I'm testing out the January 1805 Campaign scenario as all 7 major nations and found that the same annoying event that forces humans to undergo the same historically dumb decision of Austrian General Mack freezing at Ulm for the shorter September 1805 scenario and Campaign starts is functioning in this scenario. That is wholly unacceptable to have Mack and the entire Bavarian Army Corps being frozen for two turns in September 1805 when the action could be fluid and critical. This needs to be fixed so that we have freedom of choice in what we do playing the Austrians. It's also imperative to not hamper the already lame Athena Ignorance in this campaign scenario as I watched it force Mack to go to Ulm losing battle after battle turn after turn until he was basically wiped out at Ulm in my video series game. Watch my 7th WoN video to see how poor Mack gets whipped at Ulm because this event forced him to travel there.
http://youtu.be/Jry8RHtExc
This event was a poor decision back in Napoleon's Campaigns and it's even dumber now in the Wars of Napoleon early campaign scenario. Please don't screw up the game with these kinds of historical events that only make the game worse instead of better. Don't forget we play these games to see the "what if" possibilities. Plus we'll be in much different circumstances and forcing a freeze on an Austrian human player in a PBEM game would be cruel and unusual punishment.
I am all for letting players choose what to do but this is somewhat more complicated. Mack was not the army commander, an Habsburg Archduke was who then fled leaving the army with no commander. Mack eventually took over the army but it took time which is what the event shows. Mack is probably the most maligned commander in history who never deserved the criticism.
-
MarshalJean
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm
Omnius wrote:I'm testing out the January 1805 Campaign scenario as all 7 major nations and found that the same annoying event that forces humans to undergo the same historically dumb decision of Austrian General Mack freezing at Ulm for the shorter September 1805 scenario and Campaign starts is functioning in this scenario. That is wholly unacceptable to have Mack and the entire Bavarian Army Corps being frozen for two turns in September 1805 when the action could be fluid and critical. This needs to be fixed so that we have freedom of choice in what we do playing the Austrians. It's also imperative to not hamper the already lame Athena Ignorance in this campaign scenario as I watched it force Mack to go to Ulm losing battle after battle turn after turn until he was basically wiped out at Ulm in my video series game. Watch my 7th WoN video to see how poor Mack gets whipped at Ulm because this event forced him to travel there.
http://youtu.be/Jry8RHtExc
This event was a poor decision back in Napoleon's Campaigns and it's even dumber now in the Wars of Napoleon early campaign scenario. Please don't screw up the game with these kinds of historical events that only make the game worse instead of better. Don't forget we play these games to see the "what if" possibilities. Plus we'll be in much different circumstances and forcing a freeze on an Austrian human player in a PBEM game would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Completely disagree. This is a strongly historical game seeking to represent the period well. Forcing Mack to remain at Ulm recreates an important set-up to the Austerlitz campaign. As the Austrian player, your goal should be to see what happens and what you are able to do when Mack's army is defeated. In other words, how much damage can you inflict with Mack's army before it is defeated, and will that help stem the tide for the remainder of the campaign? That is a perfectly legitimate scenario for a historical simulation like this to present to an Austrian player.
But if I remember right, you're the same guy who likes to use the phrase "Athena Ignorance" as much as possible because you think it is so clever while filling these forums with complaints. As I've said on another post you've made, as much as you criticize AGEOD games I'm still amazed to find you playing them, and even posting your frustrations as Youtube logs. Seems to say more about you than AGEOD, I'm afraid....
Omnius' posts have become tedious. He invests inordinate amounts of time tearing down any facet of a game that doesn't meet his personal predelictions.
Why is he incapable of simply suggesting that the Mack freeze be a randomly occuring event, or some such. Some kind of a helpful suggestion.
He's spewed his baleful thoughts across other forums with other games, so it's just part of his make-up.
Why is he incapable of simply suggesting that the Mack freeze be a randomly occuring event, or some such. Some kind of a helpful suggestion.
He's spewed his baleful thoughts across other forums with other games, so it's just part of his make-up.
MarshalJean wrote:Completely disagree. This is a strongly historical game seeking to represent the period well. Forcing Mack to remain at Ulm recreates an important set-up to the Austerlitz campaign. As the Austrian player, your goal should be to see what happens and what you are able to do when Mack's army is defeated. In other words, how much damage can you inflict with Mack's army before it is defeated, and will that help stem the tide for the remainder of the campaign? That is a perfectly legitimate scenario for a historical simulation like this to present to an Austrian player.
