Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

March of the Eagles devdiary 2 –Introducing The Victory System

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Sweden as a major power in 1805 is really wrong.

It was a backward and poor country with a mad King, situated in the far north. They did not have the economic ressources or the manpower to play any leading role in Europe.

Instead they allied themselves with Russia to be on the winning team, and persuaded Bernadotte (one of Napoleon's lesser generals) to be their new King, after the old one was bumped off.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
It's nothing new to have major powers of different levels of strength, all truly historical games have that.

Italy is considered a major in HoI3, for example, in spite of being a midget compared to Ger/USSR/USA.
 
I agree its a bit odd to have 8 great powers, I think a system of 5 major powers that can win on their own using the goals shown in this DD and (a number of) secondary powers that have local goals (for Ottomans reforming the empire, for Spain defending against France, for Sweden to maintain Finland and maybe regain lands lost to Russia, etc) would be good
 
Consider also that 8 "winnable majors" offers more variety than only 5 or 3.
And no one is forcing anyone to play Spain or Sweden if they don't want to.
 
The Witch-King said:
Consider also that 8 "winnable majors" offers more variety than only 5 or 3.
And no one is forcing anyone to play Spain or Sweden if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

Well if we don't pick it major it looks "as of now" that you have to become a satellite state of another major to win!! thats pretty silly (atleast for a few of them "looks at Sweden") thats just my opinion ofc, I much rather see local goals for all "free states" beside the 5 majors (there really is only 5 majors)

That being said I would be perfectly fine with playing IE. Portugal is I could team up with France (without being a satellite) and win in coop.. but it does not look like that as of now
 
DarkieBabZ said:
Well if we don't pick it major it looks "as of now" that you have to become a satellite state of another major to win!! thats pretty silly (atleast for a few of them "looks at Sweden") thats just my opinion ofc, I much rather see local goals for all "free states" beside the 5 majors (there really is only 5 majors)

That being said I would be perfectly fine with playing IE. Portugal is I could team up with France (without being a satellite) and win in coop.. but it does not look like that as of now
Click to expand...
From what I understand of it, coalitions can win as well. So Portugal in a coalition with France ought to be able to co-win.
 
Grubnessul said:
From what I understand of it, coalitions can win as well. So Portugal in a coalition with France ought to be able to co-win.
Click to expand...

If true that would be just fine, since you wont be "a satellite" but rather a ally in joint victory :) lets hope for that!
 
Ugh, unfortunately, this entry in the thread indicates to me that the game is already off on the wrong foot. While dominance of land and sea may have been a long-term goal of the various European powers in the Napoleonic Wars, it does not strike me as a valid goal for a game only covering the one decade. France was really the only power trying to immediately gain dominance during the decade; all the others were interested in preventing France from doing so. And this, in turn, stemmed from their desire to defeat the Revolution. Land and Naval dominance misses the entire point of the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. The Congress of Vienna is a perfect example of this. Rather than seeking dominance after the imbalance caused by France had been curbed, the powers of Europe sought to extend a balance of power, and successfully did so for the next 100 years. To make a game where each European power is seeking dominance is to completely misrepresent the early 19th century.
 
Patton1138 said:
Ugh, unfortunately, this entry in the thread indicates to me that the game is already off on the wrong foot. While dominance of land and sea may have been a long-term goal of the various European powers in the Napoleonic Wars, it does not strike me as a valid goal for a game only covering the one decade. France was really the only power trying to immediately gain dominance during the decade; all the others were interested in preventing France from doing so. And this, in turn, stemmed from their desire to defeat the Revolution. Land and Naval dominance misses the entire point of the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. The Congress of Vienna is a perfect example of this. Rather than seeking dominance after the imbalance caused by France had been curbed, the powers of Europe sought to extend a balance of power, and successfully did so for the next 100 years. To make a game where each European power is seeking dominance is to completely misrepresent the early 19th century.
Click to expand...
While your point is valid, this is a game and is supposed to be fun.
What would you suggest the victory conditions for Prussia should be?
 
DanishPosh said:
While your point is valid, this is a game and is supposed to be fun.
What would you suggest the victory conditions for Prussia should be?
Click to expand...

If you look at his point he is rather annoyed about the "full" focus on conquest and I agree abit with him (not to the extend I would not play it I am certain it will be fun anyway)

Well victory condition for Prussia could be to take over most of Germany and survive with those (you could make it more loosely and make a world and local goal)
But then again the timeframe is rather short (not short in time played look at hoi) so you might be right about your "what else" but it would be great to see this for debate on the forum

Again! I think its pretty odd to say you would not play based on this, but nevertheless thats how he feels.

Some are simply turned off by "set" conquest goals.
 
It's OK to set any number of major powers, no matter 3, 5, or 8. But if the major powers enjoy the privilege of winning on their own, you need to consider it more seriously. Personally, I think none of Spain, Ottomans and Sweden can win on their own in Napoleonic era, even Prussia is open to doubt.
 
seamoss said:
It's OK to set any number of major powers, no matter 3, 5, or 8. But if the major powers enjoy the privilege of winning on their own, you need to consider it more seriously. Personally, I think none of Spain, Ottomans and Sweden can win on their own in Napoleonic era, even Prussia is open to doubt.
Click to expand...

While that is probaböy true, why not have them there as harder countries to play for those who want more of a challenge? And it's not purely random countries either as all of them were involved in these wars and I've seen several other Napoleonic wargames that include these countries as well.
 
Captain Gars said:
While that is probaböy true, why not have them there as harder countries to play for those who want more of a challenge? And it's not purely random countries either as all of them were involved in these wars and I've seen several other Napoleonic wargames that include these countries as well.
Click to expand...

Why not make Portugal or even Denmark-Norway and what ever other free states you included have the same option then ?? it makes no sense to include a few (that could not win on their own) with the argument that its for challenge! atleast this is my opinion.. whats your arguement for not making the rest be an option? (simply asking) we don't have that much information out yet so its hard to fully state opinions ofc :D

That being said I fully agree that the more the better, I just wish some of the others had smaller goals etc (like Portugal winning in coalition "not as a satellite!!" with Spain)
If you get what I mean.
 
DarkieBabZ said:
Why not make Portugal or even Denmark-Norway and what ever other free states you included have the same option then ?? it makes no sense to include a few (that could not win on their own) with the argument that its for challenge! atleast this is my opinion.. whats your arguement for not making the rest be an option? (simply asking) we don't have that much information out yet so its hard to fully state opinions ofc :D

That being said I fully agree that the more the better, I just wish some of the others had smaller goals etc (like Portugal winning in coalition "not as a satellite!!" with Spain)
If you get what I mean.
Click to expand...
As coalitions seem to be in place, Portugal can win in an alliance with Spain, AFAIK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back