How on earth does EU2 want to simulate the French Revolution and Nap. Wars

[unmerged(2005)]

I believe the rather uneventful course of EU will not do jsutice to the later years it will try to simulate.

I fear there will be jsut a fantastic leader that practally wins every battle he's in and called Napoleon. Such nonsense grossly overestimates Napoleon. He really managed to be so successful through the inherent forces unleashed by the new Regime and the army reforms that commenced in the 1780ies. Nap was a very good general, but so were Malborough, Wellington or Charles XII.

So, if Paradox chooses the easy way out and opts for such an unsatisfactory solution, the whole period after 1792 will be a joke.

Thibault - the designer of EU BG (Boardgame original) - knew why he didn't want the system to go beyond his set time limit.

I think Paradox is just adding more years on for marketing reasons: If the game remains the same plus some chrome, then at least we'll add more time, provinces and one or two nations. Big deal!

What is needed is a political model that takes account of all the upsurge of the time, doctrinal change and army reform.

(Note: I've published about the political model elsewhere which in my mind will have to be closely linked with class interests).

Especially the political side is important.

But given the rather modest efforts of Paradox, we'll presumably notice muhc the change in those years. Ah France conquered Holland? Got one or two German minors? Aha. Well, I don't care. I just go on and do my own thing...there still the Moghuls in India etc etc.

 

[Derek Pullem]

What do you want?

Napoleon lost - the unrest his conquests set in train did not resurface until 1848 and it wasn't until the 1870's that nationalism really took hold as the dominant reason for holding a state together.

France fought a bad boy war for 23 years and lost. No change to EU there. If the French revolution had took hold and a united states of europe was formed then the EUmodel would collapse.

 

[unmerged(538)]

I was wondering about this.

Will it be like in Holland in the first game when the country just keeps revolting. That would seem the way, but what happens after the revolution?

When the instituted the council or whatever it was, the five member thing. Then Nap came in and tookover.

I'm really interested to see how Nap is played into the game. I really appreciate the fact that the game is no much longer 1419-1820 is really good. Making the game even longer.

 

[unmerged(538)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
What do you want?

Napoleon lost - the unrest his conquests set in train did not resurface until 1848 and it wasn't until the 1870's that nationalism really took hold as the dominant reason for holding a state together.

France fought a bad boy war for 23 years and lost. No change to EU there. If the French revolution had took hold and a united states of europe was formed then the EUmodel would collapse.

The French revolution is commonly held as the start of all the revolutions against monarchy in Europe. And indeed Napolean used the Revolution to spread the idea of destroying the foundation of Monarchy, he was just smoothe enough to have the people love him. So he was emperor.

The revolution should definitely affect the game, and Nap should absolutely be in the game, what would be the point of the time extension to 1820 if he wasn't?

 

[Rex Francorum]

But Revolution itself must not be irreversible. If not, what will be the purpose of the policies you edict during the game. If you try to have "liberal" andless aristocratic policies and wishing "free subjects" what would be the necessity to revolt like French did in 1789 and after?

 

[Mellon]

Originally posted by Clemens August
I fear there will be jsut a fantastic leader that practally wins every battle he's in and called Napoleon

well, i don't see much wrong in this. we already have guys goin' round and win every battle they'r in, guys like Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus etc etc. one more (who really deserves that status) won't damage gameplay

 

[Carolus Rex]

Great point Mellon.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Stromprophet,

I wasn't saying don't do Napoleon - all I was saying was that for all the impact he had on Europe IN THE TIMEFRAME OF EU2 he might as well be just another ubermensch general a la Gustavus or Frederic. I understood Clemens wanted something "special" for Napoleon. My point was that the "special" bit of Napoleon didn't become apparent until well after the EU 2 period. Besides I don't believe Napoleon would have wanted to raise the prospect of national unity in any other country than France. A united Italy or Germany (which I would argue was the legacy of the French Revolution/Napoleon) would have been (was?)a disaster for France.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

Well, I myself have always wanted a proper constitutional and political model. Cannot explain it all right here.

Also, the levee en masse etc. really gave Nap huge armed forces that were later feeding off the occupied territories and he then got troops from his vassals.

It's simply not good enough just to have another superhero. The game has to change. I think that if there isn't any game change Paradox might as well leave out the whole Nap thing.

They're not going to simulate merchant shipping, no proper politics, no classes, no dynasties, no proper trade or financial system, no everything. Some boardgames do better in simulating the era. Just think of "Empires in ARms" or "Grand Siecle" ! All the things needed to simulate 1419-1820 properly will not be done, just cosmetic changes.

If I don't have the feel about living in Napoleon's days, then what the heck????

I think many historically interested people will be disappointed in EU2 as it doesn't manage to simulate the given timeframe.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Clemens August

It's simply not good enough just to have another superhero. The game has to change. I think that if there isn't any game change Paradox might as well leave out the whole Nap thing.

I hope they will. Just because things turned out that way once in France, it's ludicrous to think that re-rolling the dice all the way from 1419 will produce exactly the same set of outcomes. You might have uprisings in Austria instead, with Napoleon playing the role of Wellington in being the guy to finally crush the upstart country trying to dominate all Europe. If it's enforced by hardcoding that all of this will begin in France, will begin in 1789, and will end with Napoleon running riot through all Europe then there really is no point playing the game beyond 1789.

 

[unmerged(538)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Stromprophet,

I wasn't saying don't do Napoleon - all I was saying was that for all the impact he had on Europe IN THE TIMEFRAME OF EU2 he might as well be just another ubermensch general a la Gustavus or Frederic. I understood Clemens wanted something "special" for Napoleon. My point was that the "special" bit of Napoleon didn't become apparent until well after the EU 2 period. Besides I don't believe Napoleon would have wanted to raise the prospect of national unity in any other country than France. A united Italy or Germany (which I would argue was the legacy of the French Revolution/Napoleon) would have been (was?)a disaster for France.

Yeah I don't see that Italy and Germany being united is a result of Nap. But maybe a result of leaders like Otto Von Bismark. Heck, he didn't even know if the southern states would help them in the Franco-Prussian war, he gambled they would.

I imagine you could argue this. But I don't see it. You've played EU in the late game right, lots of stuff can happen. By then usually you have everything you need, but if you were playing online he would definitely be important.

One of naps biggest legacy was his law code, which is practically included in all courts now. His biggest thing was he was an organizer, he organized huges armies, and a whole empire practically by himself. He worked 20 hours a day and could go longer if he needed to.

I think that should affect the game in that not only was Napolean a general but he benefited all of France.

 

[John Poole]

I was thinking a bit about this and simulating the Napoleonic period does seem a bit outside of EU's grasp. I mean how are we going to simulate the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine, the Kingdom of Westphalia, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the Kingdom of Italy only to have them all return to roughly prewar conditions following the French defeat? I dont even want to try to guess how things will work out in Spain...(is Spain a French vassal? Sort of...but the population of a vassal doesn't revolt against you...annexation really doesn't work either...) I presume there is going to be a Napoleonic War scenario (perhaps going from 1800-1820) so we can check what Paradox comes up with. I hope we can have the French Revolution in the grand campaign and actually have our flag change to the tricolor.

 

[unmerged(1700)]

Originally posted by Clemens August
I believe the rather uneventful course of EU will not do jsutice to the later years it will try to simulate.

I fear there will be jsut a fantastic leader that practally wins every battle he's in and called Napoleon. Such nonsense grossly overestimates Napoleon. He really managed to be so successful through the inherent forces unleashed by the new Regime and the army reforms that commenced in the 1780ies. Nap was a very good general, but so were Malborough, Wellington or Charles XII.

So, if Paradox chooses the easy way out and opts for such an unsatisfactory solution, the whole period after 1792 will be a joke.

Thibault - the designer of EU BG (Boardgame original) - knew why he didn't want the system to go beyond his set time limit.

I think Paradox is just adding more years on for marketing reasons: If the game remains the same plus some chrome, then at least we'll add more time, provinces and one or two nations. Big deal!

What is needed is a political model that takes account of all the upsurge of the time, doctrinal change and army reform.

(Note: I've published about the political model elsewhere which in my mind will have to be closely linked with class interests).

Especially the political side is important.

But given the rather modest efforts of Paradox, we'll presumably notice muhc the change in those years. Ah France conquered Holland? Got one or two German minors? Aha. Well, I don't care. I just go on and do my own thing...there still the Moghuls in India etc etc.

Thats what sequels are for. You add something that was not present in the original game. Btw, the designer of the EU BG is on the EU2 Advisory team as well as Heartmann, Doomdark and Huszics. So do not worry yourself, relax and wait for the sequel.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by John Poole
I was thinking a bit about this and simulating the Napoleonic period does seem a bit outside of EU's grasp. I mean how are we going to simulate the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine, the Kingdom of Westphalia, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the Kingdom of Italy only to have them all return to roughly prewar conditions following the French defeat? I dont even want to try to guess how things will work out in Spain...(is Spain a French vassal? Sort of...but the population of a vassal doesn't revolt against you...annexation really doesn't work either...)

Has the possibility never occurred to you that maybe these things won't actually happen in most Grand Campaigns? Particularly if a human is playing England or Spain, because the chances are there won't be any France left to make them happen, and the late-game revolutionary revolts will take place in Germany, or Sweden, or Portugal .... if Paradox hardcode a "Napoleonic period" with all of these things you mention, it will utterly ruin the game beyond 1790. They'd actually be better off just forgetting the whole thing and pretending it didn't happen at all.

 

[alvaro]

Even more Heyesey, if any of us is playing France and the revolution really gives you good adventages you can be pretty sure that the revolution will come in the early XVII.
We will find the way!

I think you can hardcode thing in the start of the game but, at the end?? Don't think it's possible. ANything can happen after 400 years of playing and nothing is good for the AI. You will know if you are going to be blocked in your trade, or you'll have to face a hardcoded triple alliance,... at the end the game would loose all the charming of the unexpected.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Clemens August
I believe the rather uneventful course of EU will not do jsutice to the later years it will try to simulate.

I fear there will be jsut a fantastic leader that practally wins every battle he's in and called Napoleon. Such nonsense grossly overestimates Napoleon. He really managed to be so successful through the inherent forces unleashed by the new Regime and the army reforms that commenced in the 1780ies. Nap was a very good general, but so were Malborough, Wellington or Charles XII.

So, if Paradox chooses the easy way out and opts for such an unsatisfactory solution, the whole period after 1792 will be a joke.

Thibault - the designer of EU BG (Boardgame original) - knew why he didn't want the system to go beyond his set time limit.

I think Paradox is just adding more years on for marketing reasons: If the game remains the same plus some chrome, then at least we'll add more time, provinces and one or two nations. Big deal!

What is needed is a political model that takes account of all the upsurge of the time, doctrinal change and army reform.

(Note: I've published about the political model elsewhere which in my mind will have to be closely linked with class interests).

Especially the political side is important.

But given the rather modest efforts of Paradox, we'll presumably notice muhc the change in those years. Ah France conquered Holland? Got one or two German minors? Aha. Well, I don't care. I just go on and do my own thing...there still the Moghuls in India etc etc.

You think...
You believe...
If Paradox...
You fear...

Do not worry... We will not simplify the Napoleonic Era beyond reason. I would actually have felt a bit insulted if I don't know that you have since long lobbied for your political model. We use a different formulae. I personally like what you have showed us on the fora. It is accurate for 1830-1913, but not for EU2.

/Greven

 

[Secret Master]

Hey Greven....

Can you give us a hint on the political or socio-economic model for EU2? Once again, you have got me wondering about what you will be doing. Any hints at all?

 

[unmerged(4692)]

Napoleonic Era

I think the main point is being missed. The PRIMARY change in the late 18th Century was the spread of the concept that the Government must represent the interest of the Governed and requires the Consent of the Governed. This really got moving at the English Revolution in 1688, the US in 1776 and then spread to France and Europe. The easiest way to model it is probably to track some index of public support for the Government and all major treaties, wars etc have to pass a popular approval test else reduced stability. Napoleon is the product of the Era not its cause. He ultimately fell, at least partially, because he lost the support of the French people.

 

[unmerged(1764)]

Even Frederick II of Prussia styled himself "First Servant of the State", presumably in mock-reply to Louis XIV's "L'etat C'est Moi!"

Even the French Revolution of 1789 was not about getting rid of Louis XVI, let alone the monarchy. It was about an unpopular and ineffective monarch who let things get too bad, and ended up having to share power (and blame) with the nobility and bourgeiosie.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Re: Napoleonic Era

Originally posted by sokar
The easiest way to model it is probably to track some index of public support for the Government and all major treaties, wars etc have to pass a popular approval test else reduced stability.

Index of public support for the government.... you mean, maybe ... stability?

And having to pass an approval test, so the public thinks you're justified in going to war ... you mean, maybe.... having a Casus Belli?

We already have this stuff, thanks