But if I remember right, you're the same guy who likes to use the phrase "Athena Ignorance" as much as possible because you think it is so clever while filling these forums with complaints. As I've said on another post you've made, as much as you criticize AGEOD games I'm still amazed to find you playing them, and even posting your frustrations as Youtube logs. Seems to say more about you than AGEOD, I'm afraid....
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4058960
gwgardner wrote:Omnius' posts have become tedious. He invests inordinate amounts of time tearing down any facet of a game that doesn't meet his personal predelictions.
Why is he incapable of simply suggesting that the Mack freeze be a randomly occuring event, or some such. Some kind of a helpful suggestion.
He's spewed his baleful thoughts across other forums with other games, so it's just part of his make-up.
That would be interesting : because of Austrian C&C and bad preparation there are liable to have command freeze... Although to be honest the best way to emulate this would simply be to play with the hard activation rule : passive = no movement. Than the Austrians are doomed to be often stuck while the Grande armée flies around 90% of the time with Napoleon, Davout, Lannes, Soult and Murat activated almost all the time and only Ney / Bernadotte / Marmont / Augereau lagging behind sometimes.
The reason of the event has nothing to do with the organization or command quality of the Austrian forces. This is to represent the event that a clever French spy, Schulmeister, was able to intoxicate Mack with wrong information that led him in a state of perplexity and pondering / waiting that caused him to remain idle while trying to make up his mind...when he had a decision, some time has passed and he had been trapped....
Aurelin,
I messed up the link address, here is the correct link address:
https://youtu.be/Jry8RHt4Exc
The link button doesn't include the "s" after http.
I messed up the link address, here is the correct link address:
https://youtu.be/Jry8RHt4Exc
The link button doesn't include the "s" after http.
MarshalJean
In the January 1805 campaign scenario this force Mack to stay stationary is ridiculous because so much can change from the historical August opening. It just isn't appropriate to freeze Mack and the Bavarian Army corps as it places an unfair hinderance on an Austrian human player. I guess you like your Austrian opponent hampered to gain an easy victory. What if a human Austrian player is smart enough not to attack Bavaria or Wurtemburg in 1805? How does this freeze recreate history then? All it is is a crutch for French players who want easy victories due to lame rule restrictions like this. Leave it in the August 1805 scenario but take it out of the January 1805 one so an Austrian human player isn't hampered for two turns unfairly.
Yes I am the one who says Athena Ignorance because the AI is as poorly done as back in Napoleon's Campaigns. It's not worth playing against except as a learning tool early on or for poor players to find an opponent they can beat.
In the January 1805 campaign scenario this force Mack to stay stationary is ridiculous because so much can change from the historical August opening. It just isn't appropriate to freeze Mack and the Bavarian Army corps as it places an unfair hinderance on an Austrian human player. I guess you like your Austrian opponent hampered to gain an easy victory. What if a human Austrian player is smart enough not to attack Bavaria or Wurtemburg in 1805? How does this freeze recreate history then? All it is is a crutch for French players who want easy victories due to lame rule restrictions like this. Leave it in the August 1805 scenario but take it out of the January 1805 one so an Austrian human player isn't hampered for two turns unfairly.
Yes I am the one who says Athena Ignorance because the AI is as poorly done as back in Napoleon's Campaigns. It's not worth playing against except as a learning tool early on or for poor players to find an opponent they can beat.
Omnius wrote:MarshalJean
In the January 1805 campaign scenario this force Mack to stay stationary is ridiculous because so much can change from the historical August opening. It just isn't appropriate to freeze Mack and the Bavarian Army corps as it places an unfair hinderance on an Austrian human player. I guess you like your Austrian opponent hampered to gain an easy victory. What if a human Austrian player is smart enough not to attack Bavaria or Wurtemburg in 1805? How does this freeze recreate history then? All it is is a crutch for French players who want easy victories due to lame rule restrictions like this. Leave it in the August 1805 scenario but take it out of the January 1805 one so an Austrian human player isn't hampered for two turns unfairly.
Yes I am the one who says Athena Ignorance because the AI is as poorly done as back in Napoleon's Campaigns. It's not worth playing against except as a learning tool early on or for poor players to find an opponent they can beat.
Fair enough mate, but no need to rant.
-
MarshalJean
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm
Omnius wrote:MarshalJean
In the January 1805 campaign scenario this force Mack to stay stationary is ridiculous because so much can change from the historical August opening. It just isn't appropriate to freeze Mack and the Bavarian Army corps as it places an unfair hinderance on an Austrian human player. I guess you like your Austrian opponent hampered to gain an easy victory. What if a human Austrian player is smart enough not to attack Bavaria or Wurtemburg in 1805? How does this freeze recreate history then? All it is is a crutch for French players who want easy victories due to lame rule restrictions like this. Leave it in the August 1805 scenario but take it out of the January 1805 one so an Austrian human player isn't hampered for two turns unfairly.
Yes I am the one who says Athena Ignorance because the AI is as poorly done as back in Napoleon's Campaigns. It's not worth playing against except as a learning tool early on or for poor players to find an opponent they can beat.
Actually, wanting to have Mack frozen has nothing to do with me wanting an easy victory. It has everything to do with re-creating something significant in history. Just as you evidently find freezing Mack as the Austrian player an insult to your intelligence in knowing better to invade Bavaria, I find it a historical challenge to overcome as the Austrian player. It's just a matter of preference as to how much history to simulate and where to draw the line. Using your reasoning, I could go on a rant and complain at how stupid the Hapsburgs were for not adopting the corps system much earlier, or inculcating many of the local administration and draft techniques that Napoleon instituted pre-1805 that gave France such huge manpower advantages. I could complain that AGEOD is forcing such an economic and military situation on me as an Austrian player when, with 20/20 hindsight vision, I now know how stupid Kaiser Franz was in not modernizing his empire more quickly but now I'm forced to repeat history. I could use this argument as just one more of many in my epic pursuit to do what I really find such delight in doing anyway and will use all my waking hours pursuing with perverse delight...criticizing a small team of developers who have done a remarkable job creating a very unique system for historical die-hard players. I could continue to just be a loud voice on the side of those who complain about the problems, or I could be a more irenic, kind, and moderate voice on the side of those bringing solutions to problems.
I can always do either, I guess...
-
MarshalJean
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm
To be clear, I only speak this strongly, not because you criticize any aspect of the game, or because you draw attention to problems you perceive. veji1, vicberg, aurelin, and any number of regular forum posters regularly bring problems to the attention of the devs. This is helpful and desperately needed. I myself have posted problems with CTDs. But these players, and many others, seem to post their material (even when critical) for the purpose of helping and assisting AGEOD, even when they are sometimes frustrated, as we all can be. But what seems to be the case with you, Omnius, from many of your other posts, is that you have some kind of vendetta against AGEOD. You not only give your opinions on problems you perceive in the game, you insult the game and its developers. You advertise youtube videos you make with the expressed purpose of tearing down the franchise while seemingly elevating your own cleverness. In short, you don't seem to have any love for AGEOD games or their particular gaming culture. To use the proverbial line, you just seem to want to watch it burn. It comes off as arrogant and angry, rather than helpful.
That's where I'm coming from, at least.
That's where I'm coming from, at least.
MarshalJean wrote:To be clear, I only speak this strongly, not because you criticize any aspect of the game, or because you draw attention to problems you perceive. veji1, vicberg, aurelin, and any number of regular forum posters regularly bring problems to the attention of the devs. This is helpful and desperately needed. I myself have posted problems with CTDs. But these players, and many others, seem to post their material (even when critical) for the purpose of helping and assisting AGEOD, even when they are sometimes frustrated, as we all can be. But what seems to be the case with you, Omnius, from many of your other posts, is that you have some kind of vendetta against AGEOD. You not only give your opinions on problems you perceive in the game, you insult the game and its developers. You advertise youtube videos you make with the expressed purpose of tearing down the franchise while seemingly elevating your own cleverness. In short, you don't seem to have any love for AGEOD games or their particular gaming culture. To use the proverbial line, you just seem to want to watch it burn. It comes off as arrogant and angry, rather than helpful.
That's where I'm coming from, at least.
Well stated.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests