From the most important to the least important, with also a consideration of "how difficult it is to implement".
- An option to assign "No reinforcement" or "high priority for reinforcement" to units. While having the reinforcement auto-assign was OK for BoA, it is very frustrating to see reinforcement wasted on fronts you don't want in RoP. As AGE games goes more and more complex, this will be more and more needed. This seems like a (very relatively) simple tweak to the code (add two new buttons), and would avoid very frustrating computer decisions ("see those troops in Kiel ? Surely you want more Prussian Grenadiers there, don't you ?").
- The option to give the order "wait one day" (can be given several times). Sometimes, you just don't want your unit to move at once, but wait for your fleet to "secure" the river, for the fat army to clean the way or for the opponent to move away. Or sometimes, you just want to recover some more cohesion before attacking at the end of the turn. It would also make on-the-fly fusions of armies better (no more an army following another the "dog" way to join, you could make sure it really "intercepts" it).
- The option to change posture during a turn. Sometimes, (true, fairly rarely) you want your army to avoid a combat against the large army, and if it can engage the underdog sieging one of your fort a bit further away. This would mostly be needed for BoA, due to the very high Indian mobility and the lenght of the turns in days("avoid the English army, then ATTACK the English militiamen sieging the French fort"). When a turn last 15 days, you could only attack the neighbour of the large enemy army, and really you don't want to do that.
- Give specific orders to cavalry in a stack. I hate it when my hussars and Cuirassiers decide to charge first and get killed until the last one, only for me to easily win the battle afterwards thanks to my Grenadiers. For this reason, I usually put most of my cavalry in separate columns with a separate stance, as they should. Still, it could be nice if I could give the order to the cavarly in my army to either "Break the enemy line", "follow the troops", "stay in reserve" or "only pursuit".
That's all, but I tried to select only an handful of important points and not try to spam the Philippe with hundreds of little nitpicking.
AGE Improvements
The one thing I'd like to see as an AGE engine improvement is to be able to move units from one region to another adjacent region without the program misdirecting my units to another region first just because it's faster to enter that one region. In NCP there was supposed to be a key control that would allow this but it was never made to work. 
I also echo Narwhal's call for being able to set a wait time before a unit carries out it's movement. There are times when I want some unit to move before another to clear the way first, or I want to attack some adjacent region without embroiling every adjacent corps or interrupt their movement. It would be nice of we could set the day delay period before moving.
I don't agree with Narwhal complaining about how cavalry gets drawn into battle. There were plenty of instances where cavalry went in half cocked before the infantry or were sent in to bail out the infantry and suffered large losses. Waterloo is a great example of wasted cavalry charges before the infantry went in.
I agree that the reinforcement procedure in which units get replacement elements is frustrating to the extreme. In NCP it wrecks the game because the scenario designers and beta testers didn't pay attention to how frustrating it was to see replacement elements wasted on out of the way garrisons. Smarter initial setup of garrisons by making them complete would have gone a long ways to remedying this frustration or just making sure enough replacement elements like artillery were available to start to soak up the garrison replacements and leave something for the field forces.
The other thing that needs improving is the mix of replacements in a scenario so that it meshes with what's being used in the game. In NCP there are no replacements ever for Army HQ's or supply wagons. A lot of light artillery replacements but too many considering how few units use them while never enough regular artillery.
Improving the retreat function would also help as retreats are very frustrating in that the program seems to have a knack for retreating units to the worst possible region. The program seems stuck on retreating units to the last region they came from even if that retreat is nonsensical. The program needs to be better at retreating units away from where the enemy entered a region, preferably along a movement path the unit is already trying to follow. So frustrating to try moving a unit along a movement path, then it gets beat in battle and then doubles back along it's previous movement path instead of retreating along it's movement path.
The program has to be better at retreating units towards a friendly depot instead of away from one. It also should be more cognizant of retreating towards that side's capital.
I also echo Narwhal's call for being able to set a wait time before a unit carries out it's movement. There are times when I want some unit to move before another to clear the way first, or I want to attack some adjacent region without embroiling every adjacent corps or interrupt their movement. It would be nice of we could set the day delay period before moving.
I don't agree with Narwhal complaining about how cavalry gets drawn into battle. There were plenty of instances where cavalry went in half cocked before the infantry or were sent in to bail out the infantry and suffered large losses. Waterloo is a great example of wasted cavalry charges before the infantry went in.
I agree that the reinforcement procedure in which units get replacement elements is frustrating to the extreme. In NCP it wrecks the game because the scenario designers and beta testers didn't pay attention to how frustrating it was to see replacement elements wasted on out of the way garrisons. Smarter initial setup of garrisons by making them complete would have gone a long ways to remedying this frustration or just making sure enough replacement elements like artillery were available to start to soak up the garrison replacements and leave something for the field forces.
The other thing that needs improving is the mix of replacements in a scenario so that it meshes with what's being used in the game. In NCP there are no replacements ever for Army HQ's or supply wagons. A lot of light artillery replacements but too many considering how few units use them while never enough regular artillery.
Improving the retreat function would also help as retreats are very frustrating in that the program seems to have a knack for retreating units to the worst possible region. The program seems stuck on retreating units to the last region they came from even if that retreat is nonsensical. The program needs to be better at retreating units away from where the enemy entered a region, preferably along a movement path the unit is already trying to follow. So frustrating to try moving a unit along a movement path, then it gets beat in battle and then doubles back along it's previous movement path instead of retreating along it's movement path.
The program has to be better at retreating units towards a friendly depot instead of away from one. It also should be more cognizant of retreating towards that side's capital.
Control of where replacements go:
So far this has been realistic. In regimental systems commanders have little say in where fresh recruits go as they are raised by the depots for specific regiments. Actually we have an unrealistic advantage right now as we can determine priority and even decide how much replacement is raised (in most, not all AGEOD games). I think the current system is an acceptable compromise and there is no need for change. What I agree with is that some scenarios have issues with at the start needs of replacements, that's something that can easily be addressed by the beta teams for upcoming games...
Wait one day:
Again this gives the player more control than historic commanders had. The only way I'd see that in these games is if land forces had a variable movement delay like naval forces already have. That way you will never be certain when exactly a force will set out to march and when it will arrive at destination. At that point I'd have no problem with a delay function, in some cases these coordinated moves would work as planned, in others it'd be the small reserve starting the attack followed by the larger force that was supposed to lead the attack. Too much control is not always a good thing, the complexer the plan the more likely a commander will misiniterprete his orders...
So far this has been realistic. In regimental systems commanders have little say in where fresh recruits go as they are raised by the depots for specific regiments. Actually we have an unrealistic advantage right now as we can determine priority and even decide how much replacement is raised (in most, not all AGEOD games). I think the current system is an acceptable compromise and there is no need for change. What I agree with is that some scenarios have issues with at the start needs of replacements, that's something that can easily be addressed by the beta teams for upcoming games...
Wait one day:
Again this gives the player more control than historic commanders had. The only way I'd see that in these games is if land forces had a variable movement delay like naval forces already have. That way you will never be certain when exactly a force will set out to march and when it will arrive at destination. At that point I'd have no problem with a delay function, in some cases these coordinated moves would work as planned, in others it'd be the small reserve starting the attack followed by the larger force that was supposed to lead the attack. Too much control is not always a good thing, the complexer the plan the more likely a commander will misiniterprete his orders...
Marc aka Caran...
I see the points about cavalry not being easy to control and I take back my suggestion on it.
For replacements, I rest my case as I believe the Prussian high command, for instance, could allocate the manpower they have just the way they allocate the armies : i.e. not perfectly, but good enough.
For the "wait a day", I do agree too that land armies should be delayed for no reason just as the fleets are, esp. when the commander is not activated. (My preference would be that a non-activated commander move slower but not as slow as they do right now, but have a chance of being "delayed" and start their move 2, 5 or 10 days later than expected). I still believe that a "wait" command would make sense... esp. if like forced march and other, it has a chance to fail. "Why wait when glory is just hours from us", said Henry Dearborn as he commanded his troops to march on Canada without waiting for the rest of the American forces.
For replacements, I rest my case as I believe the Prussian high command, for instance, could allocate the manpower they have just the way they allocate the armies : i.e. not perfectly, but good enough.
For the "wait a day", I do agree too that land armies should be delayed for no reason just as the fleets are, esp. when the commander is not activated. (My preference would be that a non-activated commander move slower but not as slow as they do right now, but have a chance of being "delayed" and start their move 2, 5 or 10 days later than expected). I still believe that a "wait" command would make sense... esp. if like forced march and other, it has a chance to fail. "Why wait when glory is just hours from us", said Henry Dearborn as he commanded his troops to march on Canada without waiting for the rest of the American forces.
My first suggestion about the improvement in Age games is to develop a game about TCW as Narwhal suggested 
The secondary improvements/suggestions :
- More detailed battle report about individual divisions,units range when they engage in combat. Report about whether cavalry charge were succesfull or not, or infantry formed a defensive wall. Maybe there is already an icon about that in Rus.
-With Rus and Rop games there are more nations participate in the conflict. IMHO there should be more penalty from communication barrier and from unwillingness of soldiers commanded by foreign leaders. Maybe there should be some kind of CP of 4 to 8 in division level. Decision about who will be a corps commander will be more restrictive and realistic. That way players will try to use most of their leaders in their native area of operations. Not a necessity for AI to have a penalty.
- Currently Leaders can be promoted when they gain 4 seniority level. In my games with ROP, through 1/3 of the game I can have 10-15, 3-star commanders. I think that is high. Maybe promotion requirements for a 2 -star general to 3 star should be doubled or triple.
- Sometimes cohesion loss from battles can be lower then their movement and marching rate. This can result 8-9 battles wth same corps,units in a single turn resulting bigger NM loss or gain especially in ROP. Maybe battles can give more cohesion loss.
-To gain MC in the map, troops should enter every region. Maybe according to total patrol value of the stack and if there is no other hostile forces, neighboring regions should get more MC increase in each turn in related area/theatre.
The secondary improvements/suggestions :
- More detailed battle report about individual divisions,units range when they engage in combat. Report about whether cavalry charge were succesfull or not, or infantry formed a defensive wall. Maybe there is already an icon about that in Rus.
-With Rus and Rop games there are more nations participate in the conflict. IMHO there should be more penalty from communication barrier and from unwillingness of soldiers commanded by foreign leaders. Maybe there should be some kind of CP of 4 to 8 in division level. Decision about who will be a corps commander will be more restrictive and realistic. That way players will try to use most of their leaders in their native area of operations. Not a necessity for AI to have a penalty.
- Currently Leaders can be promoted when they gain 4 seniority level. In my games with ROP, through 1/3 of the game I can have 10-15, 3-star commanders. I think that is high. Maybe promotion requirements for a 2 -star general to 3 star should be doubled or triple.
- Sometimes cohesion loss from battles can be lower then their movement and marching rate. This can result 8-9 battles wth same corps,units in a single turn resulting bigger NM loss or gain especially in ROP. Maybe battles can give more cohesion loss.
-To gain MC in the map, troops should enter every region. Maybe according to total patrol value of the stack and if there is no other hostile forces, neighboring regions should get more MC increase in each turn in related area/theatre.
Baris wrote:- Sometimes cohesion loss from battles can be lower then their movement and marching rate. This can result 8-9 battles wth same corps,units in a single turn resulting bigger NM loss or gain especially in ROP. Maybe battles can give more cohesion loss.
This can be fixed directly in the models file, no need to change the engine
Baris wrote:- More detailed battle report about individual divisions,units range when they engage in combat. Report about whether cavalry charge were succesfull or not, or infantry formed a defensive wall. Maybe there is already an icon about that in Rus.
Actually, I would like the player NOT having the Master File to have access to what happened during the battle presented exactly the way the player you "played the turn" could see it. In RoP and game with large battles, it is an advantage IMO to know what happened in a battle.
Change We Can Belive In
caranorn wrote:Control of where replacements go:
So far this has been realistic. In regimental systems commanders have little say in where fresh recruits go as they are raised by the depots for specific regiments. Actually we have an unrealistic advantage right now as we can determine priority and even decide how much replacement is raised (in most, not all AGEOD games). I think the current system is an acceptable compromise and there is no need for change. What I agree with is that some scenarios have issues with at the start needs of replacements, that's something that can easily be addressed by the beta teams for upcoming games...
caranorn,
What we need is change we can believe in for the replacement system, not keeping the same sorry way replacements are wasted because of poor scenario design. The current system of replacements is unacceptable and ruins what could be good scenarios. In NCP there are way too many light artillery replacements and the beta team totally screwed up pointing out the problems when they had the chance. There are too few artillery units properly designated as light artillery to justify putting out as many light artillery as artillery. Then there's the problem of wasted artillery replacements on out of the way fortress artillery units not properly modeled by the scenario designers. Or the way too many militia replacements that just sit on the replacement screen because there's not enough militia units in the scenario to use them or militia used as garrisons to put them on the map.
AGEOD needs to get serious about ending the Replacement Frustration that their games are giving us customers. AGEOD has to stop using a cookie cutter approach to replacements and start paying some attention to detail to ensure that each scenario's replacements are tailored to each specific scenario. The scenario designers need to be smarter about how they set up units on the map initially so that they are full to start and don't waste much needed replacements filling up units. Beta testers need to pay more attention to how replacements are used or not used and need to report poorly planned out replacements better. Granted beta testers can report problems but that doesn't mean they'll always be fixed.
In NCP in the Swedish-Russian scenario the Swedes have two fortress artillery units not full to start and there's two artillery replacements. One is just in front of a major frontline city and the other is an off map box that shouldn't even be used in the scenario. When playing the Swedes where did the program waste my two artillery replacements? Yeah in the off map box that shouldn't even be used in the scenario instead of the more useful frontline unit. The Russian player has only one short fortress arty unit and it gets it's two regular arty replacements wasted there though it is in a frontline city. Meanwhile there end up being 4 wasted light artillery replacements on each side because there are no light artillery units used in the scenario nor any military option to buy more arty.
In NCP the short 1807 Prussian scenario has a military option for the Russians to purchase artillery replacements. I did so and discovered much to my chagrin that they ended up being French artillery replacements which couldn't be used by the Russians. I saw the Russian AI bought two batches of them which ended up being a waste of it's money and conscripts. Where were the beta testers at when they missed such an obvious booboo?
I took a look at the RoP forum and found that the same replacement problems found in NCP are also there for RoP. It's past time for AGEOD to pay more attention to detail regarding replacements. More attention must be paid to designating unit types properly as to whether they're regular artillery or light and the same goes for each type of infantry or cavalry unit.
As regards NCP there's a player named Bohemond who is actually going through the mess of mismatched unit types and is correcting them. One great change is he's designating fortress and naval artillery as heavy artillery so that those units set up short don't waste regular artillery replacements. The one scenario he fixed like that that I played was so much less frustrating as regards arty replacements. He's going back and making a proper delineation for light artillery so that there actually are light arty units for those unused light arty replacements. He's also fixing all the event snafus that were missed since NCP's release. After AGEOD releases the official 1.07 patch I'll help him fixing all of the scenarios so that replacements better match what's being used.
I do agree with you caranorn that random replacements are more realistic and that players shouldn't be able to say which units get replacements. However I disagree totally that the replacement system in games like NCP or RoP don't need frixing. If players are frustrated by the replacement system now in use then they're less likely to want to buy more AGEOD games, I know I'm not buying RoP until I see it's replacement system fixed like what is being done to NCP. I really like the WEGO system of play and many other features of AGEOD games but the mismatched replacement system just causes too much frustration for me. I just hope that the powers that be at AGEOD (PhilThib & Pocus) will see this and realize that "Houston we have a problem" and then go about fixing the replacement system problems for future releases and hopefully even past releases.
Omnius wrote:caranorn,
What we need is change we can believe in for the replacement system, not keeping the same sorry way replacements are wasted because of poor scenario design. The current system of replacements is unacceptable and ruins what could be good scenarios. In NCP there are way too many light artillery replacements and the beta team totally screwed up pointing out the problems when they had the chance. There are too few artillery units properly designated as light artillery to justify putting out as many light artillery as artillery. Then there's the problem of wasted artillery replacements on out of the way fortress artillery units not properly modeled by the scenario designers. Or the way too many militia replacements that just sit on the replacement screen because there's not enough militia units in the scenario to use them or militia used as garrisons to put them on the map.
AGEOD needs to get serious about ending the Replacement Frustration that their games are giving us customers. AGEOD has to stop using a cookie cutter approach to replacements and start paying some attention to detail to ensure that each scenario's replacements are tailored to each specific scenario. The scenario designers need to be smarter about how they set up units on the map initially so that they are full to start and don't waste much needed replacements filling up units. Beta testers need to pay more attention to how replacements are used or not used and need to report poorly planned out replacements better. Granted beta testers can report problems but that doesn't mean they'll always be fixed.
In NCP in the Swedish-Russian scenario the Swedes have two fortress artillery units not full to start and there's two artillery replacements. One is just in front of a major frontline city and the other is an off map box that shouldn't even be used in the scenario. When playing the Swedes where did the program waste my two artillery replacements? Yeah in the off map box that shouldn't even be used in the scenario instead of the more useful frontline unit. The Russian player has only one short fortress arty unit and it gets it's two regular arty replacements wasted there though it is in a frontline city. Meanwhile there end up being 4 wasted light artillery replacements on each side because there are no light artillery units used in the scenario nor any military option to buy more arty.
In NCP the short 1807 Prussian scenario has a military option for the Russians to purchase artillery replacements. I did so and discovered much to my chagrin that they ended up being French artillery replacements which couldn't be used by the Russians. I saw the Russian AI bought two batches of them which ended up being a waste of it's money and conscripts. Where were the beta testers at when they missed such an obvious booboo?
I took a look at the RoP forum and found that the same replacement problems found in NCP are also there for RoP. It's past time for AGEOD to pay more attention to detail regarding replacements. More attention must be paid to designating unit types properly as to whether they're regular artillery or light and the same goes for each type of infantry or cavalry unit.
As regards NCP there's a player named Bohemond who is actually going through the mess of mismatched unit types and is correcting them. One great change is he's designating fortress and naval artillery as heavy artillery so that those units set up short don't waste regular artillery replacements. The one scenario he fixed like that that I played was so much less frustrating as regards arty replacements. He's going back and making a proper delineation for light artillery so that there actually are light arty units for those unused light arty replacements. He's also fixing all the event snafus that were missed since NCP's release. After AGEOD releases the official 1.07 patch I'll help him fixing all of the scenarios so that replacements better match what's being used.
I do agree with you caranorn that random replacements are more realistic and that players shouldn't be able to say which units get replacements. However I disagree totally that the replacement system in games like NCP or RoP don't need frixing. If players are frustrated by the replacement system now in use then they're less likely to want to buy more AGEOD games, I know I'm not buying RoP until I see it's replacement system fixed like what is being done to NCP. I really like the WEGO system of play and many other features of AGEOD games but the mismatched replacement system just causes too much frustration for me. I just hope that the powers that be at AGEOD (PhilThib & Pocus) will see this and realize that "Houston we have a problem" and then go about fixing the replacement system problems for future releases and hopefully even past releases.
Just one note concerning NCP. It's beta team was disbanded early (I was away at the time so don't know what exactly happened). So that game is the least likely to see official improvement (though iirc Pocus already stated they'd use Bohemond's work for the final patch)...
But I agree with you that those kinds of problems should be fixed in scenarios, but I don't see an absolute need to do so for old games, rather I'd like to see those kinds of errors erased during beta or at the latest the early stages of vanilla for any future games...
Marc aka Caran...
Omnius wrote:caranorn,
I took a look at the RoP forum and found that the same replacement problems found in NCP are also there for RoP. It's past time for AGEOD to pay more attention to detail regarding replacements. More attention must be paid to designating unit types properly as to whether they're regular artillery or light and the same goes for each type of infantry or cavalry unit.
I do agree with you caranorn that random replacements are more realistic and that players shouldn't be able to say which units get replacements. However I disagree totally that the replacement system in games like NCP or RoP don't need frixing. If players are frustrated by the replacement system now in use then they're less likely to want to buy more AGEOD games, I know I'm not buying RoP until I see it's replacement system fixed like what is being done to NCP.
I havent played NCP but from my experiences playing ROP, there is not a "big" replacement problem in game. In ROP there is yearly(maybe twice in a year) replacements received for each faction apart from players have the choice to build depot bns like regular infantry construction, to replenish troops. The main shortage is the lack of elite infantry and cavalry replacements though. But when elite replacements received via options can be increased to 3 and depot bns for cavalry bns introduced(ıt would take half a year to costruct 1 bns so it wont effect game balance dramatically I think,) it will be a perfect game in my opinion. But even without those changes it is very well playable, long and enjoyable game.
There was a discussion about merging depleted elements, but I think it is much better this way. If all players merge their low health elements then they will less likely be totaly eliminated in a battle. It is better to have randomness.
If you like Napoleonic Era you should definetely play/buy this game.
note: There is AAR in paradox forum: me and Narwhal playing.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?513080-Learning-from-Prussia-a-Rise-of-Prussia-AAR-against-a-real-player-for-beginners
little promotion doesnt give harm
Return to “General discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests