Finished PBEMs, what is not working, what is working - thread

[terje439]

Title kind of says it all, a thread to discuss what seems not to be working properly, and what is.
I'll start (bear in mind that these are MY oppinions!)
Also note that these issues are towards the pbem part of the game!

1. Demanding changes in Feudal Levies too inexpensive in terms of what it can achieve.
In "another pbem" Turkey gave me a harsh setting here, and it resulting in Austria going completely bankrupt and inable to actually do anything without economic support from Britain.

2. Glory bugs of all sorts needs to be sorted out.

3. All players should be allowed to see the victory screen

4. An army should be allowed to have a setting "do NOT attack city", this is from Pbem 109 where Spain is now running, his army however still captures a city just to lose it again next turn, causing him a -20 (ish) morale hit. First he gets +20 (ish) morale for capturing a city, then when he is forced to flee, he gets -40(ish) morale for losing a city.

5. Minor nations that are released do not place any units in garrisons, and hence cannot be recaptured (this bug has been reported I believe). This needs to be fixed (maybe give every minor province that is released a free militia placed as a garrison immediately on its release)

6. Diplomats needs to be balanced as some nations have really good ones and others only c****y ones.

7. Cause Insurrection must be toned down

[Anthropoid]

My thoughts:

1. Forage ability is way too strong. Would suggest it simply reduces attrition instead of eliminating it. Do NOT like the idea of only some units being able to have it, though perhaps it should provide more benefits to some units than others?

2. March attrition without sitting-still attrition is bull-hockey. Higher diffs should involve attrition PERIOD. For each step up the diff scale, impose some additional attrition (though marching or out-of-supply etc. should be MORE than sitting still).

3. Need an on-map marker for provinces that have finished an infrastructure project but have not been reset. Very helpful for society management for the bigger nations that sometimes have 5 or 6 provinces with finished projects every turn and have 40 of 50 provinces to sort through. Having to look at events and then flip back to the main map screen is a bit annoying.

4. Need to nerf amphibious ops, put some sort of limit on size of ampbibious forces.

5. Penalties for breaching treaties should be upped?

6. I have not had this problem so much myself, but several guys have complained that battles tend to _feel_ very random (even if, in fact they are not). Not sure what might be done there.

7. Diplomat suitcase nuke "problem;" what do we conclude there? I tend to think that the Capture/Expel defense seems _fairly_ sufficient? Would be nice if high levels of garrison or troop in a provinces reduced the chance of an insurrection? The idea to have insurrection in multi-provinces posessions happen in a stepwise fashion would be significantly more nerfing, and might even make diplomats too weak?

That gets me started.

[Anthropoid]

1. Demanding changes in Feudal Levies too inexpensive in terms of what it can achieve.
In "another pbem" Turkey gave me a harsh setting here, and it resulting in Austria going completely bankrupt and inable to actually do anything without economic support from Britain.

2. Glory bugs of all sorts needs to be sorted out.

3. All players should be allowed to see the victory screen

4. An army should be allowed to have a setting "do NOT attack city", this is from Pbem 109 where Spain is now running, his army however still captures a city just to lose it again next turn, causing him a -20 (ish) morale hit. First he gets +20 (ish) morale for capturing a city, then when he is forced to flee, he gets -40(ish) morale for losing a city.

5. Minor nations that are released do not place any units in garrisons, and hence cannot be recaptured (this bug has been reported I believe). This needs to be fixed (maybe give every minor province that is released a free militia placed as a garrison immediately on its release)

6. Diplomats needs to be balanced as some nations have really good ones and others only c****y ones.

7. Cause Insurrection must be toned down

Number 1, 2 and 5 do not disagree, though I cannot say I have seen the effects for myself. All seem reasonable though.

3. Agree

4. Agree wholeheartedly.

6. Agree some of the diplomats are pretty much useless. When there are some that have ratings of 70 and 80 on 2 out of 3 indices and then others that have 10, 0 an 30 . . . Maybe it is meant to be that unbalanced?

7. See my point above. Sounds like we need to have a discussion about insurrections.

[lenin]

Firstly, what a great game and what a great community! 8 of us played 120 turns on a very tight schedule with only one real drop-out, at a very early stage in the game. Life is very strange now I'm not coming home from work and submitting my turn nearly every day... Really enjoyed the banter on the forums that everyone seems to have been mature enough to realise was game-driven and not personal. It really added to the flavour of our game.

Things I like: The game was generally very well thought-out and executed. It was very playable straight "out of the box" without any stability issues (certainly that I noticed). The learning curve was initially slightly steep, but manageable. In the end, you just have to put your toe in the water and get in.

I really loved the sense of sheer paranoia this game can produce. Terje, for many years I intensely distrusted and feared you! I now note from your AAR you were at least worried about me as I was about you! I would recommend anyone to play this game by pbem as a central power to experience what I mean.

I really learned the value of forming at least one proper alliance in this game. I think the British / Prussian / Swedish Axis was key. I guess naturally, such alliances will gravitate around GB/ France, but who knows. British unconditional support was instrumental in maintaining Prussia in a position of strength for so long. There were several times that one or more parties real interests were not served, but we could all act in the knowledge that our allies, if needed, would in turn act to support us if we needed it.

I really liked, in general, the patch. The supply source / fortification changes really improved the game. I do think that Gibraltar, as a major naval base, should have had a depot too though (although I can see the wisdom in limiting GB's expansion options in the Med). However, I don't like what you did with the minors build algorithm. It changed from being overpowered (Prussia, holding the Rhine States, was getting 80k+ free troops a year)to almost worthless. The patch (at least from my (Prussian) perspective) made Protectorates a liability. This needs to be rebalnced slightly in a future patch.

I understand the unconquerable minor issue is a legacy issue, so I won't comment on it here.

I still feel that some diplomatic missions are overpowered, though probably not to the degree I first thought. Devs should give some thought to making insurrections a bit harder, and making "ganging up" diplomats on one power perhaps less effective. Prussia, with mediocre diplomats to say the least, still managed several insurrections in later years even when the true mechanics were identified.

Overall, I'd recommend this game to anyone. I've been raving about it to my local gaming group, and your next product will almost certainly be a "must buy". Haven't had so much fun with a wargame since I first discovered TOAW!

Had a great game with you guys. Hope to play you all again soon.

[Mus]

Agree with Lenin's observations regarding true alliances. In some of my other games I have been frustrated by the other players lack of understanding as to how valuable a REAL alliance with another player is.

Wish I had some way of tabulating the total amount of foreign aid I sent to Prussia/Sweden and later Austria. It must be a fortune!

The lend province feature that Lenin used to give me large chunks of Prussia at one point should be looked at. It upped my mobilization limit but lended provinces didn't add towards my waste limit. Lended provinces should either not add towards mob limit or add to waste, as it is it is an unfair advantage. I could see exploits where two large countries lend each other large sections of their respective countries to get out of having to have courts in sufficient quantities.

Diplomatic insurrection issues were the biggie in this game, but hopefully that is already being looked at. Anything to make it less rewarding or at the very least less sudden (the idea of insurrection before revolt I like alot, might fix it all by itself) would work. The fact that the powers able to do so where all operating 4-5+ "Super Diplomats" built out of high court level provinces is proof this mechanic is overpowered. The powers who can not keep up with that level of textile production/expenditure for diplomatic purposes, particularly those like Prussia and Austria who have small areas of purely "national" territory will be hurt the most by this imbalance.

We found a bug when I had Matto's Turkish Fleet blockaded in port in Greece and did a one turn sealift/landing from Tunisia to Greece and captured it next turn, but it was still able to move under his orders after capture all the way into the Black Sea, which forced me to scuttle all the ships.

Either the ships should have followed the orders and been destroyed by my blockading fleet or they should have been captured at the beginning of the movement phase (my understanding of what should have happened) and then subsequently not followed Matto's orders since they would have become mine.

Other hypothetical issues are the ability of a defeated player to violate the neutrality of a power with which it has enforced peace terms. That needs to be fixed. We have already discussed this issue in other threads. The so called "Epic War Plan Ultra" in which a power with enforced peace turns with Britain lands a force there before the turns are up, declaring war and conquering it when the enforced peace turns are up.

Also the OP nature of Forager ability has been discussed. Should be limited to a certain number of units, say half a dozen, per country.

[evwalt]

While I haven't finished a PBEM (yet!), on the forger issue, I think Forger should just turning those with it into the equal of Cossacks (ie. 50% reduction). If you give it to Cossacks (why? [X(]), have losses reduced 75%. Should NEVER be 0.

I will say that I have noticed in my games that the higher the March Attrition, the less valuable forger becomes. Sure, you can march all around the enemy's interior BUT you can't gain replacements without supply and (at high march levels) you lose a LOT of men just marching. Eventually, your army melts away, even with no forge losses.

[Anthropoid]

Having lost as a result of a strong human-human-human alliance I have to disagree that these alliances things are "all that and a bag of chips." [:D]

[lenin]

Hehe Anthropoid!

When I started this game, my immediate strategic goals were:

1)Alliance with Britain (the bank)! I will in time have the troops, you give me the money!
2)Alliance with Russia. No two-front wars please, together we are a juggernaught!
3)Minimum of friendly neutrality, hopefully co-operation with Austria. Can we sort out the German Question?

As events transpired, I was frustrated by 2 (due to first Russian player pulling out and Russian isolationism following that), and 3 took a while to establish. Thanks to Mus, me and Terje never came to blows (I was so, so tempted at one point to try a pre-emptive strike, as I was convinced he would move against me).

I lucked out in the early game. Austro-French hostility gained me a lot of territory through protectorates, and in the early years I only had to fight France (twice) after Austria had weakened them. This gave me time to build up a credible army.

The diplomatic issue was my undoing. I at first read the manual literally, and assumed that defensive diplomats had to be in the nation / territory being insurrected, rather than anywhere in the power as a whole, to defend against it. As Prussia only has about 4 national territories, and indifferent diplomats, it seemed untenable to defend against 4-5 enemy diplomats every turn trying to cause insurrections in various provinces. Even later in the game, the Prussian diplomats could rarely expel any other diplomat in their territory. Prussia, even with British aid, would find it very, very difficult to both build the courts / diplomats required and have a reasonable standing army. That is why I "lent" the British much of my territory late game. We had, at an early stage, agreed to stand by each other, whoever was winning. Britain did this for Prussia for many years, and as your word, if you are willing to give it at all in MP, is all important, I felt it only fair to reciprocate when I felt it was not possible to win the game.

An exploit, I know, but I felt the diplo blitz thing was something of an exploit too.

The changes to minors in the patch was alarming. Pre patch, they built far too many troops. Bavaria alone gave me an army of something like 100k. The German states churned out something like 80k troops a year for Prussia. Clearly overpowered. However, after the patch, no minor I ever controlled ever built anything. Seems to be an algorithm problem that can be easily rebalanced. I noticed as well that reconquered provinces always had a population of 0. However, the logistics changes were well thought out and added to the game.

Had no problems personally with combat results. Within a degree of uncertainty, what happened to me in game was within the boundaries of expectations I had. At least in pbem, it seems that global changes are far superior to buffs to individual units. Late game, Prussia / Russia fought several battles, and Prussia seemed to win each one easilly with forces that were in many ways comparable. I never built a single buff for any individual unit, whilst I know Anthropoid took the opposite approach.

Did anyone have a single general promoted during the entire game? Through the 10 years, Prussia was almost continuously at war. I lost 2-3 battles max (all to France). However I never had a single general promoted. Is this WAD?

[terje439]

Hehe, I feared everyone at all times [:)]
My economy was in ruins after Matto's clever usage of surrender points (forcing severe Feudal Levies on me).
At that point I was basically out of the game until lFrance declared Total war which could not have come at a better time. This allowed me to gain some badly needed cash and build some structures in my provinces.
In the end I built two new diplomats (last one newer entered the game). But in that aspect, due to the much better levels of newer diplomats (atleast to Austria), I feel that diplomats too should be dismissable so that they do not occupy diplomat slots. After all to build SEVEN new diplomats would mean alot of textiles and as such is not something that is likely to occur, but I would still like the option.

[montesaurus]

HI Guys,
Just following your comments on the game, and wanted to interject that I think that saying the "forage" ability is too strong, may be overstated. Though I may feel differently after finishing the game I'm in!
Even though you eliminate foraging losses, you do place your troops at a disadvantage in that in a field battle if the enemy your facing might have a more effective fighting unit, because he hadn't used the forage ability! Who will come out on top if your unit has "forage and Shooting", and the enemy has "shooting and sustained volley"?

I also like it because I remember how efficiently and rapidly the French seemed to move, compared to their enemies. In part due to their superior foraging ability, or being very good at purchasing supplies prior to large troop movements arriving at a destination!
The present supply system makes it seems like your troops are advancing at a snails pace, maintaining that precious supply line!
Plus, being able to purchase the forage abiltiy, if a Monarch cooses to follow that route, your troops could be as rapid advancing as the French!

Plus, I've heard from other players that you don't want to be out of supply when combat commences! So, I'm not sure that foraging is that unbalanced.
I'd be curious to hear other opinions on this! Thanks.

[Anthropoid]

I upgraded more or less every unit in my army to forage, and most all the others to some other ability as well. Other than one or two battles toward the end when units did not do what I intended them to do, I have no recollection of any major battle losses. So I'm not sure I agree that the global promotions are better.

The problem with forage is that it allows a unit to go wandering around far inside enemy territory and suffer no attrition except from march.

As you point out, there are serious disadvantages to being out of supply besides deaths, so maybe saying it is "overpowered" _is_ an overstatement. I think the house rule we are applying in Alt-Hist on the other hand is going to far to nerf it, and I think it is going to change the game ALOT (making it a lot more static).

One of the things that I have felt frustrated by playing Russia is that it seems VERY difficult to grow your glory. I'm not totally up on what all contributes to glory, but I always seemed to get less glory benefit from battles than I saw other guys getting. In my long-running SP game as Russia, I've now got about 60 provinces, and have been working toward building at least 3 Arts in every province (though not there yet) and I'm still not yet passed the AI Britain which has about 1800 glory. Getting to a point of gaining 40 or 50 glory gained per turn seems a lot more difficult for Russia than other nations?

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

Even though you eliminate foraging losses, you do place your troops at a disadvantage in that in a field battle if the enemy your facing might have a more effective fighting unit, because he hadn't used the forage ability! Who will come out on top if your unit has "forage and Shooting", and the enemy has "shooting and sustained volley"?

Other factors are more important, IMO. Leadership, numbers (particularly in cavalry), marchspeed/supply status/terrain, seem to play a bigger part.

As far as Global upgrades vs Unit upgrades, since we don't have information on the exact effect of the global upgrades it is hard to say exactly how they balance out. Applicable upgrades are listed when you watch a quick combat, so I think we know they have some effect. If we assume they have a similar if weaker effect to all units of a certain type (boost QC attack, defense or morale in various ways) it seems safe to say the Global upgrades are better for large armies, when the number of units effected outnumber the number of units that can be upgraded with similar individual upgrades.

I don't know if I fought anyone who wasn't taking the mostly global upgrade route, but I only lost 1 battle in the entire game, that was when 70,000 men advanced on 200,000 Frenchmen a movement phase ahead of my allies and were defeated. The same turn (probably the immediately following phase) the Swedes and Prussians arrived and pushed the Frenchmen back.

Near the end of the game I did load one of my Corps in 2nd Army up with Forager ability in preparation for taking Spanish North Africa, but it turned out to be unnecessary as I was able to remain in supply.

My opinion is that removing 100% of foraging casualties is overpowered. I think it should be reduced to half like organized forage.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Just some thoughts from several games, most of these have been discussed before and all relate to PBEM but I thought I’d bring them all in under 1 banner in the hope that the Devs do look at these posts.

1. ‘Military Groups’: the introduction of a ‘Toggle’ to knock out at Set up the ‘Military Groups’ screen in Overview, it seems to me a complete waste of time having ‘Fog of War’ if all folk need do is go looksee at the ‘Military Groups’ screen to see where & roughly how big the enemy forces are, it’s a particular nonsense with regard to the Naval side.

2. Privateers; IMO need looking at again, like with Feudal Levy, over correction seems to have happened with the last Patch, now, they just die like flies with even Turkish frigates taking them out! (I do think however that some glory should be awarded for sinking them, as they were a real scourge in those days and even the Newspapers of the day hailed the sinking and praised the Captains responsible, Captains & Crew were also awarded a “Purse” for successful actions). But then on the other hand, those that are not put to sea at the beginning or do escape for c5yrs seem to develop a complete immunity to any frigate action against them, pile up a stack of frigates in the same Sea zone and absolutely nothing happens while on the other side of the coin the Privateers do carry on stealing resources. For Privateers maybe this is a case of “Fix it or Ditch it”.

3. Trade; 3 major things as I see it,

a) The introduction of ‘Trade Clauses’ into the Diplo function, this would help make the Diplo Treaty function more widely used and therefore broaden the scope of Diplomacy as a whole.

b) Minor powers to continue producing resources for trade, it seems that once the start up goods are allocated thats it, the minor powers give up production completely!

c) The slightly dotty situation whereby a Nation, lets cite Spain as an e.g. can have a mass of resources e.g. Horses in the National pool, but only have c3-8 Horses allocated for Trade, this could maybe overcome by the introduction suggested in 3 a) or a trigger point being set up based on each countries overall economy whereby goods from the National pool were reallocated to Provinces for ‘Trade’ purposes, maybe a sliding scale sort of thing, ... dunno if thats feasible but ... ?

4. Insurrections/Coups; IMO a lot of Hot air has been expressed on this subject and as I see it a lot of that is due to folks originally not making use of Diplomats in a defensive posture, even low grade Diplos from Spain with a legal of around 40 set to Capture/Expel can and do Boot out high grade Diplos. Bill hope you don’t mind but I’ll cite your Threat in ‘Another PBEM’ as an eg, Bill threatened to swamp Italy with high grade Diplos for Insurrection purposes, result was a massive drain on the French economy purchasing ‘Return Tickets’ for hordes of French diplomats attempting to “free???” Italy as his Diplomats got kicked out on a regular basis [:D] and “No” Mus I wasn’t “Cheating” a) thats not my Bag b) I wouldn’t know how!

That said, the Insurrection/Coup thing does IMO need to be tightened up, given that CoG is designed primarily as a Solo game with the PBEM an add-on of sorts, the situation that Eric envisioned of c2-3 Insurrections in a game (?? Figures) would probably hold true in Solo games were the AI doesn’t waste as much time on them as Human players. However the 10% success ratio (16 from 161 attempts) shown from my research over 70 turns on ‘Another PBEM’ (I still have the figures) would indicate that even for PBEM it’s not that far out given that there are 8 humans involved. So what I think would be a good way to deal with Insurrection/Coups is make folk pay for the privilege, it would & did cost a lot of Money in the real era and would help reduce the ridiculous situation whereby a Nation like france, universally hated in the Rhineland (They still remembered Louis XIVs “Rape of the Palatinate”) can just bung a Diplo into say Bavaria and have the chance of pulling of an Insurrection, the Bottom line being if you want to cause trouble, “Tough Titty!” you have to pay for it.

5. Forage; Personally I can’t see what the fuss is about, if you wish to stop foreign troops feeding off your lands then defend your lands! It’s all very well sending off huge armies to beat up nasty foreigners but you must also look to your own peoples defence i.e. have some Regular troops based at home, if you don’t, tough, you take the risk of having someone paying visits; ergo, no need to change the ‘Forage’ stuff, change the way you play to a more realistic fashion i.e. no country would not have at least a minimal roster of Regulars based at home, not just for defence against outsiders but also for ‘Policing’ their own populous (anyone interested in that aspect I would strongly recommend ‘The Blind Eye of History’ by Charles Reith, IMO it should be included on the ‘Reading list’ of anyone studying the American Revolution, it’s a bit of an Eye opener)

6. Feudal Levy; Agggghhh! IMO it’s cocked up something rotten and maybe like Privateers should be a candidate for “Fix it or Ditch it”. Trying to lower FL, even in small amounts is as I see it just impractical as after the initial huge hit against NM you not only get the monthly -13 or so but the occasional -200+ loss of NM thrown in, so trying to reduce the ‘Waste’ caused by FL (important for a Nation like Turkey or Russia) literally takes years, I’m 5yrs into lowering FL by ½ as Turkey (I tried by 1/3 for Spain with much the same results) and have just had another -200+ hit with still something like 30%-40% of my reduction target needing to be completed. As for the Troops raised by FL well it seems at very best you get 1 levy then thats it, most times nothing.

7. Naval stuff; I would like to see, if its practical, the introduction into PBEM of capturing enemy ships, either for re-use by the victor (from a historical perspective quite a few RN ships of this period were french originally, e.g. the “Saucy Temeraire” 2nd in line at Trafalgar was named after a captured french ship), or as a wood supply. Also if practical more sea Zones to give a greater amount of choice re manoeuvre (the same for land provinces, i.e. more of them)

Nuff for the moment.

All the Best
Peter

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

PS, can anyone who did an AAR for 'Another PBEM' please put it's title up as I would like to have a Looksee biut have stopped looking at AARs coz of being in different games and not wishing to see what folks were saying about one I was involved in, would be nice to catch up on what folk were diong in 'Another PBEM' though.

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker
Insurrections/Coups; IMO a lot of Hot air has been expressed on this subject and as I see it a lot of that is due to folks originally not making use of Diplomats in a defensive posture, even low grade Diplos from Spain with a legal of around 40 set to Capture/Expel can and do Boot out high grade Diplos.

Still needs major adjustment.

To cite Another PBEM even with 2 70 legal diplomats on full time capture/expel duty I managed to lose all of Norway to a 40 espionage 40 legal diplomat who resisted several capture/expel attempts in a row.

Another thing I noticed while defending insurrection attempts by 3-4 countries at once was that you can only really defend against 1 attempt at a time, regardless of how many diplomats you have available. Frequently both of my diplomats would try to capture/expel the same guy, the second one trying to capture/expel somebody who had already been expelled. Other times they did target seperate diplomats, so this was a weird inconsistency.

Also need some kind of National Morale modifier where minor powers are less likely to jump ship when things are going well (in case cited I had 1000 National Morale and a history of having a very low tax rate when not in the middle of a war) and more likely when your National Morale is negative.

The idea of adding monetary cost I think might make insurrections useless. I like the idea of needing a certain amount of garrison and the idea of the province going into unrest before a second attempt puts it into outright revolt.

The whole capture/expel vs insurrection mechanic is entirely too luck dependent considering the huge effects of the outcome.

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

... and “No” Mus I wasn’t “Cheating” a) thats not my Bag b) I wouldn’t know how!

"Baby I swear to God that's not mine..."

[:'(]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

2. Privateers; IMO need looking at again, like with Feudal Levy, over correction seems to have happened with the last Patch, now, they just die like flies with even Turkish frigates taking them out! (I do think however that some glory should be awarded for sinking them, as they were a real scourge in those days and even the Newspapers of the day hailed the sinking and praised the Captains responsible, Captains & Crew were also awarded a “Purse” for successful actions). But then on the other hand, those that are not put to sea at the beginning or do escape for c5yrs seem to develop a complete immunity to any frigate action against them, pile up a stack of frigates in the same Sea zone and absolutely nothing happens while on the other side of the coin the Privateers do carry on stealing resources. For Privateers maybe this is a case of “Fix it or Ditch it”.

Another example of broken privateer mechanics is that allied privateers are immune to your frigates but will steal money/goods on trade routes between you and a third party they are not allied with.

Before I passed you the reins in 109 I had to have Terje (France) sink a bunch of Andrew's (Sweden) privateers he kept parking in my Channel that were interdicting lucrative cotton and wool trade routes I had with Maestro06 (Turkey). I was helpless to stop them.

Very annoying.

[Matto]

Linked to development forum ... good hints Sirs!

[Marshal Villars]

Yeah. It's a great thread.

1. Forage Ability - In my opinion, it is simply unrealistic to have an upgrade which makes a unit totally immune to forage losses. I have no problem with making the unit BETTER at foraging (and actually like the idea), but not immune.
2. No Action Against Cities Option - Definitely need this! I am lobbying for that already.
3. Military Groups Option - I love the military groups option. Spies and diplomats could easily know that there were major groupings of armies and approximately where. To play in a total vaccuum of knowledge wouldn't be realistic at all. No one can keep a 100,000 man army a secret. Concerning naval fog of war, even merchant ships knew where these larger groups of battleships were at. It was relatively easy to avoid them because ships coming your way would tell you they had seen them. Perhaps in some of the less used sea regions, perhaps you could have a die roll to determine if the news has reached the player's military headquarters.

[evwalt]

1) Military Groups. I agree with Marshall Villars. At this time period, hiding such things as an army is an impossibility. Also, Military Groups do approx a size but I have noticed it is often VERY wrong (showing groups much smaller or bigger than the actually are).

2)I would suggest making privateers more like merchants. Merchants seem hard to kill and they SHOULD be, as they represent large numbers of merchantmen and not one ship. Make a successful "intercept" by a frigate kill 1-2 points of a privateer (or instead a small % chance of 1 point off the frigate?), requiring multiple intercepts to kill them. This would likely mean their owners would return them to port before their deaths for repair. This would mean they would last a LOT longer.

I also agree their should be a way to kill allied privateers. I would add a toggle, maybe to the Military box? Default is "only attack non-allied privateers." Toggle it ON and your frigates attempt to attack ALL privateers (except your own, of course).

3) I have really never had a problem with trade so not many comments here.

4) I think we have beaten this one to death! [:D]

5) Still think Forger should reduce casualties by 50% NOT 100%. for a single unit. Organized forging by its normal amount (25 or 50%, can't remember). When combined, they should work in order (ie. a unit with Forger loses 50% of normal loses. If the country also has Organized Forging, it would then lose 25 (or 50%) of THAT amount. Every unit should take forging losses.

6) First, the Feudal Levy of troops is REALLY messed up and need to be corrected. HOWEVER, I think that it should be VERY difficult to change the Feudal Level and the game does a good job of showing that. You are talking about essentially changing your entire society and it should be difficult.

Having said that, the ability of another country to change your feudal level should be incredibly high (ie. LOTS of surrender points). Altering a country's society just wasn't done at this point (except by the revolutionary French).

7) Agree totally.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

At this time period, hiding such things as an army is an impossibility. One of the reasons I have such admiration for Generals such as Montrose, Marlborough and Moore (all in my top 10) is that they did just what you suggest i.e. the impossible, as it’s applicable to the immediate period (1808-9) Moore is a very good e.g. and please keep in mind that this was just in a country the size of Spain, not the whole breadth of Europe.

Very roughly; Sir John Moores manoeuvrings of the British army in Spain were so successful that they made the Corsican Runt (I just love the spoonerism! [:D] ) look a complete fool as he hadn’t a clue where the English army really was; thinking it was trapped he departed Spain and was later heard to boast in the Salons of Paris about, “40,000 grieving English Widows”, roughly about the time Moore turned and smashed Soults French forces at Corunna before evacuating those “40,000” (!?) dead Englishmen.

My point re the Overview negating FoW is that we don’t have the chance in PBEM CoG of even trying to emulate these Brilliant Commanders with the manoeuvre of our forces. No repeats of Marlboroughs classic ‘March to the Danube’ or Montroses Campaign in Scotland (1645) or the eg re Moore above.

Take an e.g. from the very 1st game, I didn’t realise it at the time (as I don’t use the ‘Military Groups’ screen), but my attempt to send a medium sized Russian army from Odessa through the Med to aid Austria was seen every move of the way by every player in the game!

So my suggestion for a Toggle to switch off the ‘Military Groups’ screen at Set up is an attempt to introduce a greater sense of reality & skill into the game on the Strategic/Tactical side by opening up the chance to engage in those types of manoeuvre. If the majority of players wish to play the Dumed down version with FoW negated then fine, that could be agreed before Game start and the ‘Military Groups’ Overview could be left in place.

Very briefly I’ll raise again a suggestion I made in an earlier discussion on this topic, that to more realistically replicate Intel gathering, ‘Land Merchants’ are introduced to the game, working along similar lines to Diplomats, ie with Skills, but cheaper, their lack of complete reliability could even open up greater use of the ‘Rumours’ tag whereby Nations could plant false rumours with regard to Army placement etc to lure Mechant/spys to an area sort of thing, Just a thought.

You are talking about essentially changing your entire society and it should be difficult. That is a very valid point, however there does IMO need to be a balance in Game terms and from my experience any attempt to lower FL is disastrous, as if you get caught in a war and loose a couple of Battles or so your NM can’t cope and, as happened to me as Spain in ‘Another PBEM’ your Peasants just pull the rug out from underneath you and force a surrender, in its present state I for one will never try reducing FL again, with few or no Feudal units raised to offset the risks involved I’ll just grin a bear the production losses.

Good suggestions re Privateers, I like them.

All the Best
Peter