Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

  1. #1
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,757

    Default A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Hello gentlemen of the TWC!


    Over the weekend I decided to put together a mini Treatise on my thoughts on Napoleon: Total War and the exploration and expansion of the many features that has graced the total war series from its conception. Many of these ideas are taken from the community so I have to give you guys credit for this as well. It is a bit long but I hope you guys enjoy.


    Imagination rules the world
    -Napoleon Bonaparte







    A

    TREATISE

    ON

    Napoleon: Total War

    IN NINE PARTS

    CONTAINING

    Sieges, Diplomacy, Campaign and Battle Maps, Characters, Music, Multiplayer, Units, Formations, and Miscellaneous Features


    by Reiksmarshal



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The purpose of this treatise is to consolidate many of the community feature request and feature improvements that have been proposed on the various forums and boards. Most request stem from the desire to want more or if the game design falls short in certain areas. We as a community and fans get excited when we hear things from Kieran Brigden such as “We listen to what the fans have to say” but also have to be realistic about our request. Hopefully we can see some of the current features improved and maybe a few new features added. This treatise is more about refining what has already been done by the Creative Assembly and making it all come together in what could be the grandest and most polished Total War game to date.


    Contents

    I Sieges
    II Diplomacy
    III Campaign and Battle Maps
    IV Characters
    V Music
    VI Multiplayer
    VII Units
    VIII Formations
    IX Miscellaneous Features



    I Sieges

    Sieges in Empire: Total War probably is one of the game design areas that needs an overhaul the most out of all the features listed above. Sieges should be a fairly simple affair, make a breach in the wall and kill everything inside. The siege Ai on the other hand has a hard time managing to make a breach in the walls with its artillery. Grappling hooks are another thing that seems to be an issue with most players. If I could list priorities for how sieges should be fought I would add a couple of new elements such as pioneers and ladders. The pioneers would use axes to destroy the gates of forts or bust down doors of houses were troops would be hiding in a siege battle. I would also replace the ropes with ladders if it can be programmed properly and function better then what it did in M2TW. Here is the list of priorities for the Ai when conducting sieges. Also the objective of a siege should not be a little circle with a flag pole, maybe you could introduce a new element to sieges such as taking the building in the center of the fort or a governmental/palace building in the center of a city. I think this would make sieges and city battles so much interesting since you actually have to defend something that is more defensible. You could also make sieges with multiple layers, for example if you attack a city that has a ring of forts as a defense, you would have to take the fort first before you could assault the city. This is something that could be added to increase the difficultly of capturing a city.

    Ai priorities as the attacker during Sieges
    • Uses the artillery to make a breach in the wall, if the Ai general is of hi command he will make at least two breaches. This should be the main way to assault walled cities or forts, all other attacks will be secondary.

    • Once the artillery has completed making a breach or breaches in the wall the Ai will form up its infantry in assault columns to assault the breaches with its forlorn hope. Once the infantry are in the cavalry will follow.

    • If the Ai has no artillery it will use its infantry to assault the walls with ladders and its pioneer units to assault the gate with their axes to let the rest of the infantry and cavalry in.

    • The Ai should focus all of its effort on the side of the fort they enter the battlefield from so they can keep their attack concentrated. In ETW the Ai army will run the entire army around to attack the rear corners of the fort which does not work in an Ai vs. player or player vs. player match.

    • Once the Ai has entered the breach it should seek the nearest units first opposed to making a suicidal dash for the center of the fort. This would be a major leap in progress and take sieges to the next level.

    • Once the Ai has killed most of the units that are inside the fort/city it would focus its effort on the final attack at the pivotal building to take the fort or city.

    Ai priorities as the defender during Sieges
    • When defending the Ai should deploy its best units to defend the pivotal building in the center of the fort or city and try to block most of the paths leading to it.

    • If there is a breach in the Ai’s wall then they should form a horse shoe defense around the breach with at least three infantry units if they have the man power.

    • The Ai should also hold a reserve of troops to reinforce breaches if the horse shoe defense starts to falter and lose ground.

    • If the Ai is getting beat at the breach or the walls have been taken the Ai should fall back to the center to try to regroup and make a final stand.

    • The Ai should try to garrison buildings that are close to the pivotal building so they can fire upon approaching enemy units, however if the pivotal building is under attack they will leave these position and seeks to engage the nearest unit to them working their way back to the pivotal building.

    • If the Ai has the ability to set up mines they should set them up in a path that is most likely to be taken to get to the pivotal building.

    • The Ai should try to ambush the player from buildings if possible with hitting them with cross fire and charging out of the building for melee.

    Pivotal Buildings
    This would be the new objective of sieges battles opposed to flag pole system. These buildings could be a barracks at the center of a fort or a governmental/palace building at the center of a city. They should be somewhat defensible with being able to put 2-4 units inside as well as small walls outside of the building so that it can be defended by a couple more units on the perimeter. It would also make it interesting if buildings surrounding the pivotal building could be garrisoned to offer raking fire on the enemy as they approach the central objective.

    Pioneer Units
    This would be a unit that could bust a gate or door open with their axes and would excel in house to house combat.

    Ladders
    This would be a nice replacement to the grappling hooks and would be very welcomed. On a side note maybe light infantry could retain the ability to use grappling hooks.

    Two stage Sieges
    This would be for cities that have a ring of forts surrounding the city. The first battle would take place at the fort with the regular troops, if you’re victorious at the fort you would then be able to assault the city that is defended by the militia troops. This would be a good option for capitals making them harder to take.


    II Diplomacy

    Diplomacy has been something that the Dev team has been striving to improve from title to title and has been successful at making it better. The problem is if there were gains in the last titles not all of the gains make it to the latest title. I can understand that some features are not applicable to the period, but if it goes with the period why not add it. Here are some improvements that could greatly enhance NTW;

    Liberation of a Conquered People (must have feature)
    This would give a faction the ability to liberate a destroyed faction when you capture their former capital. Maybe there could also be an option to make them a protectorate as a condition of the liberation. This gives the player the ability to restore conquered nations and should give the player a positive bonus points to your diplomacy relations with other factions, this would be the opposite of the territorial expansion penalty in ETW.

    Coalition based Diplomacy
    When a group of allies are dragged into a war by a faction they should only be involved in the war as long as the two main factions are at war. For example Sweden goes to war with Denmark and drags its ally Courland into the war, if Sweden and Denmark make a peace deal then the peace should be extended to Courland since it was only a secondary war. However allies may seek peace if the war is going unfavorable for them which would slow dissolve the coalition.

    The ability to wage Proxy Wars
    This would give you the option to pay a faction to attack a nation and allow you to give them financial support for their war efforts. For example you want to slow down the Martha expansion in India so you pay Mysore to wage war on the Martha Confederacy.
    This would be a great core feature that allows you to manipulate the political situation and would be a great way to spend large sums of gold. On the other hand there should be a counter feature which allows you to ask a faction to end a war with another faction by giving them gifts of gold or regions.

    Summary: The ability to ask a faction to start or stop a war with another faction. This feature is from M2TW.

    Protectorates and Diplomacy

    When a faction is made a protectorate they should inherit the diplomacy as the protector faction, the reason being in many of cases my allies will stay at war with them and take their lands in ETW. By doing this it will be more realistic and give you the ability to intervene if they are continually attacked.

    Diplomacy Gifts
    The gift system in ETW has its flaws hopefully you have changed this aspect back to gold, regions, and technology. The more gold you give a faction the better it improves your relationship if given as a gift and the better chance you have to make a diplomacy deal. Also giving things like regions and technology should improve your relation with a faction as well. Regions in particular should offer a huge bonus to the relationship of a faction and regions should also carry weight in diplomacy deals i.e. they are highly valuable. ETW gives the feeling that they are almost worthless.


    III Campaign and Battle Maps

    The campaign map like many other features in the Total War series has gotten better from title to title, in this section I would like to just build on some of your pervious work that links the campaign map with the battlefields. This would add so much life to the campaign map that I think most will be please and quite surprised of what they see on the battle map.

    Unique Capital Cities on the Battle Map
    In ETW the major playable factions have the ability to build unique buildings in their capital but this does not reflect on the battle map. In the Road to Independence campaign there are cities that have custom battle maps so why can’t this be taken a step further and give the major playable factions unique capitals on the battle map. It is easy to see that this is something the community wants by viewing the various polls and it would be a huge step in the right direction.

    Historical Battlefields on the Grand Campaign Map
    It would be great if historical battlefields are present on the grand campaign map. For example if a battle takes place near the village of Austerlitz on the grand campaign map you will have the same battlefield that is used in the historical battle Austerlitz. This could be done for all of the historical battle maps that are created for NTW and would really bring the campaign map alive.

    Battle Map Terrain
    In NTW it is highly desirable to have the campaign map that somewhat reflect what the battle map will look like. If a battle takes place near the coast then you should be able to see a coast line on the battle map. The same goes for ports, bridges, villages, and other relevant terrain pieces.

    Off Map Models
    This was a feature that comes from Rome: Total War. For example you fight a coastal battle and there is a fleet next to the coast then you will be able to see a fleet on the battle map off in a distance. This is a feature that should be in until land and naval battles can be mixed.

    Seascapes
    If a naval battle takes place near a coast or island on the grand campaign map then you should be able to see land off in a distance on the battle map. This would add some visual variance to the seascapes that would be very appreciated. If a sea battle takes place near a port you will be able to see a port off in a distance as well.


    IV Characters

    Characters are going to be interesting in NTW do to the fact that we are stuck with them throughout the entire campaign unless they shall fall in battle. It’s no question fans want to lead armies with faction leaders. Here is a basic list of some of the characters that should appear in Napoleon: Total War.

    Famous Characters
    Napoleon Bonaparte (France)
    Napoleon’s various Marshals (France)
    The Duke of Wellington (Britain)
    Horatio Nelson (Britain)
    Sir Thomas Picton (Britain)
    Gebhard von Blücher (Prussia)
    Scharnhorst (Prussia)
    Alexander I of Russia (Russia)
    Alexander Suvorov (Russia)
    Francis II of Austria (Austria)
    Archduke Charles of Austria (Austria)
    Don Francisco Javier Castaños (Spain)
    Benito de San Juan (Spain)

    Unique Models for Faction Leaders and Characters (For Both the Campaign and Battle Map)
    This is something that really gives the campaign and battle maps character and variety. This is where a faction leader or character has a unique model on the campaign and battle map that looks different then the other standard generals. For example Character such Napoleon, Arthur Wesley, Gebhard von Blücher, Alexander I, Francis II, Archduke Charles and other important characters should have unique models on both the campaign and battle map like what was done in MTW: Kingdoms for William Wallace.
    This really adds to the atmosphere and deepens the immersion due to the fact you can see these characters trotting around the map and not have to scroll through list to find a clone general.

    Military Hierarchy and Peerage System
    This is a period where military hierarchy and the peerage system was important and is something that could be portrayed with the ancillary and traits system. I think fans would rather see a military ranking system then a parrot ancillary. Here is a basic ranking system that could work with a total war game.

    Military Hierarchy
    This could be a list of promotions that a general could get as he gains command stars, for example if you recruit a new general he will be a Brigadier General with 3 command stars. This is just a generic military ranking.

    Brigadier - 3 star general
    Major General - 4 star general
    Lieutenant General - 5 star general
    General - 6 star general
    Field Marshal - 7+ star general
    Emperors, Kings, Presidents - Faction Leaders who takes to the field will not be assigned general ranks other than some like Commander of the Army or so other fitting title.

    General's Staff (Aides-de-camp)
    These officers would be the personal staff of the general and aide with the complexities of military campaigning. Generals will gain staff as they rise in rank. Each of the different General levels will allow certain abilities for example once an general reaches the rank of Major General he could have 1 staff officer, a Lieutenant General he could have 2 staff officers, a General he could have 3 staff officers, and a Field Marshal he could have 4 staff officers. In the four examples below are staff officers you could gain as staff for your general as he rises in rank.

    Colonel (logistics officer) - Movement and logistics bonus.
    Lieutenant Colonel (personnel officer) - Training and health bonus to the army.
    Major (intelligence officer) - Military intelligence and topography with line of sight bonuses and the improved ability to detect ambushes.
    Major (accounting officer) - Accounting and paymaster duties that will offer bonus to looting and upkeep for the army.

    Junior Officers
    These will be the captains that command the companies (units). These officers will be minor characters that can gain minor traits through experience such as “steady under fire” +1 morale for the unit would be a good example of a junior officer.

    Peerage System
    This would be the old system of where generals could have titles such as Duke and belong to military orders such as the Prussian military order Pour le Mérite.

    The Knightly Orders could have three levels and would add Sir before their name if they don’t have a title such as Duke in their name. These would be for the monarch factions and would be gained from the number of command stars they have. This would be and ancillary of a cross or other appropriate item associated with the order. A general will gain the ancillary Knight of the Order when he reaches the rating of 4 command stars and so on.

    Knight (4 command stars)
    Knight Commander (5 command stars)
    Knight Grand Cross (6 + command stars)

    Kings and heirs would have their proper titles and maybe a Duke and Archduke for a couple of the factions like Britain and Austria and of course Napoleon will have his title of Emperor.


    V Music

    There is only one thing that you have to do to improve this area is by adding marching tunes for the playable factions and you guys would be gods. Also you could just have a couple of generic marches for the minor factions. There may be better choices for the faction songs but the list below is a good start.

    France - La Victoire est à Nous
    Britain - British Grenadiers
    Prussia - Altpreussischer Parademarsch (Old Prussian march)
    Austria - Raedetzky March (most likely)
    Russia - 1796 - Imperial Russian March (most likely)
    Ottoman Empire - Hücum Marşı or Mehter Marsi


    VI Multiplayer

    The main thing the community is asking for is maps that are balanced for both sides. It would also be neat if the historical battle maps were available in custom and multiplayer games as well.


    VII Units

    This is just a small suggestion on improving the command structure of a unit. This would add two more officers to the standard line infantry unit. So the officers in a standard line infantry would be:

    Unit Command
    Captain
    Sergeant with a Spontoon (to defend the colors from cavalry and a symbol of rank NCO's) the sergeant should also have stripes on his uniform.
    Flag bearer (colors)
    Drummer
    Fifer or Bugler

    Variance within a Unit
    With NTW we are told there will be much more variations in the units which is fantastic. The one thing I would like to see practically with militia units is different hats and weapons within the same unit. Civilian hats of the period would be various top hats, wideawake (Quaker hat), and couple of other styles. It would also add some nice variation in the unit if a few men had no hats. As for weapons it would be nice to see some variation, for example in a militia/volunteer unit you might see muskets, pistols, blunderbuss, and maybe a few farm tools. As for civilian mobs you would see clubs, knifes, various farming tools, and maybe a few fire arms. It may difficult to have a unit with multiple animation sets but the visuals would be amazing and would bring the mob alive opposed to having the clone pitch fork that everyone is carrying in ETW.

    Marines
    Marines should make an appearance in NTW as a land unit for factions such as Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France.

    Napoleon’s Horse
    Napoleon’s mount should be a white Arabian horse with a red saddle cloth. A horse ancillary named “Marengo” could also be given to Napoleon.


    VIII Formations

    The three main formation of the period should have distinct advantages. Some of the advantages could be;

    Column
    This formation would allow the unit to move faster than line formations and would keep the morale of the unit higher under enemy fire. This formation also offers an advantage in melee do to the rank bonus which gives the unit the weight needed to smash through a line formation. +1 movement, +1morale, and +1 charge bonus vs. infantry in line formation.

    Line
    This formation utilizes the various firing drills and offers the most fire power to the commander but moves slower then column formation. -1 movement

    Square
    This formation can be formed when threatened by cavalry, the key to this formation is to form square before engaged in combat. Units should not be able to form square once engaged in combat.


    IX Miscellaneous Features

    Capturing Colors
    Flags were important during this period maybe there could be a way to capture them on the field of battle. In RTW you were able to capture eagle standards, hopefully in NTW I will be able to capture French Eagles. There could also be a pop up message on the battle map when you capture or lose colors just like when a general dies. This could also give you the ability to recapture the colors if you destroy a unit that has captured colors. Additionally this could also add an element to multiplayer by giving the player rewards for capturing x amount of colors in online matches.

    Reinforcements
    Introduce the kingdoms reinforcement system if possible or a new system that allows more men to collide on the battlefield.

    Diseases, Disasters, and Events
    These will be events such as bubonic plague out breaks, the Louisiana Purchase, and other notable events.

    Royal Family Tree
    Bring back the family tree for the monarch factions.

    Bloody and Dirty Soldiers
    Soldiers will get bloody and dirty during the course of battle.

    Great Coats
    It would be neat if units wore great coats in the winter battles.

    Military Camps
    Camps would be the first level of forts that could be upgradable to a wooden fort or stone fort if desired. If a camp is left then it would disappear since it is only temporary. If camps are attacked on the campaign map then you would see a grouping of tents on the battle map like forts except they would be behind the deployment zone of the defenders. Camps would be something you could build in enemy territory to reduce attrition and act as temporary shelter.


    X Conclusion

    This would conclude the first edition of the Napoleon: Total War Treatise, I hope that it was presented in a manner that is chronological and comprehensible. If the Creative Assembly indeed wants to make this the most polished Total War game to date then adding the features listed in the treatise will be a grand step in that direction. The total war series is one of my passions and like anything else I would like to see it grow and develop as the series progresses.


    Here is a PDF version for easy reading

    Treatise on Napoleon: Total War
    Last edited by Kinjo; January 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason: Add PDF file

  2. #2

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    One thing we can add to this thread is the fact that people have been saying that the Primary concern of the AI should not be there to ensure the player will lose the game.

    It should not concern itself with the players unless the player is a direct threat to the nation being controlled by an AI, or there is a tangible benefit to be gained by waging war with the player.

    The primary goal of the AI should be its survival.

  3. #3
    RomanGuy's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    One thing we can add to this thread is the fact that people have been saying that the Primary concern of the AI should not be there to ensure the player will lose the game.

    It should not concern itself with the players unless the player is a direct threat to the nation being controlled by an AI, or there is a tangible benefit to be gained by waging war with the player.

    The primary goal of the AI should be its survival.
    +1
    I agree with everything here. I hope CA considers all of these possibilities. However, I don't think I have much faith in CA to implement these changes because they seem like they should have been there in the first place.
    "Veni, vidi, vici"
    "I came, I saw, I conquered"
    -Gaius Julius Caesar

  4. #4

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Well done, you did an amazing job, I want a CA repersenative to reply to this, to make sure that they have read this. I am a bit of a Napoleonic history buff, and everything you said is absoultly correct and accurate. I love the campsite ideas, could you add in the Miscellaneous for CA to add in blood splurts when a soldiers is hit, and I know you mentions them getting bloody and dirty, but they should only become bloody when in hand to hand combat. Again, excellent job, this does prove that it is the small details that matter, which CA left out in ETW. Well done and I'll add to your reputation!

    -Marshal Beale

    (Could I have a moderator or admin to change my username to 'General Beale' rather than Marshal. Thanks)
    Formally known as 'Marshal Beale' - The Creator the Napoleon TW mods - 'Napoleon Order of War' and 'Revolution Order of War'

  5. #5

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Some very good idea's, but just for example regarding the diplomacy section, I wonder if CA could get such ideas up and working well, when the AI struggles with whats on it's plate now(and yes I know there's a patch coming for ETW).

  6. #6
    (HG-F)Ipod's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pontevedra, Spain
    Posts
    217

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    You forget two important spanish generals, Francisco Javier Castaños and Benito San Juan.

    You can include these famous spanish generals too: Joaquín Blake, José de Palafox and Gregorio García de la Cuesta.

    Good work.

  7. #7
    Kinjo's Avatar Taiko
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,757

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by (HG-F)Ipod View Post
    You forget two important spanish generals, Francisco Javier Castaños and Benito San Juan.

    You can include these famous spanish generals too: Joaquín Blake, José de Palafox and Gregorio García de la Cuesta.

    Good work.

    Added the Spanish generals and the capturing of colors.

  8. #8

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    What about historically accurate flags, thats an important feature, ecspecially on the battlefield.
    Formally known as 'Marshal Beale' - The Creator the Napoleon TW mods - 'Napoleon Order of War' and 'Revolution Order of War'

  9. #9

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Great and usefull job, if only CA would read this...but I'm quite sure after patch 1.4 they don't care anymore to people's requests and suggestions. That's a pity because I love the napoleonic period and NTW will be the first title of the series which I will prolly not buy (and the whole italian MP community think the same) if things remain as in Empire.

    I fear CA is too big now to delivering a serious (fun and serious not being mutually exclusive) napoleonic game. I like as you focused your suggestions on how to develope a good AI and a better battle tactics, but let's face it, only eyecandy and DLC are CA priorities at the moment.
    Last edited by LEGIO_Desaix; September 23, 2009 at 05:23 AM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    One thing we can add to this thread is the fact that people have been saying that the Primary concern of the AI should not be there to ensure the player will lose the game.

    It should not concern itself with the players unless the player is a direct threat to the nation being controlled by an AI, or there is a tangible benefit to be gained by waging war with the player.

    The primary goal of the AI should be its survival.
    I agree.

    The major downfall of the AI in ETW was the 'player hate routine', instead the AI should be concerned with playing each of the AI factions to the best of their ability, in order to try and acheive their goals in the campaign and survive at all costs.

  11. #11

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    I agree.

    The major downfall of the AI in ETW was the 'player hate routine', instead the AI should be concerned with playing each of the AI factions to the best of their ability, in order to try and acheive their goals in the campaign and survive at all costs.
    I think the primary mistake CA made was to try and make ETW feels like the Napoleonic period that lasted for an entire century.

    Sure, the Napoleonic period is a time where almost every European state is leaning towards the use of force as a solution , but trying to maintain that level of aggression for an entire century is quite stupid in my opinion.

    I guess the developers at CA was heavily inspired by Clausewitz when it comes to designing an AI.

  12. #12

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    Sure, the Napoleonic period is a time where almost every European state is leaning towards the use of force as a solution , but trying to maintain that level of aggression for an entire century is quite stupid in my opinion.
    Not sure thats actually true either, Napoleon went to extra-ordinary lengths to subvert other nation states before actually sending the troops in, and his entire policy of putting his firends and relatives on the throne of everywhere was deliberately to avoid having to maintain an armed occupation force.

    Britain even more so, tried to avoid the commitment of troops and get other people to do the fighting for them. The main difference between the 18th and 19th century was essentially the number of troops that France was able to put in the field, and the fact that Napoleon's objective was to destroy and replace the governments of other nation states, whereas in the 18th century the main aim was to suffle territory back and forth between nations without disrupting the actual membership of the club.

  13. #13

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    Not sure thats actually true either, Napoleon went to extra-ordinary lengths to subvert other nation states before actually sending the troops in, and his entire policy of putting his firends and relatives on the throne of everywhere was deliberately to avoid having to maintain an armed occupation force.

    Britain even more so, tried to avoid the commitment of troops and get other people to do the fighting for them. The main difference between the 18th and 19th century was essentially the number of troops that France was able to put in the field, and the fact that Napoleon's objective was to destroy and replace the governments of other nation states, whereas in the 18th century the main aim was to suffle territory back and forth between nations without disrupting the actual membership of the club.
    Still, the scale and level of fighting and conflict during the Napoleonic period isn't something that was sustained for a century and more.

  14. #14

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    Still, the scale and level of fighting and conflict during the Napoleonic period isn't something that was sustained for a century and more.
    That was largely a product of the change from professional soldiery to the 'levee en-masse' and conscription though. It was not so much a change in the nature of warfare itself, except that lives were more expendable, because they were easier to replace, at least for the French.

    In terms of years of conflict the Napoleonic War was no longer than many other wars of the period e.g. about 12 years on and off. The war of the Spanish Succession was about the same length, if not slightly longer.

    French and Indian War 9 years
    Seven Years War 7 years
    American Rebellion 7-8 years

    So, there was warfare pretty much constantly during the 18th Century but simply not as bloody, decisive or destructive as that waged by Napoleon.

  15. #15
    Shigawire's Avatar VOXIFEX MAXIMVS
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Norway (NORGE), BRØNNØYSUND
    Posts
    3,458

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Well written, and agreed with all of it. Though I wish you would've written something more about the new attrition feature, and AI behavior regarding attrition (avoiding it, and causing it for the enemy).

    I also would wish to have CA add a Diplomacy gauge that will show "domination/suppression" level between two nations. This would help gauge a nation's will to continue fighting, or its will to surrender. This should also be linked to a nation's core provinces. Russia ought to be a lot more concerned with losing Moscow region than to lose Siberia. If nation A takes over core regions (or indeed victory regions) of nation B, it ought to cause the "domination-meter" to show in favor of nation A.. allowing nation A to claim a diplomatic resolution which would be humiliating to nation B. The diplomacy AI would be intimately linked to this, as it would be more "reasonable" in accepting rude proposals when severely outnumbered and "suppressed/defeated." This should even be connected with trade embargoes and blockades. You should be able to "strangle" the economy of a nation if you have a strong fleet.. forcing them to sign a humiliating treaty. Even the thunderous might and pride of Germany got "suppressed" enough to accept the Versailles treaty in WW1.

    So in closing:
    One meter for "like" or "dislike" between two nations, already in the game.. but the factors concerning this could be much more visible than they are at the moment. You have to hover your mouse cursor over regions in the diplomacy map. Horrible way to execute this.

    Another meter for "domination" or "supression" between two nations.. also broken down into factors, like the first meter is.
    ------------------------------VOXIFEX MAXIMVS-------------------------------
    ------PROUD PARENT OF THE EUROPA BARBARORUM VOICEMOD-------


    "To know a thing well, know its limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will its true nature be seen." -The Amtal Rule, DUNE

  16. #16

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    It would be interesting if CA extends on one of their good ideas, namely, the zone of controls for the military to a political level. The presences of a military force in a long period of time is not only able to control the region from a military sense of view, but also from the political sense of view.

    Essentially, it allows the players or the AI to extend their borders without ever invading the capital of an enemy province.

    At the same time, CA should also create a something to represent the political leadership of a faction as a single entity that can be moved around or disrupted. You could easily create a government in exile if your political leadership manage to survive past the fall of your capital, and reorganised itself.

  17. #17
    MehemtAli_Pasha's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Giza, Egypt
    Posts
    1,900

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    nice list indeed..you should size up a little the "Liberation of the Conquered People" feature. it's really a must have.

    any way, i have a request Reiksmarshal. unit spacing in ETW was horrible. if they could tighten up the unit spacing in Napoleon, that would be great.
    "Egyptians; to the young rebels, and to every one who was killed, bloodied or contributed in the simplest way, what you did has defied any description. you have the world on it's knees gazing at your bravery and determination. you have opened up a new chapter in Egyptian history, one that will be determined by people's love for this country" - an honorable revolutionary,

  18. #18

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    @Shigawire
    Certainly, NTW needs to include some sort of risk assessment mechanism that drives a factions diplomatic stance, so that a nation which is incapable of defending itself against a larger neighbour does not trigger its own demise by attacking it, but instead seeks to appease it, whilst blostering its own defence through alliances and patronage.

    Likewise, ETW proved that the diplomatic engine desperately needs a 'How goes the war?' monitor which will cause a nation to seek peace as soon as it is apparent that the war is lost. This ought to be partly dependant upon territorial gains, but I would be careful about putting too much emphasis on this measure alone. In practice, the major trigger for a government to throw in the towel was the defeat of its army, not the capture of its capital. The fact, that in most cases its army was destroyed defending its capital tends to confuse the issue, but in 1812 for example the Russian's preserved their army at the expence of both territory and their capital and did not sue for peace even when both were in French hands.

    Finally, I would be very dubious about any mechanism that gives 'public opinion' any say in the conduct of the war. Whilst princes and governments of this period needed to carry public opinion with them, I don't know of any instance when it had a direct effect on their decisions.

    If subjects are opposed to government policy the most that should happen is public unrest and rioting, and perhaps a lowering of morale and increased atrrition in the army. I've only played one Napoleonic game which allowed the public to force the player to make peace (in fact the AI did it for you) and it was most annoying and ridiculously ahistoric.
    Last edited by Didz; September 25, 2009 at 03:32 AM.

  19. #19
    Shigawire's Avatar VOXIFEX MAXIMVS
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Norway (NORGE), BRØNNØYSUND
    Posts
    3,458

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    It would be interesting if CA extends on one of their good ideas, namely, the zone of controls for the military to a political level. The presences of a military force in a long period of time is not only able to control the region from a military sense of view, but also from the political sense of view.

    Essentially, it allows the players or the AI to extend their borders without ever invading the capital of an enemy province.

    At the same time, CA should also create a something to represent the political leadership of a faction as a single entity that can be moved around or disrupted. You could easily create a government in exile if your political leadership manage to survive past the fall of your capital, and reorganised itself.
    Interesting ideas here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    @Shigawire
    Certainly, NTW needs to include some sort of risk assessment mechanism that drives a factions diplomatic stance, so that a nation which is incapable of defending itself against a larger neighbour does not trigger its own demise by attacking it, but instead seeks to appease it, whilst blostering its own defence through alliances and patronage.

    Likewise, ETW proved that the diplomatic engine desperately needs a 'How goes the war?' monitor which will cause a nation to seek peace as soon as it is apparent that the war is lost. This ought to be partly dependant upon territorial gains, but I would be careful about putting too much emphasis on this measure alone. In practice, the major trigger for a government to throw in the towel was the defeat of its army, not the capture of its capital. The fact, that in most cases its army was destroyed defending its capital tends to confuse the issue, but in 1812 for example the Russian's preserved their army at the expence of both territory and their capital and did not sue for peace even when both were in French hands.

    Finally, I would be very dubious about any mechanism that gives 'public opinion' any say in the conduct of the war. Whilst princes and governments of this period needed to carry public opinion with them, I don't know of any instance when it had a direct effect on their decisions.

    If subjects are opposed to government policy the most that should happen is public unrest and rioting, and perhaps a lowering of morale and increased atrrition in the army. I've only played one Napoleonic game which allowed the public to force the player to make peace (in fact the AI did it for you) and it was most annoying and ridiculously ahistoric.
    Yes, my thoughts are similar to your own. Though I never mentioned anything about having public opinion having any say. I agree, it's too early in the birth of modern democracy; public discontent with war should be a minor factor. Indeed, the "Leviathan" was written a short time before the game starts.

    You're also right about the demise of an army being a major trigger in surrender. But I'm sure you can find examples where the capture of core territory caused a surrender or peace treaty. I have not determined which composition of factors would be best, I was merely pointing out that the causes for changes to the "domination" meter should be many - and composites: Loss/capture of territory, loss/casualties of army, loss of income (blockade!) etc.
    Because we're not only talking about "Surrender" here, we're also talking about "Peace Treaty." So even minor losses could incur a fundamental change of the posture for the losing side.
    Last edited by Shigawire; September 25, 2009 at 06:48 AM.
    ------------------------------VOXIFEX MAXIMVS-------------------------------
    ------PROUD PARENT OF THE EUROPA BARBARORUM VOICEMOD-------


    "To know a thing well, know its limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will its true nature be seen." -The Amtal Rule, DUNE

  20. #20

    Default Re: A Treatise on Napoleon: Total War

    Well as I said the only example I can think of where the capital of a nation was captured without the army being destroyed was Russia, and in that instance it did not lead to peace. In 1806 the Prussian's sued for peace after their army was destroyed at Jena, likewise the Austrian's after Ulm and Austerlitz, and the French in 1814. I believe Spain continued to fight even afrer Madrid had fallen, and of course America continued to fight even after Washington had been taken and the White House burned.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •