Simple Questions, Simple Answers.

[SAS]

Will there be an option for counters to display the units like hoi3? Or like NPC the unit cards?

[Anguille]

Have been wondering myself....

[PhilThib]

Why not if we have the time to code that and produce the relevant artwork. NATO-like counters are simple to do, unit cards could be nice too, but we have to check how they will render. It's not decided yet..

[Kluska]

(This is going to seem completely ridiculous, but however)

Not having played NCP1, this has been on my mind: will there be a-historically AI created martial figures to command armies, or are all martial figures in NCP2 based on history?

Also if all officers/generals based on history, will we encounter a feature like perma-death? As in, if I do battle with the Grand Armée that is led by Napoleon personally and he is killed in the engagement, will that be all she wrote for Napoleon or any other commander who is killed in battle?

[PhilThib]

It will be a historical simulation and we try to avoid killing major army commanders for the sake of play balance...if France loses Napoleon, she just can't win the game anymore because having Napoleon a living and recognized ruler of France by end of the game is mandatory....

And if we protect the French main army leader, then we must do the same for other nations too...

But death on the battlefield will be possible, including for top corps commanders...we have more than a few examples of such things...

[Caranorn]

(This is going to seem completely ridiculous, but however)

Not having played NCP1, this has been on my mind: will there be a-historically AI created martial figures to command armies, or are all martial figures in NCP2 based on history?

Also if all officers/generals based on history, will we encounter a feature like perma-death? As in, if I do battle with the Grand Armée that is led by Napoleon personally and he is killed in the engagement, will that be all she wrote for Napoleon or any other commander who is killed in battle?

I can't reply for NCP-II, but this how it's in NCP-I and other Ageod games...

Most commanders are historically documented, of one of a possible four ranks (1 to 4 star). The more famous generals are rated for their historic performance and relevant traits. Less important generals are likely to end up with just generic stats (3-1-1 without traits in AACW). In theory every general should have his unique portrait in game, unfortunatelly some just cannot be documented so they have to use generic portraits instead. Occasionally a few fictional generals are included (PoN has quite a few in the campaign) for game reasons (lack of historic documentation etc.), but this is the exception, by far not the rule...

Leaders killed in Age games are generally gone for good (technically one could re-add some via event, might even be the case in some existing scenarios). If an outstanding leader like Napoleon were killed I expect this would set off a large loss of national morale, likely leading to an early victory for the other side. In practice though Napoleon was almost unkillable in NCP-I (somewhat of a weakness of existing Age games is that 3 and 4* generals cannot be killed in battle, so could only be "killed" if their entire force is destroyed (and even then there is a chance he is only "wounded") or if alone in a region by harsh weather (maybe som other freak occasions))...

How exactly this will be handled in Clausewitz based NCP-II? No idea, but I'm certain the historic leaders system will be maintained. How they will now be rated, to what degree of command they will be included etc. I don't know...

[Kluska]

It will be a historical simulation and we try to avoid killing major army commanders for the sake of play balance...if France loses Napoleon, she just can't win the game anymore because having Napoleon a living and recognized ruler of France by end of the game is mandatory....

And if we protect the French main army leader, then we must do the same for other nations too...

But death on the battlefield will be possible, including for top corps commanders...we have more than a few examples of such things...

I see. Perhaps Napoleon was not the best example to use, but at least my point got across.

Anyway, I quite like that! Thanks for your answer!

I can't reply for NCP-II, but this how it's in NCP-I and other Ageod games...

Most commanders are historically documented, of one of a possible four ranks (1 to 4 star). The more famous generals are rated for their historic performance and relevant traits. Less important generals are likely to end up with just generic stats (3-1-1 without traits in AACW). In theory every general should have his unique portrait in game, unfortunatelly some just cannot be documented so they have to use generic portraits instead. Occasionally a few fictional generals are included (PoN has quite a few in the campaign) for game reasons (lack of historic documentation etc.), but this is the exception, by far not the rule...

Leaders killed in Age games are generally gone for good (technically one could re-add some via event, might even be the case in some existing scenarios). If an outstanding leader like Napoleon were killed I expect this would set off a large loss of national morale, likely leading to an early victory for the other side. In practice though Napoleon was almost unkillable in NCP-I (somewhat of a weakness of existing Age games is that 3 and 4* generals cannot be killed in battle, so could only be "killed" if their entire force is destroyed (and even then there is a chance he is only "wounded") or if alone in a region by harsh weather (maybe som other freak occasions))...

How exactly this will be handled in Clausewitz based NCP-II? No idea, but I'm certain the historic leaders system will be maintained. How they will now be rated, to what degree of command they will be included etc. I don't know...

Oh, wow. Thank you for your answer.

Again I could have used a better example for my point other than Napoleon (Michel Ney, perhaps?), however, that is a wealth of information I did not expect.

Thanks.

[SAS]

Why not if we have the time to code that and produce the relevant artwork. NATO-like counters are simple to do, unit cards could be nice too, but we have to check how they will render. It's not decided yet..

Fantastic, if not for the first release perhaps a DLC?

[Sforzesco]

Why is Napoleon's Campaigns II abbreviated as NCP2 and not NC2? As we don't have CKP2 and EUPIII either.

Will the possibility to exiling (Napoleon to Elba etc.) implemented somehow? Is it a reasonable option as the final solution now that we know that he can escape and rise to power again!

[SAS]

Why is Napoleon's Campaigns II abbreviated as NCP2 and not NC2? As we don't have CKP2 and EUPIII either.

Will the possibility to exiling (Napoleon to Elba etc.) implemented somehow? Is it a reasonable option as the final solution now that we know that he can escape and rise to power again!

An interesting what if scenario? The options of war and battle other than waterloo

[ashandresash]

An interesting what if scenario? The options of war and battle other than waterloo

Attending new expansion/DLC Paradox policy, it would be feasible (if sales accompany, of course). And it would be a good addition IMO

[Caranorn]

Why is Napoleon's Campaigns II abbreviated as NCP2 and not NC2? As we don't have CKP2 and EUPIII either.

Will the possibility to exiling (Napoleon to Elba etc.) implemented somehow? Is it a reasonable option as the final solution now that we know that he can escape and rise to power again!

Just on the abreviation. Napoleon's Campaigns (I) is abreviated NCP, so II is obviously NCP-II. This has nothing to do with Paradox of course (which I assume you are refering to). It's just the way Ageod games are abreviated. BoA=Birth_of_America, AACW=Ageod's_American_Civil_war, NCP=Napoleon's_Campaigns, WiA=Wars_in_America (aka BoA-II), RoP=Rise_of_Prussia, RuS=Russia_under_Siege (technically a mod project), PoN=Pride_of_Nations (originally VGN=Vainglory_of_Nations) and now NCP-2=Napoleon's_Campaigns-2...

[Lord Blekinge]

Will the ownership of land being a war goal? So for example the Russo-Swedish war over Finland? I am curious as you could have a war goal for the British being the ownership of French West Indies territory, as we all know the campaigns in the West Indies were central to British strategy. So a British army is dispatched to the West Indies, they take Martinque, then France sends a peace offer which transfers the ownership of Martinque to Britain, they accept and are then out of the war. Is this possible?
Also one other question dealing with the West Indies, will attrition be realistic?

[Sforzesco]

Just on the abreviation. Napoleon's Campaigns (I) is abreviated NCP, so II is obviously NCP-II. This has nothing to do with Paradox of course (which I assume you are refering to). It's just the way Ageod games are abreviated. BoA=Birth_of_America, AACW=Ageod's_American_Civil_war, NCP=Napoleon's_Campaigns, WiA=Wars_in_America (aka BoA-II), RoP=Rise_of_Prussia, RuS=Russia_under_Siege (technically a mod project), PoN=Pride_of_Nations (originally VGN=Vainglory_of_Nations) and now NCP-2=Napoleon's_Campaigns-2...

Sorry, I'll continue even though it is not that important: All other games you listed follows one-character-per-word abbreviation rule, but NCP has an extra "P" on it. Is the logics "CamPaign" perhaps? i.e. is campaign a compound-word I do not recognize as non-native-english speaker?

[Dragassa]

What Nations will one be able to play as in the game?
I'm only asking because PON has a limit as to which nations one can play as.

[Caranorn]

Sorry, I'll continue even though it is not that important: All other games you listed follows one-character-per-word abbreviation rule, but NCP has an extra "P" on it. Is the logics "CamPaign" perhaps? i.e. is campaign a compound-word I do not recognize as non-native-english speaker?

It's not really a compound word, but yes, the P seems to stand for that second part of the word campaign. What I was trying to refer to is that most of those abreviations use three letters (except for AACW, but the first A might have been added after the abreviation was decided on to differentiate from other companies' ACW games)...

[Van Diemen]

What will be the exact timeframe for this game? Will it cover the revolutionary period for example or just 1805-1815? If we can only play about 10 years in game this game could be over pretty fast. Maybe hourly ticks like in HoI3 would be better then?

[fabius]

What will be the exact timeframe for this game? Will it cover the revolutionary period for example or just 1805-1815? If we can only play about 10 years in game this game could be over pretty fast. Maybe hourly ticks like in HoI3 would be better then?

Yes, I think they said 10 years. It will all be about the pacing. Hourly ticks like HoI is quite a good idea.

[Van Diemen]

Yes, I think they said 10 years. It will all be about the pacing. Hourly ticks like HoI is quite a good idea.

Not only because it will increase the game's lifespan, but also because most Napoleonic battles were actually pretty decisive and didn't take 2 weeks or more before it saw the end of the fighting, as could maybe be expected if going for the so called "realistic" real-time daily ticks. Usually battles were decided within a single day or at most not more than few days.

[SAS]

With the time frame only 10 years it will be interesting to see how they do the battles.