Imperial Splendour 2.04 Feedback

[The Vicar]

Finns weren't some kind of warrior people that Sweden had conquered, nor was there any difference between the standard regiments other than ethical makeup. I can't find an article on this however, but I would like to know where you've got the idea that Finns were different from Swedes when recruited into the military.

This is the second time that you've accused me of creating a "warrior people" in the Finns. I've done no such thing.

What I HAVE done is expanded Sweden's previously slim roster. And I did it by realizing that a military, under a completely separate administration from its parent organization, regardless of who is ultimately in charge (the king), will have quirks of its own. And it's not just me who realizes this. Any regiment, or other organizational unit, when based around locality/ethnicity, will be different than other units based around other localities/ethnicities. That's just the way of it. The 2nd Wisconsin was not the same as the 2nd Pennsylvania (ACW regiments). They performed differently, marched differently, drilled differently, and had their own 'personalities.' Frederick the Great was convinced that his Berlin regiments were rubbish for the simple reason that the men were from Berlin.

As for "what more to do to convince" me, that all depends. Although dropping Adar's name, as though I either know or care who he is, probably won't help. For being "convinced," yes, you are right. Finland was part of the Swedish military establishment. They recruited Indelta and Varvade regiments. I know. Of course I know. I've never denied it.

I also know that Russia never enlisted from Finland, and yet there's not a whole lot that we can do about that, which means that Russia can and will enlist from Finland in this game (provided they've taken the province, of course). And that's the key difference here: this is a game, and while yes we are interested in historical accuracy, not to the extent that it detracts from gameplay.

And me, I always thought that more diversity = more and better gameplay. But if you players really truly want me to remove the Finnish AOR, I can certainly do that. It's really quite easy. A hell of a lot easier than it was putting it in, I can tell you. And quite frankly, I'm not even positive about whether I want the Finns in or not.

However, as I said in an earlier post:

We here at Imperial Splendour try really really hard to completely, ruthlessly and utterly ignore anyone who has a trace of national fanboyism.

Just so you know.

And I believe that that about covers it. You've made your case. I'll think about whether I want to keep them or not, but either way it won't be for quite a while as, quite frankly, I'm busy doing other things like making you players hate what I've done to Prussia (yes, I've been given Prussia. ).

 

[Master and Commander]

Hey i have a question about the Italian Republics. Seeming as these were classed as 'crowned' republics due to their aristocratic head of state, should they not be classed as Consitutional Monarchies in the game? Doges for example didnt leave office until they died, which is at odds with the game mechanics as republican national leaders are removed every 8 years (i think??). Also, Poland Lithuania was classed as a crowned republic, but in the game it is classed as a CM. Should they not be represened similarly ingame? What do you guys think?

 

[The Vicar]

If you're right about the history of it then that seems a logical conclusion, yes.

Don't know if it's possible or if it is if it's very hard to do though, changing starting governments.

 

[Slaists]

I just gave the Carribean black chasseurs a "test ride" (playing as Portugal). Boy, their weapons suck... Despite having a reasonable accuracy and increased range, their barely able to hit a stadium wall from 125 yards. The only way they can hit anything is if they're run up-close and personal in the enemy faces. But that kind of defeats the purpose of them being "light infantry", doesn't it?

On a different note, it seems, the pirates are spamming artillery because it's the only thing they can build...

 

[Notees]

Is there a reason that Aitadores (portugal) are so terrible? They have like 200 range, but they;'re still inaccurate, and not that much more inaccurate in close range. THey take 3 turns to make, and they are sinfully slow as well. And kinda expensive. And take the highest lv barracks to make. Even if they're used in an ambush they kinda suck. And they can't ambush well because they can't hide while walking, making them a laughably easy target for enemy cavalry.

 

[Lazy Knight]

have you tried them? there has been a whole thread about the riflemens 29 accuracy. THey are still accurate, believe me. Don't let that number fool you.

 

[Notees]

Eh, they're kind of accurate but not enough to justify their cost, upkeep, lack of moblity, production time, and lack of stealth. I mean, if they had moving stealth then at kleast they'd be able to fulfill their purpose as assassins (at least that's what I percieved that differentiated them from regular light infantry...) but...

 

[Notees]

And yeah lazy knight =) I actually used them on the field before I came here to rhymes-with-witch.

 

[Cinnead]

Eh, they're kind of accurate but not enough to justify their cost, upkeep, lack of moblity, production time, and lack of stealth. I mean, if they had moving stealth then at kleast they'd be able to fulfill their purpose as assassins (at least that's what I percieved that differentiated them from regular light infantry...) but...

I suppose they are to be used like any other light infantry unit ..
- send them ahead of your army
- fire a volley at the enemy
- retreat back
- redo previous steps untill you reach your battle line while retreating
- send them to the flanks of your battle line
- move to the side of the currently engaged enemy battle line
- fire on the enemy battle line (since these shots rake the enemy battle line, enemy casualties will be much higher

Offcourse they also have the negative stuff of light infantry
- they get slaughtered in melee (cav/line inf)
- low unit size
- if there is enemy cav on the field you will have to be extra carefull with these guys, send some cav of your own to protect them while skirmishing with the enemy battle line

-cost & upkeep won't be changed as I think they are elite units -> more expensive
-lack of mobility -> it would be weird if we'd make them some kind of olympic runners .. bear in mind they have to carry heavy rifles, ammo, gear, etc ..
-production time -> These men are actually trained to aim their muskets, not just point them in the general direction, also they are trained to think for themselves (choose their own targets) and much more complicated manouvering -> longer training time
- In the 18th century it was still seen as cowardly to fight like the native americans, set piece battles were preferred over guerilla warfare ..
also I'm guessing they wear uniforms with bright colours ?

 

[Notees]

Yeah, but as it stands, there is no reason to make them over Cacadores, which are significantly less expensive/WAYYY faster reload time/faster at moving/pretty much same accuracy. =/ seems silly that the elite unit is hardly a better option than the non-elite faster-reloading version. The only downside of the Cacadores is that they don't have as long range, but the range of the aitadores have heinous accuracy at their max range anyways.

 

[Slaists]

Has anyone tested Sinouhet's formations with IS 2.04? It seems, his latest version was done in April 2009, quite a while ago...

 

[uos_spo6]

Just wanted to share an image from my current/only/first IS 2.0 campaign. I'm playing as Prussia on N/N and four turns per year so you can see I'm about 200 turns in. . .

Spoiler

. . .and then also from the view you can see Poland STACKED on my Eastern Border and from looking at the map see they control all old Ottoman territories and Eastern reaches.


My main question- is this typical of anyone elses campaign to see army grouping like this? And in this concentration? The majority of those armies are only 1-3 tall stacks but there are several full and 1/2-3/4 stacks in there and with everything else combined. . . totals somewhere in the region of what the f.

It'd be nice for the Marathas to show up. Russia can't even keep Kiev and Crimea for themselves.

Love 2.0 though.

 

[Notees]

0.o
WOw... just WOW> Never seen that. Never seen anyone even conquer south of Istanbul, actually. The AI is always far too retarded to cross that straight.

 

[Gorrrrrn]

Had a quick play of 2.04 just to see if it's possible to play Venice.

(notice comment elsewhere about Venice not being finished?)

re bunching up of militia - yes I noticed Venetian infantry bunching up just before firing.
If anything they should spread out to allow rear ranks to fire without blowing off the heads of the front rank.

(Also on battle map militia unit refused to deploy inside building with the golden rectangle floating above it. Bioth during deployment and in the battle itself.
Ottoman unit managed to do it though.)

had an interesting naval battle with Italian States allies vs 2 Ottoman 4th and 5th raters. (Venice and IT all had brigs.)
I came on as reinforcements so could watch the AI fight itself - the IT ships circled the Ottoman SoL, whilst the latter tried to face them, but ended up being unable to
fire a single broadside, whilst they were being raked. One Ottoman ship surrendered and then I turned up.
And then the remaining Ottoman ship sank both IT ships and mine.

On the strategic level I didn't even try to achieve any VCs - hence alliance with IT and Genoa. Avoided war with Austria and Spain too.
Captured Athens and Sofia from Ottomans but the Ottomans counter-attacked and were on the verge of retaking Athens when CTD.

(Elsewhere P-L and Austria were demolishing the Prussians.)

Also noticed in 1705 Austrians assembled big army in Trieste and a fleet and promptly sailed for Tunis and captured it.
First time I've seen them do that. (Seen them fail to take Tripoli much later in a different mod's game.)

Venice certainly looks a challenge - to achieve VC you'll need to have been at war with Genoa, Italian States, Spain Austria and Ottomans
and barbary pirates and anyone else who takes a dislike to you.

(hint turn one, demolish the coaching inn near venice and replace with school so you can start researching techs.)

 

[uos_spo6]

0.o
WOw... just WOW> Never seen that. Never seen anyone even conquer south of Istanbul, actually. The AI is always far too retarded to cross that straight.

You should see mainland North America. Eastern half COMPLETELY over run by the British. All old Spanish, Louisana, Cherokee and Iroquios territories along with the Hurons and all but the two farthest north east French regions.

 

[MeatChopper]

though I already left my two cents, there's something I recently noticed when playing Prussia/Austria....the names of the german units. eerm...I guess you don't have a native speaker for naming them on your team, do you?^^

if not, I'd be glad to lend a hand... (if you want me to)

 

[carbide]

Has anyone tested Sinouhet's formations with IS 2.04? It seems, his latest version was done in April 2009, quite a while ago...

I use it with 2.04 and haven't had any problems with it. I use MM and place the formation mod above IS if it makes any difference.

 

[unreasonable]

Congratulations to the devs, this mod has stopped me from binning ETW, massive improvement.

Currently trying to play France on M/M - now on my third go, since the first two attempts were brought to an ignominious end after a few years each time when I was backstabbed by "very friendly" ally Spain - now I have got on good terms with Austria and their satellites and attacked Spain and taken Hispaniola!

A few random observations after a week of play and, I hope, constructive suggestions- I know some are known issues and may not all be IS phenomena and that IS is a WIP:

1) Naval invasions - in my current game Britain has invaded Tunisia (right at the start) and the Windward Islands (in 1725) - hey! That is mine! I have also seen Swedish, Portugese and Maratha fleets with land units on board so the AI is trying.

2) The pace seems better than vanilla - less frenetic border changes (except in N.America) I suppose a function of the slower build up of armies with higher recruitment costs. Much more realistic but still interesting.

3) American Indians - grrr - known issue. I would have thought that an american indian unit should have highish melee skills but rather low morale - ie if they do not win quickly they will break, they were hit and run individual raiders rather than toe to toe formation sluggers. Also their numbers are way OTT. Maybe just give them very high maintenance costs - after all they were warriors who would not hang around unless motivated. No way should a native american unit break a european line unit in formation that has volley fire unless it hits flank or rear. The Scottish highlanders could not do it at Colluden and they were used to gunpowder weapons, otherwise they are pretty similar - their previous wins were against militia.

3) Naval battles also less frenetic - much improved, except have you changed the galley turning circles? An almost stationary galley should be able to turn in its own length as one side backs water (as anyone who has rowed in an eight will know) - currently once I have got past their bow arc in my 6th rate they can never seem to get back on target.

4)On the prize money issue - I believe the prize money actually went to the crew of the ship, the admiral etc., at least in British service, so if the crown (or the East India company) wanted the ship they would actually have to pay for it, obviously more for an undamaged ship. The game has this completely in reverse, although I have to admit it is satisfying to have your favourite frigate ratchet up the winnings. Not sure how you could get this into the game - take prize option should get you zero net gain/cost and no ship, add ship to fleet should cost you say 75% of sticker price less repair cost.

5) I have had Savoy attack my Infantry line in a line of columns - never seen that before, makes a change from the usual X line mess they usually get into.

6) Units - I like the new units and differentiation - much more fun. But...can you get rid of the entirely unhistoric French lancer units? (If I was at all clued up I would do it myself.)

7) Pirates (see American Indians, grrrr), I like them being a menace on the sea but they really should have lower land morale.

8) On the skins my priorities for inclusion would be to a) get the vanilla militia uniforms changed, currently too hard to see who is militia and who is line, and b) get Bladerunner's ship skins in. These are really lovely. I have tried using the AUM additional graphics patch which contains both these effects and while I can get the ships with no apparent conflicts I seem to be overwriting your IS colonial and S American militias which I do not want to do. Probably my fault.

Anyway look forward to new iterations of your premium mod, many thanks

 

[Tariq]

This is the feedback from 2 ongoing Prestige campaigns, Dutch and France.Both played on M/M till 1750 (3turns/year= 150 each):


1) Good:
- It is possible to play fairly peaceful campaign and expand, with only 3-4 very short wars of 1 -2 turns, that were declared on me.Tried to simulate Trading empire with Dutch and it worked pretty well. Have all Carribean islands, Ceylon, both Guyanas and Holland , while making 50+k/turn trading.

With French i was focused more on securing and developing Europe first, and had only 2 serious wars (Dutch and Algonquin), have 17 provinces and i am surrounded by my protectorates in Europe(Westfalia, Savoi, Wuttemberg), while switching to N. America.No war with Brits other then Succesion war (my king died) that ended in peace treaty same turn with no fight(i am bordering them in N.America for last 20 years).

- AI does respects treaties , if you are careful who you signed with with in combination with some other factors. France and me only had 1 short war that lasted 1 turn early in the game and now we are allied.They are much bigger then me, and i am surrounded by them in Holland , but they don't even have full garrisons there (they do have money and army,AFAIK)

- I really like artillery changes. AI doesn't run around (aka "chicken dance") on battlefield trying to get out of range of my guns ,and is more focused on tried to attack properly.It's still lackluster , but at least looks more interesting.

- Same goes for sea battles. They feel more real with less ships exploding in "Holywood" style.

- You can control diplomacy in world with your trade agreements. I got Mughals to bankrupcy by removing my trade agreement and eliminating only partner that they had Portugal, without ever being in war with them. Doing same thing to Russians right now.

- I have seen Mughal, Brit and Prussian naval invasions , while Sweden , France , Spain and Pirates (!) were sailing around with stack of army in their fleet.

2) Bad:

- AI Russia, France and Mughals tend to get huge very fast.

- P-L AI is totally schizophrenic. It declares war on me one turn, then offers me peace paying 1000 in few turns(yeah they actually offered peace) , then declares another war couple turns later. They are in war with every single nation and they are not bordering me at all.

-Brits have some sort of fetish for invading Barbary states, they invaded them in both campaigns.

- AI is still borderline penniless, since later in game has no trade partners left, but still fields stacks and stacks of armies.

- Treaty bug with France and Natives in N.America, but that's Vanilla issue

- Any ships below 4th rate appear to be obsolete , since everyone has big , heavy fleets full of 3 and 4th rates

And one thing i found very useful:

Spoiler

Forts(even wooden ones) placed strategically(with overlaping ZOC's) with just 1 unit in each are priceless, and same goes for city fortifications. You can control whole borders with just 1/2 stack placed behind them and covering several of them at time. I kept whole Flanders and A-L border peaceful with 2x 1/2 stack for 50 years (150 turns) doing that.Did same with N.American French/English border.

 

[The Vicar]

@unreasonable - 1) Yes, the AI is trying. It's just not succeeding very well, and CA has said that naval invasions (plus the addition of cross-theater naval invasions) would be re-examined in 1.4. In my latest campaign as the UP (testing the changes what what) France actually naval-invaded the Netherlands. It was a hectic battle, because quite frankly I wasn't prepared at all, but in the end I pulled it out (probably because it was a siege battle and sieges are broken and give unfair advantages to the defenders). Not so long after that Great Britain naval-invaded Denmark. Yeah.

2) We at IS pretty much like the pace too (of course I'm making a blanket statement here, and you know how those are). Slower games are more our cup of tea.

3) I'm pretty sure you'll like the Native Americans in 2.1. They're almost just how you describe them. High stats, low unit sizes and low morale. Plus an insane raiding behavior, so it's not 2 armies lining up on the field anymore. They're still a pain, but they're a much different kind of pain. Almost enjoyable, even. Like what happened to me last night. But enough about that.

4) No idea about the Galley turn radius, as I personally haven't touched the naval tables, and the IS team as a whole hasn't done a lot to them. In time, I believe that our aim is to make each faction's navy unique (or as unique as possible without new models), just as was done with the armies.

5) Every now and again I do see this. I'm not sure what causes it, or how to repeat it, but when it happens it makes me happy.

6) Not sure that the French Lancers are actually all that un-historical. Ahiga's done quite a job of research, and I believe him. Besides which, I'm pretty sure I have a book around here somewhere entitled "Napoleon's Dragoons and Lancers." And "Napoleon's Red Lancers." Granted, my examples are from Napoleon and not mid-18th century, but still.

7) I just stumbled into this one myself. Really. Just yesterday. And then today, when I had a stack of 12 fairly nice West Indies units slaughtered by 7 Pirate Mob. I know I'm not the end-all and be-all of Total War generalship, but I like to think that I'm good enough to take out what are supposed to be the equivalent of Firelock Armed Citizenry when I have a numerical ratio of almost 2 to 1. Needless to say, there will be some changes (probably not very extensive ones, but changes all the same) in 2.1.

8) We are currently in discussion about exactly how we want to present new textures in future releases. But whatever is ultimately decided, new skins are definitely making an appearance in 2.1. We now have 2 great texture artists working with us, plus all the texture mods that have agreed to grace us with their inclusion. Now that 2.0 is released, and most factions are pretty much where we want them to be (although there will of course be revisions, and the steady inclusion of factions that did not make into 2.0), we are beginning to move into a "presentation phase". The gameplay is good, now it's time to make it pretty. And of course iron out the little bugs. As for that naval textures pack, I would have to say that its inclusion is probably not going to happen any time soon, if at all. We will examine things of that nature when we begin the work of diversifying the navy.

@Tariq - 1) Thank you.

2.1) I have honestly not seen this in the games I've played. I've seen one campaign where Sweden and Austria were vying for control of Europe, and I've seen another campaign where Prussia conquered England and Scotland (although not Ireland) and lost all of its holdings on the continent to Poland, who was the European superpower, and I've seen a campaign where Westphalia had conquered France and France had conquered Westphalia and they were both fighting for Alsace-Lorraine while Wurttemburg just watched. I've also seen the Marathas come into the European theater, although they didn't really get that far before I started a new campaign. I have not, however, seen what you're speaking of, with those 3 factions being consistently predominant.

2.2) You're right about Poland-Lithuania. They do tend to bite off more than they can chew. But then, so does Austria, who often has a 3-way war going. And sometimes, Poland-Lithuania manages to give it to everybody. It's just one of those things I suppose.

2.3) Yep. I have noticed this as well. Although my last campaign they went for Denmark instead. Go figure. I think it has to do with the size of the army (none) that's in that tasty-looking major city down there (Tunis).

2.4) The AI is given bonuses to their income, even on Normal difficulty. While it isn't really very realistic when you look at it close, we recommend that you just go with it, because it really does enhance the gameplay.

2.5) You're right. That is a vanilla issue. 1.4, hopefully (it seems like I'm saying that a lot lately).

2.6) Just wait until you see the changes we've made to naval recruitment. It won't fix the problem you described, but it will make it easier for trade-based nations (like the UP, Portugal and Venice) to build those heavier ships.

And thanks for the tip. That sounds like it might indeed be very effective.

 

[Ahiga]

6) Not sure that the French Lancers are actually all that un-historical. Ahiga's done quite a job of research, and I believe him. Besides which, I'm pretty sure I have a book around here somewhere entitled "Napoleon's Dragoons and Lancers." And "Napoleon's Red Lancers." Granted, my examples are from Napoleon and not mid-18th century, but still.

I fear you believe a liar, my friend! For I lied! It was actually an anachronism for me to include them - the only real lancers France had in this period seems to have been a limited number of Saxon Mercenaries. I was less enterprising on historical accuracy with France at the time I was making them, and was worried about reception.

When we revamp France, that issue will be fixed.

But yeah if Napoleon had lancers during the Republic, we could keep that actually for when they go Republic. I think that's how it is right now - Lancers are given when you go republic?

 

[The Vicar]

 

[unreasonable]

Vicar - awesome, great mod and you actually listen to feedback as well! I salute you, sir!

 

[spellshock]

Am in the middle of my first IS game as Poland and Campaign wise, it is eriely similar to my last Poland Campaign on Vanilla. Russia imediately declares war on me (I managed to make peace with them 3 separate times and 3-5 turns later DOW!). For the most part my Western and Southern front is quiet although for completely different reasons than last time. So I find my self yet again taking down the russian bear which will leave me with a vast empire to the east with little to threaten me on that front. (Georgia doesn't count =0 ) My Protectorate Courtland did go ball to the wall with Sweeden for a while that allowd Denmark to take over Sweedens capital.
I really like the new unit choices though. It took getting used to relying much more on Cavalry than line infantry. The Militia Dragoon Cav that Poland starts out with is rediculously good especially against Russian troops. Being able to shatter Cossacks on a single frontal charge is fun. I don't understand while if Poland has some of the best Cav in the game why they had to hire in Standard Cav regiments from other nations, but if that is historicly accurate, thats fine with me.
One question that bothers me, is why do the Grenadiers do not have bombs to throw anymore. Was it too game breaking or do I have to get some tech in order to throw them?

 

[Moorish guy]

has anyone noticed that bullets not fly over the enemies heads alot more often they just fly everywhere good mod tough but will guys be making the factions you added units for playable in the campaign like morocco?

 

[Lazy Knight]

there are many posts about this bullet flying high, it is intended. And of course we will be making factions like Morocco playable. We would not do all the work and then let nobody enjoy it

 

[Moorish guy]

there are many posts about this bullet flying high, it is intended. And of course we will be making factions like Morocco playable. We would not do all the work and then let nobody enjoy it

OK thanks

 

[Rosbjerg]

I just had a thought (and sorry if it has been expressed a million times before) seeing as you guys have introduced a rather cunning AoR would it be possible for every nation to get acces to some of the special units of other empires, once they conquer their territories? Like you already did with Scotland and Ireland for instance (I was thrilled when I could recruit scottish warbands as Spain!).

I played a campaign as Spain and as I conquered all of Europe I wondered why my Queen didn't institute army reforms, like introducing the Hungarian Hussars, Slavic regiments or Cossacks from Russia.. You did this to perfection in America as well, where you have North vs South vs Caribbean militia/Line Infantry etc, that gives a splendid feeling of the subtle differences in regions.

The game would feel a lot more varied imho if you could field more unique regional units, even if they would be in very limited numbers and fixed in certain regions. To get around the limit in available units the regional ones could replace other less essential units, or something to that extent.

 

[Unknown User]

I found myself worrying about the whole bullets-flying-over-the-heads thing, but then I installed a no-tracers mod that removes tracers completely. Then I realized that I was just worried about a cosmetic issue, because now everything appears to work just fine.