Gave the game a six months rest because it was clear there were a lot of things to be improved. Glad to see that some of them are, like not nearly as many obliteration battles.
Would like to see the old way of building stacks, similar to Civil War 2...I really miss that. I would also like to see foreign contingents, those with whom you are allied, be able to be built the same way. Their pool would be limited of course to what they could afford to give you and then you build from what is available.
Prussia still seems to have ambitions on southern Germany early in the game. They attack countries who are allied, one way or another with France....doesn't make sense.
From a historical perspective, however, a Prussian move into southern Germany will without a doubt put them on a collision course with Austria. Their relations would sour for the rest of the game possibly even to the point of one allying with France against the other, it was that serious. Also, that type of aggression would play right into Napoleon's hands who could now be the "liberator." Prussia shouldn't move into southern Germany without an alliance with Austria and only then if those lands were to be liberated from French rule or influence. If they did try a power grab there should be repercussions from Austria. Prussia's goals in this period should be northern Germany (a confederation if possible). Poland should be a goal as well but that, in a similar fashion, should put them at odds with Russian. Influence of Holland or Denmark or Hannover should put them in conflict with Britain. On the very outside, they could go for southern German influence, for a dominating victory, but with the realization that it would mean conflict with Austria.
Still see some occasional lone artillery wandering about and small stacks attacking large ones...does the AI not build stacks well?
With Bavaria as a full on ally of France and France amid a peace treaty with Prussia with some turns left on it, Prussia declares war on Bavaria (again the southern Germany thing, don't get it). Why is this also not a de facto war on France?
Not to mention the illogic of it, now France can't defend her ally?
When the treaty finally wears down, France dow's Prussia (though half of Bavaria in its hands).
Then, Austria decides to declare war on Bavaria...again no de facto war with France.
Not to mention the illogic of it, now France can't defend her ally?
When the treaty finally wears down, France dow's Prussia (though half of Bavaria in its hands).
Then, Austria decides to declare war on Bavaria...again no de facto war with France.
Pocus wrote:The code is quite intricate but if I remember well a major has no formal obligation to respect an alliance with a minor, but it will lose some VP instead.
Btw, in our pbem game HRE just became the satellite of Wurttenberg with an defensive treaty.
I as France declared war on HRE when Austria declared war on me, thought it was the logical thing to do.
The code is quite intricate but if I remember well a major has no formal obligation to respect an alliance with a minor, but it will lose some VP instead.
I gotta admit, this response surprised me a bit. Not what I was expecting. It puts the onus on the wrong party by standard experience. Usually the obligation would be for the attacker to recognize it is about to start a war with the major behind the minor it is trying to gobble up.
Assuming, because you know this...the standard experience....because you all are smart....and you aren't going to change it....then any existing peace treaty between the gobbler and the major behind the minor he intends to gobble, must immediately be abrogated which would allow the backing major the opportunity to fulfill its obligation. If Prussia and France are at peace for x number of turns and Prussia attacks one of France's minors, then the peace treaty should be abrogated right now.
Does this mean that the AI for Prussia or Austria compares its troop size to Bavaria and say, "These guys are weak, we can take them!", completely ignoring the fact that it would likely mean war with more powerful France?
IMO, this overall, non-standard, approach, will lead to lots of small wars in which this type of thing occurs and France destroys them, wash, rinse and repeat, rather than the few large wars.
Pocus wrote:The code is quite intricate but if I remember well a major has no formal obligation to respect an alliance with a minor, but it will lose some VP instead.
It shouldn't juste make you lose VPs, but make the alliance disappear AND the issue is a UI issue more than a code issue : the player should have a pop up or at least a red message telling him his ally has been DOWed and asking him to honour or not his alliance (at the cost of losing said alliance). Right now the player can miss things easily.
It shouldn't juste make you lose VPs, but make the alliance disappear AND the issue is a UI issue more than a code issue : the player should have a pop up or at least a red message telling him his ally has been DOWed and asking him to honour or not his alliance (at the cost of losing said alliance). Right now the player can miss things easily.
Sure. But if you are obliged to defend a minor and are subject losing an ally and vps and whatever....then you should be allowed to defend them. It doesn't make sense, given the onus and the penalties, to not be able to come to their aid because you are locked into a peace treaty and have to wait x number of turns.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests