Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Victory and Glory: Napoleon is a game of grand strategy and fast-play tactical battles where you take the role of Napoleon Bonaparte and attempt to dominate the entire continent of Europe.
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.
User avatar
Lascar
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by Lascar »

The criticisms are valid and the suggested improvements and tweaks are well thought out.
I really want to like this game: a playable, Strategic level Napoleonic game with the option to fight battles at the tactical level and yet not so complex and time intensive to make playing it regularly prohibitive.

I hope the designers really take to heart the thoughtful suggestions given on this forum. It would be a shame that a game with so much potential to become a classic, like Hannibal, would wither on the vine because it wasn't given the needed additional development it needs to become another Hannibal.
Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by Ron »

ORIGINAL: Lava

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.

That's an unfair accusation when it is quite apparent the intent is to improve the game. For the record, my line would be made up of 1 Horse/Foot Artillery, 1 Heavy Cavalry, 1 Skirmisher Infantry and 1 Improved/Guard Infantry. I went with this throughout the game for all Armies and only lost 1 battle the whole campaign, which as I recall was very early when I didn't have combined arms everywhere. Such a restriction would not improve anything; the Battle AI is really bad. I would not hesitate in giving a do not buy recommendation until major changes are made to the game.
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by Uncle_Joe »

ORIGINAL: Lava
ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I personally would not like to see the combined arms bonus to change to 2 inf because even your last deployment option becomes moot. EVERY battle will see the same 2x Inf, 1x Art, 1x Cav (and that's it because of the 4-unit stacking limit). At least now I can decide what that 4th unit is..

And that choice is what unbalances the battle, allowing you to maintain the Combined Arms Bonus while denying it to the AI.

The battle should at least try to reflect Napoleonic Warfare. As it is, you can have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery. WAT?

And the battles would not play out the same, as they already do when you have 75% of your line as Cavalry or Artillery, because the inclusion of a second Infantry unit would mean that you would rarely receive the Combined Arms bonus.

You say, nope not difficult enough, but are quite happy exploiting the battle mechanics to your favor and then poo pooing the idea of making the battles more difficult.

I wonder if you really care about making the game better or just trying to tell folks not to buy it.

Wow dude, aggressive much?

If I didn't care about making the game better, I wouldn't be wasting my time making suggestions. I'd just say 'this game sucks, don't buy it' and leave it at that. But I find those types of posts completely un-constructive. And honestly I have better things to do with my time than sit on a forum and bash a game (or other posters). But since it appears that Glenn Drover might have some interest in improving the game, I'm offering suggestions based on MY experience (which may very well differ from yours or anyone else's).

I'm not 'poo-pooing' an idea to make it more difficult, but for me (as in *I* get an opinion equally as valid is yours), I want MORE choice in battles, not less. The more valid choice you take away to 'optimize' your bonuses, the more you might as well just 'auto-resolve' rather than stack everything up the same way each battle and then just roll the dice.

IF you bothered to read my posts rather than assume that I'm just shooting your idea, you'd see that I'm GREATLY in favor of making the game more difficult (particularly through AI changes). I would prefer the system discourages players from creating a-historical compositions not through arbitrary enforcement of 'combined arms' but rather through encouraging that behavior with the mechanics...why DIDN'T Napoloeonic armies due this? Clearly because it didn't work. Cavalry rarely could just drive ordered infantry off the field and cannon couldn't just sit back and pound the squares over the heads of intervening troops. And it was more difficult to raise and maintain heavy concentrations of cav and arty.

Anyways, it's up to you how you want to interpret my posts. But I assure you they are aimed at bettering the game, not trying to ward off others from buying.
EdinHouston
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:06 pm

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by EdinHouston »

First of all, the game does not 'suck'. Not even close. I have had a lot of fun playing the game and already got my money's worth, given that it is a $30 game.

Now, could it be a lot better? Sure. But if the game as is wasn't fun and didn't seem like it could be fun, I wouldn't care or bother to make changes.

I do agree with the post about infantry not being strong/important enough. But maybe that is fixed by making cavalry less powerful, not infantry more powerful. For example, I think cavalry should be weakened when charging un-disrupted infantry. It's too easy to charge infantry with cavalry, force it into square while usually just seeing your cavalry disrupted, and then blow it apart with artillery and infantry attacks. Whereas in real life, sending cavalry to attack unbroken infantry able to form square could be suicidal for the cavalry. Also, I would suggest that infantry has a chance to move out of square when attacked subsequently by non-cavalry (maybe that is already the case, I am not sure, but if so the chances should be much higher)
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by Uncle_Joe »

No, I don't think anyone here has said the game 'sucks'. At all. Quite the contrary, I think all of us enjoyed it to some degree but the replay value is hampered by the questionable battle AI and a few other mechanics which seem to hold it back.

And yes, I agree that cavalry should not be as strong against formed infantry. I would like to see it have a chance of being routed if it charges infantry (and the infantry squares). Right now, once your Cav is Disrupted/Disordered, it doesn't hurt to continuously take low-odds charges at squares and it seems the chances are fair that you'll break it. So why not charge the squares?
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

No, I don't think anyone here has said the game 'sucks'. At all. Quite the contrary, I think all of us enjoyed it to some degree but the replay value is hampered by the questionable battle AI and a few other mechanics which seem to hold it back.

And yes, I agree that cavalry should not be as strong against formed infantry. I would like to see it have a chance of being routed if it charges infantry (and the infantry squares). Right now, once your Cav is Disrupted/Disordered, it doesn't hurt to continuously take low-odds charges at squares and it seems the chances are fair that you'll break it. So why not charge the squares?

Plus they still are hard to kill even after disruption.

I agree that Cav should suffer more after a charge. Sometimes you can 'charge' 2-3 turns in a row when in reality the horse would be winded and the unit very disorganized. Their main value was in making Inf form square and in pursuit. They perform a lot different in this game.
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by *Lava* »

The problem isn't that Cavalry are too strong, the problem is that they are able to do things which historically would get then whipped out.

Let's say you have 2 groups of Combined Arms (1 inf, 1 art, and 1 cav) facing off at each other.

As it is, you take your Cavalry and charge an infantry unit, which forces it into square. You then smash the unit in square with art and infantry and it routes.

In actual fact, if you charged a cavalry unit at an infantry unit or an artillery unit, the enemy would immediately counter charge you with their cavalry. A cavalry battle should ensue and your cavalry unit would be forced to win that battle first before continuing to make an attack on the enemy. Even if you won the cavalry engagement, your cavalry unit would almost certainly be disordered. Given that it's commander continued forward to attack an infantry or artillery unit in good order they should easily be able to repulse a disordered cavalry attack without forming square and very possibly routing if not eliminating it.

That is why Napoleonic battles were first and foremost infantry/artillery fights. Cavalry wouldn't be charged against fresh infantry or artillery because they would almost certainly be counter-charged. The infantry line would have to first be weakened for cavalry to be employed.

So if you want to attack an infantry unit with a cavalry unit and win, that infantry unit should first be disordered. Once the infantry has been disordered, you could launch your cavalry at them, but first have to win against a counter charge from the enemy cavalry if they are on the field. Given you won that fight, you should then be able to continue your attack into the disordered infantry unit, which would force it into square.

Employing cavalry first on a fresh field of battle in the Napoleonic Wars was a good way to get them destroyed. In this game, again if you attack first with your cavalry against units which are not disordered, historically they would be immediately meet with a counter-charge. If they continued the attack they would be annihilated by the enemy artillery and infantry. In battle, it is the infantry and artillery which should be opening each engagement. If you are successful in disordering your enemy, that is when you send in the cavalry. But in truth, you are much more likely to have cavalry vs cavalry fights (while the infantry and artillery are battering each other) to drive the enemy cavalry from the field. Once the enemy cavalry has been driven from the field then you can use them (especially heavy cavalry) to launch attacks on the infantry which because they are not counter-charged should drive them into square or on rare events, overrun the infantry/artillery entirely.

So actually, the whole battle mechanic of using cavalry as your first attack is completely ahistoric and if done so, should be heavily penalized as a move only an idiot would use on the battlefield.

Given that you don't get a reaction move in battles (in this case a counter charge) heavy penalties should be applied to a cavalry unit plunging itself into an opposing line with a combined arms bonus... strong enough that anything short of heavy cavalry should be eliminated. Once you impose such a penalty, then it only makes sense to require 2 infantry units + 1 cavalry + 1 artillery to get the combined arms bonus and your main attacking force should first be infantry and artillery with cavalry the last to attack to take advantage of disordered units. Even then, if faced with opposing cavalry, penalties should be applied against infantry and artillery unless the attack is against opposing cavalry units.

As a Napoleonic general, you should be first attempting to destroy the enemy's artillery and then second to drive his cavalry from the field; all the time doing everything possible to weaken the enemy's infantry such that once you have the advantage both in artillery and cavalry the enemy is unable to resist a combined arms attack, forcing your foe to rout and reap a deadly harvest in the pursuit.
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: Lava

The problem isn't that Cavalry are too strong, the problem is that they are able to do things which historically would get then whipped out.


They are very strong in this game, heavy Cav is 2-3 as strong as most infantry. They are very difficult to disrupt simply with infantry fire and even when disrupted you don't get a good attack on them with infantry.
EdinHouston
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:06 pm

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by EdinHouston »

Well if you weakened cavalry, especially if undisordered cavalry were in the opposing battle group, it would solve much of the problem addressed two posts above. Likewise, if disordered cavalry were more vulnerable, it would make it far more dangerous to charge with cavalry as a first move against an un-disordered enemy battle group.
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

Well if you weakened cavalry, especially if undisordered cavalry were in the opposing battle group, it would solve much of the problem addressed two posts above. Likewise, if disordered cavalry were more vulnerable, it would make it far more dangerous to charge with cavalry as a first move against an un-disordered enemy battle group.

It's probably beyond the scope of the engine but if Cav always became disrupted after attacking, defended at 1/2 the normal calculation against Art and if it cold not attack at all when D it would probably be used in a more historical manner. Generally Cav didn't sit in small arms range and needed to regroup after charging.
User avatar
Hrothgar
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:24 pm
Location: PA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by Hrothgar »

If I'm playing a tactical game, then I enjoy tactics. However, when I'm playing a strategic game, I'd just as soon skip the tactical details. Consequently, I let all the battles in this game resolve automatically and focus on strategic matters.

This leads to a quicker game, but it has another benefit: even the best tactical AI can be beaten consistently by a competent human. By letting the computer handle the battles, it keeps me from beating up on a predictable AI. This also improves the strategic game, as I cannot count on compensating for strategic errors by winning all the battles. I have to pay attention to the strategic possibilities in order to avoid getting myself into a hole I can't climb out of.

It's quite possible that I'm not the best of players, but I have enjoyed challenging sessions with this game, largely because I let the computer handle the battles. This is true of other strategic games I've played: Age of Wonders III is a good example. Because I don't choose to beat up on the weak tactical AI, I've had a lot of hard-fought games, and have even lost often.
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by jack54 »

Interesting point Hrothgar...

The Hannibal game did not have tactical battle control and is considered by many an excellent AI. I may try a game with no tactical control might be fun.
Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
vonRocko
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:05 pm

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by vonRocko »

Hannibal did have tactical battle control. Basically the same as this game.
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by jack54 »

I remember picking line and reserve not attacks maybe I missed something, but you're correct it's not the same as auto resolve.
Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: jack54

I remember picking line and reserve not attacks maybe I missed something, but you're correct it's not the same as auto resolve.

All you had control over was what units were in the front line. After that the game automatically resolved combat.

Can you have the computer resolve battle in this game?
SteveD64
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by SteveD64 »

IIRC you can have automatic battle resolve, Hannibal style battle resolve and the one with center/flanks
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by jack54 »

Yes, there is a battle options pop up prior to battles...

Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Completed a 2nd campaign (on Emperor)

Post by James Ward »

Never noticed that before. Thanks.
Post Reply

Return to “Victory and Glory: Napoleon”