re-enforced by reducing the % chance of MTSG between "allied" armies ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Second_Coalition

If you are playing France will you invade Spain? Russia? Why would you invade Spain? An argument could be made for the enforcement of the Continental System vs. Britain but it is a poor one. In this case the ultimate question is: Should you be penalized VP for not invading Spain? I would really dislike that. Also, why not invade Russia up to Smolensk and the Baltic states and return the ancient boundaries of Poland? The Ukrainians and Balts flock to Poland. (Anyone ever see the footage of 1944-5 of civilians fleeing west towards the Nazis away from the Russians?) Should you be penalized VP for not invading Russia?

Now, this is what i call total misreading of the situation.
Spain was ruled by a Bourbon ever since Charles II von Hapsburg died, this meant France and Spain were traditional allies since early 1700, after the Battle of Trafalgar, the Spanish realised that the chances of winning a Naval War was more or less finished, this meant England will remain a powerful enemy, at this time England was ruled by the Young Mr. Pitt one of the best PMs ever and certainly the best Chancellor of the Exchequer, this meant England’s coffers were full and subsidies were ready to pour out to any current and future allies. Charles IV de Bourbon the ruler of Spain realised there was a better option to ally with England against France and this precipitated the war of France and Spain.
If you do not want War- win the Battle of Trafalgar!
Why was Spain Invaded? Napoleon was building an empire, it was built by taking lands from the Dutch, the Hapsburgs, various German states, Italian states, Spanish etc, if one part of the Empire rebels successfully, soon all parts of the Empire will rebel and a fresh coalition will be raised by the English, leading to destruction of the empire NAPPY built. There is no stop, there are only 2 alternatives on that treadmill-
1. Kill or destroy all enemies – Like Nappy did
2. Build a defensive so strong it is impregnable – Again he tried, not successful.

Secondly, stopping at Smolensk? Red Army? (Are you serious now?) - the Russians themselves did not like Communism or Stalin, moreover USSR was mostly ruled by a non-Russian; Ukrainians like Brezhnev, Georgians like Stalin, several Jews etc. Russian Empire was not Communist USSR (please do not try to impost 21st century thinking on this period, It was not AXIS OF EVIL).

Ukrainians and Balts liking Poland? Get real, they hated Poland- see the "times of troubles history of Tsardom of Russia post the death of Ivan Grozny (translated wrongly as Ivan the terrible) Why would they want to be in a Polish Schlacta rule? Also the Baltics was dominated from the 12th-13th century onwards by Baltic Germans (they were mostly LUTHERAN not CATHOLIC) who formed the socio-politico-cultural-military elite of that area and also of Russia from 1750-1917, they were the descendants of the Teutonic and Livonian order, do you really think they will like Polish Rule?

Ukraine was dominated by the Military colonies established by Catherine the Great, most towns and cities had retired military personnel and Cossacks, both of them absolutely hated Poles, Jews, Catholics etc. (the word POGROMS come from this era, does that ring a bell?)
Russians (including Ukrainians) followed RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH which considered CATHOLICS as type of HERETIC.
(Again i guess you are far too much in 2015 anti-Putin propaganda mode)

Why did European Monarchies declare War?

I guess you have never read 17th and 18th century History Books, if you did- recollect what the French did - - Overthrow of the legitimate regime, mass guillotine, regicide, destruction of the church etc. This totally horrified the European Monarchs, suddenly it seemed nothing was sacred, it was all nihilist and destructive. STATUS-QUO was the most important thing for a monarch, any change was to be stopped unless it was directed by the Monarch himself.

Many other things but i guess enough to send the message. I would suggest reading some Russian books.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:02 pm

Shri wrote:Why did European Monarchies declare War?
17th and 18th century History - recollect what the French did - Overthrow of the legitimate regime, mass guillotine, regicide, destruction of the church etc. This totally horrified the European Monarchs, suddenly it seemed nothing was sacred, it was all nihilist and destructive. STATUS-QUO was the most important thing for a monarch, any change was to be stopped unless it was directed by the Monarch himself.

Yes, but French young bourgesoisy had 1st launch attack on Belgium and Holland (1792) (it was an economical actual war, not revolutionnary),
and England was since centuries the big opponent of France, to own Holland (and India, America), pushing european monarchies against this invading newly revolutionnary French competitor.

User avatar
marek1978
Colonel
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:31 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:08 pm

Shri


i dont think that these a place for such a discussions, but i would recommend you to maybe soften the languege


by statmen such a " Russians (including Ukrainians)" you just denied the right of the whole nation to exist...

by saying Ukrainians and Balts liking Poland? Get real, they hated Poland you kind of forgot mention that Teutonic Knights asked for the coommonwealth protection in XVI century - protection against Ivan Grozny..

i would say history is really complicated, and these is a game forum, something that suppose to be funny...

i dont know where you from but i am polish/german/jewish mixture and just by looking at my family history - belive things are not that simple to be conludent in one short sentenece
and i really belive these is a place to discuss game, not to refer to current politics ( like you mention Putin) or to be offensive toward whole nations.....

one more thing

The 2 major partitions of Poland were done pre 1792, only the 3rd and residual partition was done once the war started. - that sentence is untrue, second partition happned in 1793 - after 1792 polish russian war,

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Mon Aug 10, 2015 11:49 pm

1772, 1793 and 1795. In 1794 Tadeusz Kosciuszko (who fought in the American Revolution) rebelled and even managed to defeat the Russians at Raclawice. Then they were crushed and the final partition took place, ending Poland as a nation. The landgrab and distrust provided a distraction away from the French - Poland was important to all three and they were not about to let one get the upper hand.

It does not really matter if Russia would have married into Napoleon. What mattered was that Metternich, who feared Russian influence into central europe, worried about it and that fear is one of the main reasons he offered the marriage. It is borne out in 1813 and 14 how he tried to keep Napoleon extant because he wanted a check on Russia.

If Russia never lost, why did they permit the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw? Russia lost plenty just like the rest of them did. They were protected by geography.

The point about a player's decision making was not about arguing historical points...nonetheless Napoleon got greedy with Spain. It was about the hindsight we will have as players who are likely to be more prudent. Not invading Spain and establishing a Greater Poland up to Smolensk are viable strategies. I think there needs to be a mechanism - such as the spread of reform or ancien regime - besides a VP hit to put subtle pressure on players. Competing interests for coaliton partners is another such mechanism.

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:15 am

Drake001 wrote:In the Civ War game the Union was penalized victory points for not moving on Richmond because the Union player knew what would happen to his army if he tried.

If you are playing France will you invade Spain? Russia? Why would you invade Spain? An argument could be made for the enforcement of the Continental System vs Britain but it is a poor one. In this case the ultimate question is: Should you be penalized VP for not invading Spain? I would really dislike that. Also, why not invade Russia up to Smolensk and the Baltic states and return the ancient boundries of Poland? The Ukranians and Balts flock to Poland. (Anyone ever see the footage of 1944-5 of civilians fleeing west towards the Nazis away from the Russians?) Should you be penalized VP for not invading Russia?

Why did Austria declare war in 1809? Or even earlier? Why did they declare war? It wasn't just to regain lost ground that is for sure.

The system already calculates the percentage loyalty in a province. I would like to see it calculate a range between 0 and 100 - 0 being Robspierre Radicalism heads-are-off and 100 being Tsarist Russian Ancien Regime Serfdom, where 25 million peasants are privately owned and another 15 are owned by the state.

Each major power should have a range necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the regime.

If there was one thing, and one thing only, that you had to say defined the era it was the question of legitmacy. All was thrown into doubt.




I think the French player should have the choice at the start of the great campaign scenarios between two big political choices which will give him 2 different war goals needed to win the game :

1) If the player chose that France stay a Republic, its war goals would be to invade or support any republican factions in the neighboring countries, then in other European countries. The aims of the French republican revolutionaries at this period was really to free all Europe from the kings, emperor or Tsar. That's with this aim that they justify to the parliament and population the war out of France. French troops out of France would then suffer much less opposition from local peoples, but you could simulate them with less military skills.
Besides this, this war goals could use the VP system but i would prefere games where you keep this VPs for a minor victory and keep an objective cities list for a clear victory.

2) If the player chose that France become an imperial dictatorship, its war goals would be to take the military or political control of Europe, since the aims of Napoleon was not less than that.
So there is in fact no question about why would France invade Spain, but only when would the Spanish or German or Italian peoples revolt after Napoleon put one of its relative as king of new or old kingdoms. There is only random events to script with few conditions, but it should happen sooner or later anyway that the European peoples and elites plot and revolt.

About invading Russia or Britain, you could also let it as a false choice : as long as one of this big power is not crushed and invaded, France can't win the game, since small occupied European countries would always rebel and get the support of this 2 neighboring Powers.
BTW, if France is still a Republic (so if the republican law to free slaves and serfdom is still applied because Napoleon didn't re-established slavery like he did when he become Emperor) you could set a good % of loyalty to France in many Russian rural areas if France lead an invasion there.
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

lecrop
Captain
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:27 am
Contact: Website

Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:02 pm

New (amazing) screens here.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:31 pm

lecrop wrote:New (amazing) screens here.

I see a lot of CW2 in it. I'm sure there are going to be differences but I like
the layout.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Shri
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:51 am

@ DEVS
Good that you guys have implemented the Dynamic NM concept, France -110, England- 105, rest at- 100.

@Marek
From 1200 AD to 1917, there was no Ukraine, we are talking about the early 19th century here not of the 21st.
(Also i spoke about the Russian Orthodox Church, which was the Church of most of Eastern Europe till 1917).

Secondly, i come from Bharat (anglisiced as India, arabised as Al Hind), for a thousand years we have been conquered and dominated by a horde of foreigners- Arabs, Turks, Chagatai, Mongol, Persian, English, Portuguese, French, Dutch etc; so having said that, Foreigners or Foreign rule is not exactly liked.

Though we have always given refuge to persecuted foreigners - 2 out of 12 Jewish Tribes following the fall of the 2nd Temple, the entire 'Zoarastrian faith escapees from Persia', etc etc.


@Drake
In 3rd coalition, HRE was destroyed (Austrian-Russian armies, no Prussia), 4th coalition led to a Russian-Prussian alliance (no Austria).


Russia lost a few thousand men dead (as i said earlier, Empire alone mattered then, Russia had a population of 35+ Million in 1800), but in almost all battles the Russians had given a tough defence to the French unlike the Austrians and Prussians, the Victories were quite costly for Napoleon and before 'Friedland' (end of 4th coalition), he hadn't won a decisive victory against Russia like - Jena/Auerstadt against Prussia or Ulm/Austerlitz against Austria (Russians were part of this battle, but most of the Russian army was still marching into central Europe).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaties_of_Tilsit&redirect=no

--As you can see, the Russians lost 2 inconsequential islands in the Ionian Sea and gained French trade, they also gained -

Finland via - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War
+
Bessarbia via - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1806%E2%80%9312)

Both of these were done with the Tacit understanding of Napoleon, further, the Tsar's close German relatives (he himself was 100% German blood) like the Oldenburg dynasty etc were preserved, so in all "Tilsit" was a victory for Napoleon but also a victory for the Tsar, Russia often has done these kind of treaties in the past - "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact" is another example. Tilsit bought time, land, money and respite for the Tsar, Napoleon grew weaker esp. due to the "Spanish Fiasco" and the Tsar grew Stronger.

Russia did not participate in the "5th coalition (basically a depleted Austria alone)"

Russia purchases time and space for some short term losses, as Bismarck said- never underestimate the Russian, he will do a treaty with you for the time being and one day he will come down to collect, it is better to be 'fair' to him.

(BTW i have asked PhilThib if these kind of 'Land-Grab' can be done as Russia, he has told that it is possible).

From 1798/99 till 1813/14, the primary concern was defeating Napoleon and in this Austria was a prime mover as it's empire had been disembowelled. The fear of Russia started around 1813 after the strong performance of the Russian army in 1812 and 1813 campaigns against Napoleon.
(Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia + 6th Coalition battles)


P.S.: England was part of all the coalitions, but English contributions were restricted to defence of Portugal till 1812, only in the 7th coalition was it decisive- Waterloo. Of-course, the Naval Blockade by England played a huge part and "Trafalgar", "Nile" etc as mentioned earlier were instrumental in shifting Spain from the side of France to the Coalition.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

User avatar
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
Captain
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm

Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:58 pm

lecrop wrote:New (amazing) screens here.


Looks Great1 I can't wait to play it!

User avatar
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
Captain
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm

Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:27 pm

Anyway we can get a screen shot of a diplomatic screen? Very curious of how that will look.

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:46 pm

Russia lost a few thousand men dead (as i said earlier, Empire alone mattered then, Russia had a population of 35+ Million in 1800), but in almost all battles the Russians had given a tough defence to the French unlike the Austrians and Prussians, the Victories were quite costly for Napoleon and before 'Friedland' (end of 4th coalition), he hadn't won a decisive victory against Russia like - Jena/Auerstadt against Prussia or Ulm/Austerlitz against Austria (Russians were part of this battle, but most of the Russian army was still marching into central Europe).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...it&redirect=no

--As you can see, the Russians lost 2 inconsequential islands in the Ionian Sea and gained French trade, they also gained -

Finland via - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War
+
Bessarbia via - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-...06%E2%80%9312)


Although I tend not to source wiki as a definitive source much but since you did here is a quote from your source which doesn't seem to indicate someone basking in victory:

"The Russian Emperor, constrained by Napoleon to sign an armistice with the Turks, used the time of peace to transfer more Russian soldiers from Prussia to Bessarabia."

Alexander aquiesced to the Duchy of Poland - the most of which was carved up in 1792 and 1795 by the big three who could have been attending to revolutionary France. That is not what a victor does.

Alexander, after fighting a defensive campaign closer to his supply than the enemy to his and in horrid weather very unfavorable to an offensive campaign was pushed back after each battle and then finally routed at Friedland. Yes, the Russians were tough but they were whupped.

That's why, in addition to a chunk of Poland - their gateway - in enemy hands, Alexander did not gain French trade but had it forced upon him, not a victor's stance. He had to accept the Continental Blockade - not a victors stance. Napoleon, to the consternation of the Russian nobles (it is in writing), "suggested" (read dictated) Alexander's foreign moves - he suggested he attack Finland, for example. Why? Who was Sweden's ally and Napoleon's bitter foe? Britain. Alexander just decided to risk war with Britain? He lost against Napoleon and Napoleon gave him the opportunity.

From 1798/99 till 1813/14, the primary concern was defeating Napoleon and in this Austria was a prime mover as it's empire had been disembowelled. The fear of Russia started around 1813 after the strong performance of the Russian army in 1812 and 1813 campaigns against Napoleon.


This is very simplistic. Fear of Russia (and each other) started earlier as Poland partition demonstrates as well as competition over German states. Russia had been on the move westward since the mid 18th century and its aggression in Poland and Finland did not engender trust among the others, including Britain. Defeating Napoleion was paramount - a lot of the time - until self interest was involved. And that self interest even led at times to pacts with Napoleon sometimes verging on alliance, which may have been solidified given a turn here or there. Metternich did indeed do all he could to keep Napoleon viable, as least as a dipolomatic check. He also gave orders in 1813 and 14 to hold back Austrian troops for fear of where Russia had "occupying" troops. Post 1812 is just when those fears were reallized. During the Congress of Vienna Austria went on alert and sent troops eastward to be ready for war....and this is a partial list of suspicions and distrusts.

Numerous games portray the allies a perfectly united and in addition to be unfactual, makes for a worse game.

User avatar
BigDuke66
General
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:41 am

Drake001 wrote:Numerous games portray the allies a perfectly united and in addition to be unfactual, makes for a worse game.


Yes very true.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

User avatar
Shri
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:47 am

@Drake

First of all i must say that i personally share the scepticism of wiki. I generally used to never use WIKI as a source till people started responding with WIKI.
My primary source is the 2009 book by Lieven - "Russia Against Napoleon: The Battle for Europe, 1807 to 1814.", "War & Peace" by Leo Tolstoy, "The Shadow of the Winter Palace: Russia's Drift to Revolution 1825-1917" by Edward Crankshaw (this is mainly about post Napoleonic war era of Russia under 2 Nicholas and 2 Alexander Tsars), but also covers interesting titbits dating back to Alexander I and Catherine II the great.

Most of all i would suggest Lieven (Crankshaw is too late in time period, Tolstoy has meticulously researched the socio-cultural-military and political part of the era but he is too fond of religion and thus diverts away from the main topic often), as he has had access to the Russian archives and proves the Franco-English narrative of Russian role in the Napoleonic wars to be skewed, he has conclusively showcased why the Russians won - "military excellence, superior cavalry, the high standards of Russia's diplomatic and intelligence services and the quality of its European elite (helped a lot by ethnic German and Baltic Germans officers, Lieven is himself a Baltic German descendant settled in UK and does a lot of Pedantary of various ancestors in the military and court but if you ignore that part - excellent book)".

That's why, in addition to a chunk of Poland - their gateway - in enemy hands, Alexander did not gain French trade but had it forced upon him, not a victor's stance. He had to accept the Continental Blockade - not a victors stance. Napoleon, to the consternation of the Russian nobles (it is in writing), "suggested" (read dictated) Alexander's foreign moves - he suggested he attack Finland, for example. Why? Who was Sweden's ally and Napoleon's bitter foe? Britain. Alexander just decided to risk war with Britain? He lost against Napoleon and Napoleon gave him the opportunity.


Now to your comments on the Ottomans and Swedes (i guess you have never read Russian side of the story ever, French authors do not give much importance to Russian sources nor do most English authors, either for Napoleonic Wars or the Second World War - Russian contribution to both was the "Decisive contribution")

Russians have been fighting swedes since the 13th century- the "ICE victory" of Alexander Nevsky prince of Novgorod is history and partly legend of Russia, he defeated the Teutonic order and its allies - Livonian order, Swedes, Danes etc.
The formal "Russo- Swedish wars" had been on-going from 1490s or 1500s under Ivan III the Great (grandfather of Ivan the Terrible) - he tripled the size of Russia and was the first informal Tsar of all Russia(s) - formal one was his grandson.
These wars ended with the conquest of Finland in 1809-1810, so over 300 years of enmity pre- Napoleon.

"Russo-Ottoman wars" were on-going from 1550s-1560s under Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible (actually written as Grozny in Russian meaning- formidable or threatening, tough, strict, authoritative etc) till about 1917 under Tsar Nicholas II - - so about 350 years of enmity, and pre-dating Napoleon by 250 years.

Ever since 1500 or so till 1850 or so, for over 350 years Russia relentlessly expanded at a terrifying rate in Eastern Europe, Powerful Tsars like Ivan III, Ivan IV, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great etc vastly increased Russian territory; Alexander I Tsar of Russia in Napoleonic War era, was educated mainly by his grandmother Catherine the Great and her advisers and also somewhat by Paul the mad (his father and his advisers, whom he murdered as per some theories), anyway- Alexander did not need any invitation card to do "Land-Grabs".

What Russia gained due to Tilsit-
1. Finland - "Read it as BUFFER against quick Swedish Attack on St. Petersburg (capital of Tsarist Russia), for similar incident see Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940".
Considering, armies of that era and their slow movement, it would take 3 to 6 months for the Swedes to reach St. Petersburg due to that buffer.

2. Bessarbia - "Read it as BUFFER against quick Ottoman attack on Russia Black sea ports and Ukrainian wheat".
Considering, armies of that era and their slow movement, it would take 3 to 6 months for the Ottomans to reach Ukraine due to that buffer.

3. Time- the more Napoleon delayed, stronger Russia grew and weaker (relatively) France. I have already mentioned in several sub-topics, the poor state of Russian gun-powder for cannon and infantry which made it a "Bayonet-Cavalry army" until 1809; new factories were built from 1808 on wards under the directions of War minister De Tolly (a Baltic German with ancestors related to the "Barclay clan of Scotland") to ensure quality gunpowder (many with English and Prussian and also French help), the output started only from 1810-11 onwards barely in time for the French invasion, further - Officer and soldier training, drills etc were somewhat modified to ensure faster ROF (rate of fire), more accuracy etc. All of this costs - GOLD (read:Money or Foreign exchange), Trade with France and continued Secret trade with England (read Smuggling) ensured that Gold was available. Eg: at the Height of the bad relations of Russia and England, Russian businessmen (read: Smuggler?!) were ensuring that the Best Baltic stores (Wood etc which was used to build ships) went to England (at a premium price and with the clandestine Blessings of the Tsar).

This "Breathing space of 5 years" earned due to Tilsit ensured the Tsar's armies became as strong as their potential suggested. As early as 1810, Tsar Alexander I was more or less sure that war was inevitable, it was only a question of "when". Russian intelligence was always trying to ascertain OOB's etc, French allied commanders like - Wartenburg of Prussia and Shwarzenberg of Austria were anyway just waiting for an opportunity to evoke French rules and helped Russian intelligence in its work.

By 1813, the Tsar's armies were so strong that all of Europe combined would have found it difficult to stop them (similar to 1946 USSR), yet Alexander did not go about stabbing his allies in the back, he wanted to destroy Napoleon and had his cossacks or Prussian Uhlans caught Nappy they would have ensured Napoleon was blasted with "CANNON".



Numerous games portray the allies a perfectly united and in addition to be unfactual, makes for a worse game.

Allied armies face command point penalties + we can have less MTSG between allied armies in early game to show problems of "alliances".

Russo-Austrian relations were quite good right upto 1882, in 1815 itself the "HOLY ALLIANCE" was formed, by Russia, Prussia and Austria; the main problem for Austrian lack of "aggression" that you speak of in 1812 onwards has been explained by Shwartzenberg, the Austrian losses in early part of the war were so severe that the army mobilised was the only army of Austria and major losses will result in total disintegration. The Russians and Austrians were allies since "War of Polish Succession circa 1735 till Crimean War circa 1853", over 120 years.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:53 pm

Shir, let's just agree to disagree.

Numerous games portray the allies a perfectly united and in addition to be unfactual, makes for a worse game.

Allied armies face command point penalties + we can have less MTSG between allied armies in early game to show problems of "alliances".


This military solution may be fine if Aegod is just building a better mousetrap, a better version of the same Napoleonic military game we've seen over the last 15 years or so. If so, that's fine, I will no doubt buy and enjoy it because Ageod does build better mousetraps.

Someday though, someone will build a great game that captures the military and political aspects of the era. One where the control of, say, Dresden is not just a blanket 10 victory points as if its control means the same to Russia as Prussia. Prussia would accrue more because it means more to them. And where, if Prussia does indeed control Dresden, that has a negative effect on Austria - it loses points and not so much for Russia. In a game that does something such as this, the Austrian and Prussian and Russian and British, etc players will have to make tough choices in order to defeat Napoleon. Just like what happened in real life where the leaders and peoples of these countries distrusted each other, often intensely. (And it is not just control of cities, but who will rule them or confederations, etc).

As cited, there are inumerable cases where self-interest and distrust of one or more of the other powers, meant expending less or no effort against the French or even allying with them. In a game, those would likely be exacerbated because the game will not follow history step-for-step.

lecrop
Captain
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:27 am
Contact: Website

Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:22 pm

It seems that we have new name: Wars of Napoleon :)

elxaime
General
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:27 am

@Shri

Just a note, Kellerman was not a "German in French service," he was a native of Strasbourg, a province of France and thus a French citizen from the start.

User avatar
BigDuke66
General
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:02 am

But he came from a Saxon family which had long settled in Strasbourg.

lecrop wrote:It seems that we have new name: Wars of Napoleon :)

Wonder if that means we're close to the beta test.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:42 am

BigDuke66 wrote:But he came from a Saxon family which had long settled in Strasbourg.
Wonder if that means we're close to the beta test.

I hope so. I'm ready if they still want me again.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest