From: Secret Underground Lair
There wasn't really much in the way of firearms improvement during the Napoleonic era. The British produced about 30,000 rifles, and we try to reflect this with the "infantry + rifle" unit. But as far as I can tell there was nothing like the advances in weapons technology that occurred during the American Civil War during this period.
For the generals, we decided, after looking at many other Napoleonic / Civil War products on the market and by reading discussion threads, that there simply isn't the fan-base for Napoleonic commanders as there is for American Civil War generals. The generals for FOF took an incredible amount of work on our part, and in reviews this research was either ignored or -- in the case of our print-reviews and from the comments of reviewers at Wargamer -- openly mocked. Suffice it to say that I didn't feel much of an incentive to put that same incredible amount of work into the commanders for COG:EE (and Gil is still not done editing all the bios for FOF yet!)
We did adopt unit special abilities, and I think allowing them to be purchased with experience works well.
We didn't adopt unit attributes, but -- as has been pointed out -- I don't think these make as much sense at the division level.
The FOF supply rules didn't seem to be any more or less popular than the original supply rules we had for COG, so I didn't see a strong reason to introduce those.
We introduced "strategic disorder" as a simpler version of strategic morale.
For flags, there simply aren't the sorts of resources available for Napoleonic flags as there are for American Civil War flags. As for the commanders, there also seems to be a much smaller fan-base for Napoleonic-era flags.
Thanks for the clarification(s) guys. I suspected that there was little historical basis for differentiating late 18th century weapon systems with the purchase thing.
It is a real shame that the General's Bios thing did not get well-received. I personally have found it to be a highly-enriching aspect of that game. In particular, I remember reading in Sherman's bio about how he had a breakdown at some point . . . and sure enough IN-GAME, the sherman general icon became disabled in some way partway into the game! I also remember reading about Patterson and having that shape my game play to a large extent. Real shame that there are not more reviewers players who appreciate this fine attention to detail.
To me, it is this attention to detail, and sincere effort to balance historicism with gameplay-fun that really distinguishes WCS, and it is frustrating that you do not receive widespread accolades for it. I guess it should be surprising in a world in which World of Warcraft, Fallout3, Empire Total Frustration, etc. do so well.
ADDIT: question about the "unique" units (Jaegers, Guards, Cossacks, the Turkish one) the manual that I'm using (paper copy included in CD package pp. 44-48) is a bit sparse on details of exactly what distinguishes these troops from common infantry (same for the Heavy Cav and Lancer units). Reading this thread, I'm getting the impression that these 'unique' units are meant to represent Divisioins that were either specially equipped, specially trained/supplied, or followed some sort of special warfighting doctrine(s)?
For example, I seem to recall someone saying on the forums that Jaegers are particularly good at attacking urban hexes, and also good at overrunning artillery? I also seem to recall someone saying something like "Lancers should charge when in Column formation, not Line," those kinds of things. But I see no reference to this type of thing in the manual, so I wonder if it is true or not?
If more clarification about how these units are distinctive, and how they are best used in game could be provided in future updates to the manual or just to stickies on the forums I think that that would be quite helpful.
< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 9/3/2009 4:01:11 PM >