Miscellaneous changes
February 6, 2009 - 2:59pm — Stephen Schmidt
This topic is for suggestions for changes to NWOL before NWOL-3 that aren't covered under the other topics. I should say at the begnning that the NWOL code is quite stable at the moment, and I will not want to make major revisions to it because they would destroy that stability, which is critical to keeping a game running smoothly.
For example, the NWOL rules don't presently do anything to encourage the surrender of garrisons trapped in forts, or of ships that are trapped and can't flee. Perhaps those things should be added? They don't require changes to existing code, nor addition of much code, and they match some realistic historical circumstances (Ulm, particularly).
This site is intended for the sole purpose of supporting the Players Guild an activity sponsored by the Historical Online Learning Foundation. It exists solely to provide a discussion forum for the members of the Guild and to provide an outlet for announcements of other services offered by the Foundation. Any other activities involving this site are prohibited. All rights reserved.
Who's new
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
- AZTiger98
At-start frags and frag borders
Steve,
First, I really enjoyed playing an Italian frag last game (except the end result). I would recommend playing a frag to all players. I have already thought about playing a frag down the road again, and it got me to thinking (usually a bad thing).
With that in mind, this is more of a general inquiry and not specifically catered to NWOL3.
1. Will the same frags always exist (in the same form) in every NWOL game? If we did get more players, would more frags be added to the game or would the frag map stay pretty much as is? The historical map in Germany and Italy is still pretty hodgepodged with states, though not as much as in previous centuries. I note that many of the largest frags are presently represented on the NWOL map already, but some are not. I think it might even better represent the historic fluidity of the situation for frag players if we got to a point where there were more frags represented. (even if more were of the Mecklenberg (2-cities) type then the Venice type (4 cities).
number of frags
I would put at least a few more frags on the map if we had enough players to do it. Several of the larger frags have been giving more territory than they really ought to have in order to keep the number of players required by the frags down.
There couldn't be too many more, however - experience shows that, with occasional exceptions, it is desirable for each frag to have at least 3 cities.
At the moment, the frags can be arranged any old which way. However, for NWOL-3 the borders will likely be hard-coded for the duration of NWOL-3. They could be changed again between games if desired.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Army sizes
One of the biggest changes we made between NWOL-1 and NWOL-2 was to change the ratio of income to manpower. In NWOL-1, many nations managed to use up their manpower before using up their money. This struck me as historically inaccurate - in reality these nations all had far more men than they could afford to put into the army at once.
In NWOL-2, we reduced incomes by about 35%, and also reduced the starting bank accounts of all nations fairly dramatically. (I think we had each nation start NWOL-1 with a full year's income on hand, NWOL-2 with only one season's income on hand except Britain had its bonus money.) This had the effect of forcing people to use much smaller armies. By and large, nations didn't use up their manpower or come close to doing it in NWOL-2, I think (I haven't checked the game data to verify that).
What this also did is reduced the number of units each player had available. In some ways this is a good thing (sending orders takes less time, you have more time to think about each unit) but I think at least a few people would have liked to have more to do. Also, to some extent, if nations had more units, they'd be more likely to hire neutrals to run units for them, which might be a good thing (or might not).
This is something we can easily change. I want to keep the feature that army size is limited by income and not by manpower (this is partly a resilience issue; as long as you have excess manpower, you can raise new armies to replace ones that get shot up, which all nations did, France doing it as late as 1813). But it's easy to change the incomes (and adjust the manpower if necessary) to have bigger or smaller armies, as we see fit. We do want to think about how many players there are likely to be.
That said, people who played both games: Did you like the unit loads better in NWOL-1 or NWOL-2? The armies in NWOL-1 were clearly bigger than historical sizes (and this drew some substantial negative comments in the NWOL-1 postgame). The armies in NWOL-2 were probably somewhat smaller than historical size but closer to correct than in NWOL-1, and I think matched the number of players better.
All people who played NWOL-2: Would you like more units per person, fewer, or about the same in NWOL-3? Bear in mind that in NWOL-2 the navies were not very active; in NWOL-3 they might be, and if they are, that will add to everyone's order-sending burden.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Units
In NWOL2 i had around 17 or so units of my own at the height, and maybe that number again that i was xo for that on a couple turns i ended up running as well, and i did not find this difficult. NWOL1 was about the same on land but i did have some naval units and one turn i think i had to run about 60 units, and that was pretty ugly. I would say the balance was right from my perspective in NWOL2. Anything up to 40 or so is fine if it isn't every turn.
Units
Steve,
In NWOL I there was a time when I was running 100 regular units (some of them not very active) plus militia (a few of them active) plus about 50 ships. That was a hell of a work load but entirely feasible once you get used to it (and can find the time). In NWOL II I peaked at about 15 units (I had to go mercenary to get that many) with no ships. But I spent a large chunk of the game with a grand total of 2 units to play with.
Guess which way I think you should go on this. :-)
Jim
Jim Voege
Battalions?
Steve,
Any thought of moving from Brigades to Battalions as the unit size? Instead of IN units ranging from 2k to 4k, have them be 1k-2k. You could cut the cost of supplies by half and double the number allowed to be built per turn.
It would allow more units for the same sized army, which is good if the general feeling is that there weren't enough units to go around. (I could have used some more too.)
It would also help with army resiliency since each rout or shatter would take less troops out of commission.
-Nick
battalions
Battalions are smaller than that - they rarely run much over 800 men, at most a little over 1000. What I would do is regiments, which were the largest permanent formation in most armies, and which in every nation except the perverse Britain contained between two and five battalions. A British regiment had two battalions, at most one deployed; the other home recruiting and training. As such, in the field, a battalion and a regiment are more or less interchangable for the British. In other armies, three to five battalions per regiment was normal, one at home, two to four in the field; sometimes brigaded together, sometimes not.
Let me think about it. It's a good idea conceptually. I would want to think carefully about its impact for tactical combat, since the stacking rules would allow a lot more units in a square, and the notion of one 1000-man regiment being able to pin a stack of (say) 24 regiments is twice as trouble as the notion of one 2000-man brigade being able to pin 12 brigades.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Brigades/Regiments
Any chance you could brigade regiments or battalions together to form brigades and thus move them as one? I think it might work using the similar programming code as how the ships attach to each other.
I have always thought it would be cool to form bigger groups (divisions, corps, armies) by somehow attaching them together so that they can move as one.
By the way Steve, I know that just about any change made requires programming. I do not mean to minimize the effort made to make any of these hair brained changes. It is just interesting to brain storm and get the ideas out there and every once in a while one sticks.
Earlier we were talking about reserves and such. I think you can sort of simulate a reserve by starting a battle with one group in TAC1 and having other units support in subsequent turns. This would simulate the committing of the reserves and bring on fresh troops to a battle that was underway. Has anyone tried this?
It would be kind of cool to have a means of submitting conditional orders. Right now I think the only sort of conditional orders are support, pursue, stop on presence and stop on viewing enemy. It would be sort of neat to be able to submit an order for a unit to march toward a battle within X squares beginning in either STRAT2 or STRAT3. It would be kind of cool to be able to say march to XX-YY in STRATX if no enemy present. Some stuff like that.
Jerry Gouge
attaching land units
Attaching land units makes it too easy for one player to control a very large army and freeze out the rest of the players of his state. I do not want to introduce it. I would get rid of it for ships except that ships very often send absolutely identical orders and there I think one player can control large numbers of ships whether attachment is allowed or not. Also, in many nations PATE will be played by just one or two players anyway, so the harm is rather less if they can attach.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Battalions
In general I think that the number of units was fine. I think if we go to battalions or many more units then we will see more of the type of battle where units retreat is cut off and they are routed or destroyed. I think there needs to be some size check on the units cutting off a retreat. A really small unit might not be able to cut off a retreat.
I think it would be neat if the software looked to the surrounding tactical squares at the beggining of a battle turn and if there were friendlies there they would get a morale boost. Somewhere along the line between CWOL and NWOL we abandoned the concept of zone of control. I am not sure this is a good thing. Perhaps movement through ZOC should be reduced and perhaps a retreat through a ZOC does not cause a route or a destruction but perhaps it does increase the stragglers or casualities. And why do we have only survivors or casualities? Shouldn't there be stragglers?
Jerry Gouge
Re: Units
I have to concur with Jim. Admittedly I was playing a frag as compared to a major last game, but I was very underwhelmed by the number of units in NWOL2. While I'd say that NWOL1 levels may have been a little too much for some, I think the numbers should be raised to "near NWOL-1" levels in NWOL3.
Units
Somewhere between NWOL-1 and NWOL-2 would be good. I can say from last game that the number of units available was just too low. I controlled Naples by myself for 6 months and still found I was underwhelmed with the number of units under my command. I thought the troop levels in NWOL-1 were too high, but maybe a 15-20% increase from NWOL-2 levels should be implemented.
Units
If we do not consider, having units for neutral players:
NWOL1 - seemed to have had too many units.. at times it seemed like WW1. Static lines, heavy attrition
NWOL2- the armies seemed too brittle. Players tended to build the best, biggest force possible from the treasury given, once this force was broken there was no more money and I guess many but not necessarily not all states had a heavy manpower reserve. I know France had consistently approximately 500k manpower reserve, but on 1 turn we had a treasury of 17 c. It seemed because of income there to be now way that manpower would ever be exhausted as reinforcements were limited by income. Only several peace or truce seasons would allow the treasury to climb to siphon manpower. Unfortunately, too many people will not allow peace turns to happen once at war because they deem it that peace will potentially help the other side more than them. Thus they think in total economic war terms and not Napoleonic War terms. This then brings up economic models, we have programs to playtest somewhat what a new army/units will cost us reference treasury and income; but nothing about what it costs to bring up depleted units to a certain size and what that costs the treasury. On a small scale (frag, minor) it is possible to do this but becomes challenging (major) when one has only a week between turns in EOC. Large teams have so many other factors to consider, one gets close to the deadline before the reinforcement issue is resolved usually with no time to consider how it affects the treasury. A simple program may help resolve reinforcement to cost issues.
NOWL3- based upon 1 and 2 it seems income should be higher than 2 however less than 1. Maybe ballpark 25-35% higher than 2 is about where to go.
Robert
Stores
Perhaps a rule has been created, and if so excuse my ignorance.
There seems to be no means for a Land unit to make use of Stores in a city that is captured. This is unrealistic. Stores in a dock warehouse would be easily accessable to an occupier. Perhaps a 1 turn delay should be in place or something, but Stores include food for the ship crew - usually already packed in barrels. That should be converted into supplies at a ratio of 5:2 and shipped out by the occupiers (if they have lines of communication) or carried out by CQ units. Other possibilities should also be available - such as destroying the Stores.
John Vanvark
stores
Yeah, but the extra sails and spars are a little hard to digest :)
Stores, and for that matter supplies, are not only food. Stores include everything needed to keep the ship running; spare equipment, material for repairs (nails, etc), anything that might wear out at sea and need to be replaced. Similarly, supplies include new boots and uniforms, shoes for the horses, all that.
I think the problem of converting one to the other is not really worth tackling; it has a minor game effect and raises more questions than it's worth.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Pirates
Is there a possible play for Pirates? The PATE module for NWOL2 became much too peaceful later in the game.
Can players loosing their countries become a Pirates? Below is a rough mockup. I am sure the developers will have to change this - whatever can be leveraged from PATE and GITM.
You only start with one frigate, but if you get enough plunder, you can buy more FR built at your base at the PATE cost. Your per turn revenue is C$5 (lets assume your base gives you that) and your costs are C$4 per sailing turn plus C$2 for supplies (or C$1 if inactive) same as any other FR. You get no Pirate Points for this C$5 stipend. So you cannot sail 100% of the time unless you behave like a Pirate - see further below. If the start of any campaign (including your first), you have no ship, you get a FR (+8 supplies) but loose the accumulated stipend up to C$100 (but not your Pirated money). If a FR is being built, the build continues and you still receive your start of campaign FR.
The coastal waters/port of a Pirate Base is not detectable by anyone except for the Pirate (including other Pirates). An exit/wind direction and connecting SEA works like any other port, but this information is only available to the Pirate. At the end of a campaign, the Pirate may ask the GA to change his port location since frigates may start patrolling this sea. The game will have numerous seas with potential Pirate bases. A given SEA may have more than one operating Pirate base.
The active bases are unknown to all, except for the GA and the Pirate.
Running out of supplies returns you automatically to your Pirate port and into inactive mode. This may take several turns since all PATE sailing rules apply.
You can attack on or off-map ports (if you want to face the cannon. Pirates have a much higher cannon avoidance factor, since they come in stealthily at night - the more guns the more chance of detection and sinking - 5 guns 75% detection/sinking). Should your FR raid succeed, the ports stores are all yours. First you top up your stores to 24, and the remaining stores are turned into C$ (2 per store). You may also capture any SUPPLIES in the port depending on the garrison (use the same formulae as for creating MI in occupied city - you get no SUPPLIES if the garrison exceeds 8000 men - and otherwise you receive a proration of the SUPPLIES). The captured SUPPLIES are turned into C$5 per SUPPLY and the number of remaining STORES is reduced by the captured quantity. All STORES and SUPPLIES give you Pirate Points (PP) even the STORES are used for replenishing. These PP determine your score. 1 PP for a stolen store, 2 for a stolen supply. In addition, even if there are no supplies, a successful port raid gives you C$20 plunder and 4 PP. These plundered C$ and PP stay on the ship till it reaches the Pirate Port at which time it is buried (banked if you will). This is important later.
You can sail your Pirate FR in the coastal waters of a port and receive compensation for intercepted trade - to some percentage of that ports' per turn commerce - PATE rules apply. This gets you both C$ and Pirate Points. You only get 1 PP for each C$5 of commerce. Fractions can be accumulated over time. This costs the port in lost revenue.
Your frigate can be upgraded to higher "quality" at a cost (this is only possible for pirates since governments never paid for new copper sheathing, bronze cannon, more guns, longer masts). Therefore it is possible to take on a Naval Frigate if your frigate reaches higher quality - but you will probably still lose to two frigates. The upgrade is in the quality rating and is graduated - you cannot exceed very-good, and an average Pirate ship is of "poor" quality when built. These upgrades require a dockage. Experience points are accumulated as per PATE model. Loosing your ship costs you 20 PP. Repairs can be made even if the ship is inactive and the same repair rates apply as in PATE. The dock capacity of a Pirate port is two. You cannot build Pirate SL/FL. You can build as many FR as you wish. You can also build Pirate TR as further detailed below, but you can only have two TR at any one time.
Pirates cannot exchange C$, PP or ships. Intelligence can be shared if desired. Pirates are cutthroat and alliances are not valid in any way. Agreements can be made - but there is no enforcement of any.
You can buy Tranports at your home base. The Pirate Tranports come equipped with Pirate Men that size and cost like MI units. Each Pirate TR has a maximum capacity of 1 MI (3000 men). Quality is (on average) a "good" MI with 12 Experience (these are tough boys).
Pirate TR can only disenbark from the Harbor into the city, not from Coastal Waters. If they capture a city(tactical square only), they are immediately placed back on the TR the next turn. The same process applies for off-port attacks. If due to the strength of the garrison, the city is not taken, the remaining Pirate men are placed back on the Pirate TR, and they must return to the Pirate base before they are ready to attack again. Casualties are as per GITM city and off-port model. Pirate MI can be augmented on any turn (in the Pirate base only) at the regular MI rate.
Pirate Transports can get past coastol cannon at same probability as a Pirate Frigate. You loose no PP for loss of a TR. There is no per turn cost to operate the TR, the Pirates work for plunder. If a TR is deactivated at the Pirate Port, the left over manpower is turned back into C$ at the original cost rate. If deactivated elsewhere or sunk the money is lost.
If two Pirate MI try to enter a port at the same time, one is randomly not able to enter the port. For battles between these raiding Pirates and the garrisons, the GITM and off-port rules apply.
Capturing a city gives a Pirate C$250 which is also worth 50 Pirate Points. There may have to be a GITM penalty for the country that has been plundered - something perhaps in the range of C$50.
These C$ and PP must be successfully returned to the Pirate Port for burial (Banking).
Port guns cannot be spiked by pirates. There are no points for capturing the same port for the second time in a given campaign. A second Pirate TR (even if it belongs to another pirate) cannot enter a previously captured port on a given campaign. Unsuccessful attempts can be retried however.
Pirates ships - both Frigates and Transports, can only be detected at 1/3 the probability of normal ships in offshore waters and only by Frigates and other Pirate Frigates. In coastal waters the probability of detection is 1/2 the normal rate, by both Frigates and SL/FL. Land units can only detect Pirate ships in the Harbor. A Pirate Frigate and Transport both have a good probability of evading Enemy Frigates in coastal and offshore waters if set to evade. Pirate MI can only land via the port/harbor, not in another tactical square. A Pirate TR will not enter a port with any warships in port. It will remain in coastal waters even if ordered to enter the port.
Battles between Pirates with other Pirates and with regular Navies uses the PATE module. Sinking any Frigate gives you 20 PP but only C$20. Captured enemy ships become yours including stores and if you capture another Pirate ship, the on board stores C$ and PP are transferred to your ship. These are offloaded when you enter your Port. Pirate ships are captured as often as they are sunk - they are a mercenary lot. It may be possible with sufficient Pirate FR to capture or sink SL/FL units via normal PATE rules and the SL/FL then becomes a Pirate ship and can be repaired and upgraded. Sinking a SL/FL gets you 3/4 times the PP and C$ as a Frigate. In addition, upgrades to these ships can be performed but at 3/4 times the rate of FR upgrades.
Battles between Pirate FR and Pirate TR or Naval TR battles follow PATE rules. There are no PP or C$ for sinking or capturing a Naval TR. Pirate TR's are captured vs sunk at a 50% ratio and if captured any on board PP and C$ are turned over to the victor. If you sink a Pirate TR before it has captured a city, there will be no points on board. There would only be a benefit if you sink a Pirate TR right after it has captured and looted a Port.
The existence of Pirates will force Navies to be at least partially active.
The accomplishments of each Pirate is published in all the Naval reports - together with the victims. The Pirates receive a report showing the PP levels of all the Pirates. Two players may start the game as Pirates. Players loosing their countries may choose to become Pirates.
At the end we have a winner of the Majors, the Minors, the Frags and the Pirates.
I am sure more material will have to go into this to complete the Pirate option.
John Vanvark
Naval Minister Report/et al.
The following requests are being transferred by me from over in the Officers' Club.
From William Orange: Can we get a "Stores" field included on the Naval Ministers Report? It sure would come in handy. I spend a lot of time in excel creating and asking other players to verify these numbers.
From Jvoege: Indeed. And why are not stores disclosed in PATE position reports the same way as supplies are in GITM position reports?
From Me: The rules and the actual coding do not appear to correlate when it comes to PATE battles, that is to say the rules in PATE have not been updated to represent changes to % modifiers in PATE. The actual PATE combat strength scores are higher then they should be. The experience modifiers are listed as such in the PATE rules:
Experience modifier: 0 = -40%, 1-3 = -30%, 4-8=-20%, 9-15=-10%, 25-35=+10%, 36-48=+20%, 49-63=+30%, 64+ = +40%, doubled at close quarters
But I THINK that the ACTUAL modifiers in combat are much different. I think it is either 0 = 10%, 1-3 = 20%, 4-8= 30%, 9-15=-40%, (NOT SURE ABOUT 16-24), 25-35=50%, 36-48= 60%, 49-63= 70%, 64+ = 80%, doubled at close quarters.
or it is 0 = 0%, 1-3 = 10%, 4-8= 20%, 9-15=-30%, (NOT SURE ABOUT 16-24, think it is 40%), 25-35=50%, 36-48= 60%, 49-63= 70%, 64+ = 80%, doubled at close quarters. Steve would have to check the specifics but if either of those are correct.
PATE modifiers - Cont.
I never finished my thought from the Naval Ministers et. al report above
LET ME REPEAT THAT STEVE SCHMIDT WILL NEED TO CHECK THE CODE TO EITHER VALIDATE OR INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS ABOUT MODIFIERS AND ESTIMATES I HAVE MADE BUT I THINK THEY ARE FAIRLY ACCURATE.
So it is believed that PATE experience modifiers are in the range of (0%) to (+80%) [doubled in close quarter] instead of the -40 to +40 currently printed in the rules.
Meanwhile, PATE quality modifiers range from (-30%) to (+30%) (doubled in close quarters).
1. Should these numbers be adjusted so that experience is not comparatively valued so much more than quality in PATE? After all, negative experience bonuses would never be applied in close quarters because the lowest number possible experience is 0.
2. Should the time it takes to move from one experience level to the next be so short? According to the present rules (see caveat at top), a new ship can advance 4 experience categories (gaining a 40% modifier) by simply sailing around for one war campaign. An excellent quality ship only gets +30% maximum for that quality rating no matter what. Was experience historically worth more than quality in naval matters?
I would think something as easy for PATE experience as 0-8 = 0%, 9-15 = 10%, 16-24 = 20%, 25-35 = 30%, 36-48 =40%, 49-63 = 50%, 64+ = 60% would make more sense.
Thoughts?
Matt
Diplomacy
I believe that VPs should awarded to the nation that has the FM who antagonizes the most players on the opposite side.
I realize that this is purely self-motivated, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!
500 VPs for each major, 300 for each minor, 200 for each frag e-mail that uses insulting language about the FM.
I think its fair . . . and will add a whole new dimension to the diplomatic game.
Otto von Baden
Seiner Durchlaucht Markgraf von Baden-Durlach
Rat der Fürsten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Minister für auswärtige Angelegenheiten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Flottillenadmiral
The Price is Right
We could take a vote throughout the foreign ministry corps and the minister who is hated the most each season their nation would get VPs. We could also have order turn off penalties. If someone uses foul language or threatens someone, their order submissions would be ignored and the computer would march all their troops home, like the ships returning to their home port for supplies.
We could also have units that have been embarrassed on the field of battle have their quality reduced (not just morale).
Jerry Gouge
Transfer of Cities
There is a problem with the transfer of cities, something that Ken Felts and I took considerable advantage of this game. Our attacking force consisted primarily of Pomeranian units. Therefore when we captured a city Pomerania generally got 200 VPs for the capture and Sweden nothing. We then transferred the city to a new state (Westphalia) if it was a German city or to Sweden if it was not. The transfer cost Pomerania was 100 VPs as per the rules but that left it with 100 VPs which was a *permanent* increase in Pomerania's score regardless of what later happened to the city. This was vital for us as we had no realistic hope of retaining control of the city. The downside was that when the city was later lost Sweden would incur a permanent 100 VP loss but that was unimportant because Sweden had no chance of finishing in the running amongst the minors.
Not wanting to take credit where it is not due, I believe this score manipulation was first engineered by the British/Hannoverians with the creation of Hesse.
The point I'm trying to make is that because a state gets 200 VPs when it captures a city and only loses 100 VPs when it gives it away, it is possible for a state to "ratchet" up its score at the expense of a "VP reservoir" state in a manner that really doesn't reflect the accomplishments of the latter nor the misfortunes of the latter. At least, I don't think it does. Perhaps that question should be addressed first.
Jim Voege
City transfer
I think if we implement the nation morale statistic, then taking a city would effect that measure, losing it would as well. I think that when a nation takes a city it should get points. I think the points should be divided among the nations that assist in taking the city. So if 2/3s of the men involved in the fight in the city strat square are French then France gets 2/3s of the VPs, other nations involved get their share based upon their contribution. I do not think that the transfer of a city should involve a transfer of VPs. Also I think that VPs should attrite over time, the further away we are from a victory the less that victory is worth. Also I do not think that all cities should be worth the same amount. Perhaps the VPs should be a function of the economic value of the town.
Jerry Gouge
Change to Raising militia in enemy-occupied cities
To the following rule of chance add the portion in bold.
If the garrison has 2000 men, then it is 75% below 8000, and the chance that militia can be successfully raised in the city is 75%, and should the attempt fail (25%) the money to create the militia is lost (If the attempt was to raise a militia of 2500, then C$100 would be lost). This simulates the cost of attempted rebellion - since even a failed attempt costs lives/money.
John Vanvark
Change to Raising militia in enemy-occupied cities
I would add if a militia raise is unsuccessful, another cannot be attempted until the following campaign. This would represent leaders being imprisoned/executed and other organizational disruptions that would accompany a failed rebellion.
Jim Voege
Militia cities etc.
I for one have no problem with Militia revolts. I tend to see them as a serious drain on the enemy economy and garrisoned my cities to encourage revolts. Every time the enemy obligingly revolted, I squashed it and gained a big basket of glory points. Nothing dies so easily an an MI 2500-0 with no experience.
What was difficult is city transfers. Several different rules seemed to be at play and they are not written anywhere.
The only rule I know is war victory of a city is 200 points. Diplomatic transfer gives 100 points.
Yet, we had rules where the receiving state had to have a combat unit in the city before a transfer can be consummated. This is not written anywhere. Then late in the game Austria sued for peace and joined the alliance. Of course Austria wanted her cities back as France alone had 14. With the brigade rule in the city we thought that it would take Austria time to take back cities. However transfer was immediate and no victory points changed hands. This has me completely confused. I do not at present know what the full rule is. This seems to need clarification.
Robert
Only one attempt per campaign per city
Agreed
John Vanvark
I propose the introduction of a new Off-Map Colony
The Azores have been settled since the 15th Century and has been a vital stopover for Centuries, even serving in that capacity today.
The Azores have a land area 7 times that of Malta.
I would suggest that the Azores be placed directly west of Lisbon in the very Westernmost square of IBC (Iberian Coast). Furthermore that it have direct access to both IBC (from the North) and Atlantic Ocean so that ships can sail directly west from the Azores towards the Caribbean, entering the Atlantic Ocean directly.
Also because the trade winds Westbound pass close to the Azores, as well as the valuable water supply, there is a 1/2 (50%) chance that the Azores detects ships heading from European to the Caribbean theatre (crossing the Atlantic). The report is only available on the turn that the unit reaches the Caribbean - delay of information.
Since Eastbound shipping follows the Gulf Stream, this intelligence is not available Eastbound – only Westbound.
The Azores would be an of-map port belonging to Portugal. It should have a value of 2 with a reasonable number of cannon 3 - 4.
John Vanvark
Creating Transports
The current build limit for Transports(uncombined) of 8000 unit capacity is an unfortunate size based on the fact that full IN and LI units with 1 battery requires 4100 capacity. I suggest a build limit of a 9000 unit capacity Transport.
John Vanvark
Winter rules
I know this one has been visited before, but I would like to bring up a discussion over adding some winter rules into NWOL3 (not sure if this falls under major changes that Steve would like to avoid or not).
The NWOL games are finishing really early. While I think there are multiple reasons for that, one of the biggest is a nations's ability to carry out full military operations every season of the year. I think some simple rules that would take effect in the winter months (and possibly with lesser effect in Spring months) would go a long way. Some possible ideas:
1. Reduced movement during winter campaign, and extreme limited movement or no movement in mountain hexes.
2. Strict limits on transferring supply during winter.
3. Reduced fighting capability or inability to fight in higher than skirmish formations during winter
4. Increased likelihood and/or severity of storms and winds during Winter
Winter Rules and proposed rule changes
Proposed new Rules:
Yes, NWOL2 settled European world affairs before the summer of 1794. This historically was when the war was yet to get serious and yet France in NWOL2 has 3 vq’s and victory.
There are several reasons for this. One of the primary reasons, I believe, is the mentality of present day players who have grown up in a world of ‘Total War” and can only relate war to this. During the game, there were those who did not want a peace or truce turn because they felt that staying at war hurt the enemy more than it hurt them. It seems that game rules are going to be needed to push this concept over the side if we are going to have any representative Napoleonic war.
The following proposed rules changes should help. I tried to consider rules that could not be easily countered by game actions – “gamey” and those that I believe the present system can easily adopt.
Money Transfers: No money transfers by anyone in a war turn or war season. Money Transfers can only be done in Truce/Peace turns, seasons. It is freely spoken that money moved in many directions during NWOL2. It kept states going that should have dropped out of the war. No wartime transfers should shorten wars or make the alliances more fragile. We use money transfers in NWOL as an ATM machine. In this period it had to be done by money train. It took time for a state to send someone, negotiate a deal, the lending state to organize the transfer, troops to accompany the treasure and then the journey to the borrowing state. This took weeks or months depending on distance. I know that some states could accomplish this in less than a season as say Lisboa to Madrid; but the main purpose is to force players to seek Peace/Truce turns which they do not do because of their total war mentality. In addition, in war states can still get around the money lending by sending supply/stores instead. Yet this relives the borrowing state marginally and not fully and this does represent the ability to get funds to another state even in active war turns.
Winter Season: I keep falling back to the idea that even in a strategic game Winter is an important aspect that needs to be represented. I do not believe that it is necessary to go heavy into winter but force some winter penalties to make winter less desirable to wage war. It can also be a way for some state to actually prepare a war against a state unprepared…..
Proposed Rules:
Supplies/Stores can be bought but at a 50% surcharge. This represents the peasants having squirreled away food stores for themselves. They will only part with it if handsomely compensated. It forces states to consider waging winter wars before winter and stockpile to avoid this penalty.
A city can only build 6 units of supply a war turn…. This is because stocks are not as plentiful as in other seasons.
Units: All active units in a winter turn receive 1 fatigue point. This stops long marches. Winter most units seemed to bivouac in semi-permanent location for the winter. Battles fought frequently happened close to base. In this system only units that march 3 squares or more get penalized. If they stop it goes away; but if units keep marching it rises. Fatigue is one of the most important factors in NWOL as over 6 it penalizes a unit heavily and at 9 a unit cannot move. This simple rule by itself will slow armies down to where they cannot march far. This alone should give many states pause to stay at war in winter.
Robert
Seasonal Supplies
When are supplies more available in early winter or early spring. I have always thought that there would be more surplus right after the harvest than just as things were being planted. Of course there is more green grass for the horses in April than there is in December.
I think that the amount of supplies that can be purchased should be reduced in certain seasons. Also when the roads would be poor, the distance that supplies can be transfered and the range of CQ supply should be cut. Also marching distances should be reduced during poor weather seasons. Perhpas out of supply should hurt more during seasons where there is less forage. For that matter certain areas of the map should hurt worse on out of supply due to the unavailability of forage.
Jerry Gouge
Supplies
The way that seasons are indicated. IT seems that winter is Jan-Mar. In this we are now some 2 months after harvest for much of Europe. For this reason just having a winter penalty seems best. We are not trying to represent realty completely; but say only some of the problems that were faced. Your main crops are not ready for harvest come spring; but there are several quick crops that can be grown. In addition, fresh green plants can be harvested and generally eaten. Yes, Cattle would in general still be skinny; but a simulation doesn't really need to represent all of reality. There is a need to eliminate some stuff and focus on other issues or the simulation turns to mud in over complication. I can only see winter rules as a way to reduce the concept of "total war". If it can't help eliminate that; the present rules are fine.
It isn't good to reduce supply draw and strategic movement in Winter. Yes, it happened but this brings undo hardship on areas with widely separated cities such as Spain and Russia. As it is some cities such as Rostov are isolated by the supply rules. There does not seem to keep adding to unsupplied areas. That is one reason I did not mention supply distance or supply total from one city to another, for if you stop the source you stop the flow.
Robert
Supplies
Robert's ideas are well thought out. Warfare in this period rarely happend in winter, and the game needs the operational pause, or it is going to end in 1794 every time.
George
game duration
I would rather have no operational pauses and have the game end in 1794 every time. The game already takes over a year of real time to play - having us all sit through a winter campaign where no one does very much seems undesirable.
What I might be willing to do is require that every winter season be a peace season, so that operations stop for a few months and (perhaps more important) every nation gets a peace season's income. I don't like that very much either, but I see it as vastly preferable to having a winter campaign where campaigning is discouraged to the point that most people sit on their hands for eight weeks.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
game duration
Steve,
You're absolutely right.
Thank God someone still realizes that realism often comes at a heavy price.
The biggest problem in the game right now is it needs more players. At least double. You ain't gonna get them by making the game more complicated in a fashion that makes the game more difficult to play.
For example, if you start the game with France and Britain at war and require them to stay that way until 1801, you add much realism but virtually no complications for new players.
On the other hand, if you start France and Britain with a set of "national objectives" a la the old CWOL, it may or may not produce realistic results but they are sure tp produce massive complications for anyone but the most experienced of players.
Consider further the CWOL model. National objectives are not created equally. Some are easier than others. It would be unfair that an easy one garners the same credit as a hard one. So they would all have to be weighted in their value so that the hard ones give you more credit. Who does the weighting? The GAs of course. Does any of this sound familiar to you old CWOL hands? Has anybody here ever taken part in that process. If so, is there anyone who remembers it to be a happy process? I sure don't. And that was when the competition involved only 2 teams. Now, try this with a dozen possible objectives for each of a couple of dozen states.
An example. An Austrian objective might be to capture all the ports on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. Now, lets compare that to the British objective of defeating an Irish insurrection. Heavier weight? Or less. I have no idea. What Irish insurrection you might ask. The one that inevitably has to find its way into the French national objectives. And how does that weight against the inevitable British objective of an insurrection in the Vendee? Or do we dodge half the bullet there and simply dump the whole Vendee thing into the lap of a new virtual state, the "Bourbonaise"?
C'mon guys. Let's keep both feet on the ground here. Steve knows what's he's doing. He knows that the game could be more realistic. In most cases it wouldn't even be difficult to do from a programming perspective. But he also knows that, taken too far, we wouldn't have any players because it wouldn't be playable.
So, for all you guys who have these terrific ideas of how to make the game more realistic, how about coming up with an equal number of ideas of how to make the game easier to play.
I believe that the realism/playability ratio has gotten about as high as we can afford. So henceforth I would call upon all persons making suggestions for rule chances that increase the difficulty level of play for the average player (bearing in mind that the average player is the guy who does all the jobs in a frag) to balance them with suggestions that entirely counterbalance this increase in difficulty. Good luck.
Jim
Jim Voege
JMOL
I believe that most of the problems people have is with unmet expectations. People believe that Britain and France should not be allied in a Napoleonic game. Many of the other issues arise because things aren't living up to people's expectations of a Napoleonic game. Giving the game more of a Napoleonic flavor will require a lot of work, as Jim has explained above.
So what I propose is that we instead change our expectations.
Welcome to July Monarchy Online! That game begins in 1830 after a far less consequential French Revolution that sets up a (gasp!) limited Monarchy. The powers of Europe are so confused that they can only act in two possible ways, complete indifference or a simultaneous bid to take over the world.
Because nobody in the world is interested in this period nobody goes into the game with unrealistic expectations of what should happen. Can the English and French work together? I don't know? Will coalitions be durable? Huh? Will nations mobilize unwieldy armies? I guess, why not?
The best part is that we don't have to change anything at all!
OK... so that was obviously meant a satire, but I hope it communicates an important message.
-Nick
JMOL
Not sure the message got through but the humor is appreciated ...
Winter rules - possible additional penalty
5. Brigades larger than 1/2 max strength (2000 Infantry, etc.) require 2 supplies per turn if active - more fuel, clothing and food during the winter campaign and first 5 turns of the spring campaign.
John Vanvark