If you could make sure one thing was in the game what would it be?

Matt68046 said:

There is one thing MAJOR that is missing, The ability to see battles and guide troops. Maybe thats why NTW is so much more popular . This game just looks like another Vicky2, or sengoku, they are a dime a dozen. PARADOX!! Stop wasting time and money on these look a like games and give us something that we can command troops in battle, even if its hex's and turn based. PLEASE enough of this nonsense.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't expect anything close to the individual unit control of a TW and really don't want that in an EU game but it would be very welcome to have a deployment phase when two armies meet and for the player to have the ability to deploy the wings and set the reserves and to set a basic plan of attack or defense. Then the game could play out the battles as usual. Just a bit more player input would really be nice.

Well, you CAN divide the units to reserve, centre, and right and left flanks. However, we haven't seen anything that would allow us to have input into the actual tactics in the battle, as in a button saying "this flank only defend" and stuff.

Which is, in general, a good thing.

Different commanders should have different tactics lined up. You should not have the same tactical opportunities as...say a typical Austrian commander then as Napoleon. I think CK II simulates this well where tactics are based on unit composition and the commander's Martial rating.

Remember the scope here. You are the leader of a nation. With the exception of Napoleon, that means you aren't in the field....and even Napoleon had to scramble a few times because he wasn't able to set up properly.

No...if you want direct control of a battle, then that's what NTW is for. I'm too busy trying to run my country not to trust my generals with details.

CatKnight said:

Which is, in general, a good thing.

Different commanders should have different tactics lined up. You should not have the same tactical opportunities as...say a typical Austrian commander then as Napoleon. I think CK II simulates this well where tactics are based on unit composition and the commander's Martial rating.

Remember the scope here. You are the leader of a nation. With the exception of Napoleon, that means you aren't in the field....and even Napoleon had to scramble a few times because he wasn't able to set up properly.

No...if you want direct control of a battle, then that's what NTW is for. I'm too busy trying to run my country not to trust my generals with details.

Click to expand...

All true and I agree. So long as we can arrange the placement of our forces; which I see now that we can; I am happy. When we play the French though I would hope that we get more options for setting up tactics for the battle with some basic command for each of the portions of the army. Maybe the French Marshals have enough flexibility to allow a player controlled Napoleon to get the results that he desires.

Matt68046 said:

There is one thing MAJOR that is missing, The ability to see battles and guide troops. Maybe thats why NTW is so much more popular . This game just looks like another Vicky2, or sengoku, they are a dime a dozen. PARADOX!! Stop wasting time and money on these look a like games and give us something that we can command troops in battle, even if its hex's and turn based. PLEASE enough of this nonsense.

Click to expand...

Secondly, this would require a complete change of what PI games ARE. Because games like V2 and Sengoku aren't dime a dozen. PI COMMANDS games like these, even more so after their takeover of AGEOD, now Paradox France. Total War games are Total War games. Paradox games are Paradox games. Asking for Paradox games to be Total War games is a mistake, I think.

RickInVA said:

I believe the key to that is an agressive and effective Fog of War mechanic. After all, why did the powers spread their troops out rather than concentrate? Logistics and uncertanity of the enemy's location. The first is often fairly well represented, but the latter is generally not. Having a good FOW with appropriate sighting/scouting mechanics and reaction moves would, I believe go a long way to help reduce the Stack of Doom.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%!! Crown of Glory came closest to a good FOG by computing opposing cavalry forces; weather; terrain; general's iniative etc... and only allowing players an ESTIMATE of enemy force sizes with a corresponding reliability estimate. ALSO and most importantly, the AI and the player's turns were simultaneous; thereby increasing accidental meetings of armies. The god-like perspective of most strategic wargames is so unrealistic. Adding uncertainty about location and numbers is KEY to a more realistic and FUN wargame. Sometimes battles were carefully planned but at other times they happened when two armies blundered into each other and a massive engagement resulted. The game should also distinguish between skirmishes and the huge, significant battles of the period. There should not be big battles every week, but a few KEY battles every year with other smaller skirmish type engagements in between. Nuff said.

Well I have three things I would like to see:

1. Spain and Russia will not automatically surrender just because their capitals are taken. This happens in a lot of other games.
2. Napoleon’s abilities decrease over time. Well at least in 1815.
3. The French will start wars unnecessarily. I’m thinking Spain and Russia. Two wars they didn’t need to fight but because of Napoleon’s ego they did.

Apart from a good recreation of FOW, I hope there will be a chance to play MP with more than 1 player on the french side, either giving control of minor states (italy, rhine confederation) or directly allowing 2 players for france.

Generals having a effect on the outcomes of battles.
This is of course already given in former AGEOD games where e.g. Friedrich der Große could win a battle with a much smaller army against a poorly lead bigger austrian army. But looking at Crusader Kings II the biggest army usually always wins no matter what the terrain is and who leads the forces.

Bodhisattvas said:

Generals having a effect on the outcomes of battles.
This is of course already given in former AGEOD games where e.g. Friedrich der Große could win a battle with a much smaller army against a poorly lead bigger austrian army. But looking at Crusader Kings II the biggest army usually always wins no matter what the terrain is and who leads the forces.

Click to expand...

Yes, generals should have much more impact on the outcome of battles than in CKII. Also there should be some way of reflecting the likelihood of certain generals carrying out the tactics/ tasks assigned to them. Napoleon dismissed Bernadotte after Wagram because of his failure to follow his orders. Grouchy wasted the 30,000 men under his command by failing to march to the sound of the guns at Waterloo. Ney threw away the French cavalry in reckless charges on British squares unsupported by infantry or artillery. There are many more examples of the gap between a plan and its successful implementation. Loyalty/rivalry/incompetence/miscommunication: all of these should be reflected in the different generals' personalities. This is what gives this period of history so much colour. Also certain generals were better at certain levels/types of command than others. Napoleon trusted some generals like Davout and Massena with more independent commands than others. Some generals were great specialists e.g. cavalty commanders but poor overall commanders of corps or armies. I hope all of this complexity and more is incorporated in the game. Can't wait to see what a Paradox/AGEOD hybrid plays like!!

Trust we get PBEM

a strong economic aspect that makes the continental blockade actually hurt (both sides)

Matt68046 said:

There is one thing MAJOR that is missing, The ability to see battles and guide troops. Maybe thats why NTW is so much more popular . This game just looks like another Vicky2, or sengoku, they are a dime a dozen. PARADOX!! Stop wasting time and money on these look a like games and give us something that we can command troops in battle, even if its hex's and turn based. PLEASE enough of this nonsense.

Click to expand...

What on Earth are you on about? "Dime a dozen"? Where? Paradox are just about the only people making games of this sort. There just aren't games like this out there, so if anything we need more. (And incidentally, if you're lumping Sengoku in with Vicky2 like they're the same thing, you either haven't played both, or aren't the sort of gamer these are meant for.)

"Maybe thats why NTW is so much more popular"

More popular than what? This game that hasn't been released yet? What other Napoleonic strategy game are you talking about? Or are you talking about Paradox games in general? If so, I'd very much like you to provide a source for your unfounded assertion, because I very much doubt Napoleon: Total War is all that much more popular than the bigger Paradox titles.

If you want to play TW, go play TW. I'll keep my far deeper campaign map the Pdox games provide, thank you very much.

victor charlie said:

Well I have three things I would like to see:

1. Spain and Russia will not automatically surrender just because their capitals are taken. This happens in a lot of other games.
2. Napoleon’s abilities decrease over time. Well at least in 1815.
3. The French will start wars unnecessarily. I’m thinking Spain and Russia. Two wars they didn’t need to fight but because of Napoleon’s ego they did.

Click to expand...

In regards to 2, I really don't know why they'd make Napoleon worse over time. He was nearly at his best in 1814. Besides, that's not the kind of game this is. Should we keep track of his health through the years, and adjust his stats by some developers opinion of how "good" he was at any particular date? Shall we track the real-life health and ability of all the generals in all the armies?

And in regards to 3, firstly it's a terrible idea to force a player to start a war if they don't want to, and secondly it's not even remotely accurate to say those wars were started unnecessarily due to N's ego. I'm so very tired of the silly proto-Hitler caricature of Napoleon some people hold. Nappy had his reasons for going into Spain, and while it's arguable whether they were good or not, his ego wasn't among them (though his ego certainly had an effect, as it would with anyone, on how well he thought he'd do there). As for Russia, they broke the treaty they had with France, and were preparing an invasion of their own. Blaming that war on Napoleon solely is simplistic.

Stendal ^^