Napoleonic Europe 1812 - Ver 41/44 [Quenched]

[Industrial Helix]

Well, I like the idea of capitals and battle bonuses, and I'm glad Madrid is making a come back.

One thing that just occurred to me is that during this time Norway declared independence from Denmark and then declared the King of Sweden its king, unifying the two countries. So I'm just throwing this out there... but what if Norway was one of those optional territories that increase the bonus of Denmark or Sweden, depending on who controls it. It might bring some excitement to the north of the map, create a little more central European controversy so as to prevent a player from stocking on Sweden and sacking Moscow.

Speaking of which, Moscow was not the capital and St. Petersburg was, and while Napoleon sacked Moscow and not St. Petersburg, it also proven to be his error which cost him the war as St. Petersburg was in fact the capital. So, I'd suggest splitting Vilno into two territories and making the eastern one the Russia Winter territory. Then making St. Petersburg a regular territory and the capital of Russia. Perhaps the borders could be devised that one has to go through Moscow to get to St. Petersburg?

Also... Crete and Cyprus... part of any territory or just there to keep up appearances?

[yeti_c]

Having said that:
From the WW2 europe map it became evident that on the long run the "german" central player hardly ever wins the game (in a 8 player field).
Some stronger bonusses were given to the central zones to compensate for it..(but not enough it seems).
So in this map too , the natural advantage players are russia and england and turkey.. and some supporting bonus should be given to the central states (prussia, vienna, france) or some deterioration modifiers for the periphery states.
That could be simple: a point less bonus on the turkish, russian, British territories or/and more for the prussian/habsburg/france territories.

That could be true, though in this case, central Europe has some advantages while having a big concentration of Battle Sites and a lot of expansion regions for zone bonus....

another thing: this was a big point of discussion between Rask and me, with him saying we should include Madrid as Capital and me saying no, for (in my opinion) Madrid had no presence or influence in this historical scenario. But for the sake of gameplay I'm whiling to cede here and propose the inclusion of Madrid.

Surely that just backs up history... why on earth would you want to (be french) on the losing side anyway?!

Same with the Waterloo map - everyone know Von Blucher is a massive key area in the fog due to it's lack of bombardability.

C.

[Raskholnikov]

Kab please dont forget - in the main legend, pls replace P. Illyriennes with Illyria. Thanks.

[Raskholnikov]

Speaking of which, Moscow was not the capital and St. Petersburg was, and while Napoleon sacked Moscow and not St. Petersburg, it also proven to be his error which cost him the war as St. Petersburg was in fact the capital. So, I'd suggest splitting Vilno into two territories and making the eastern one the Russia Winter territory. Then making St. Petersburg a regular territory and the capital of Russia. Perhaps the borders could be devised that one has to go through Moscow to get to St. Petersburg?

Although St Petersburg was the administrative capital of Russia, Moscow remained by far its largest city and the Kremlin was still considered the sacred centre of all Russia. That's why Napoleon marched on Moscow and not St Petersburg. For game purposes, we consider it best to have Moscow as the Russian capital and not St. Petersburg. The reason Napoleon lost the 1812 campaign was not because we mixed up objectives and marched on Moscow instead of St Petersburg, but because winter and ambushes pretty much killed off his entire army. In any case, Moscow is too important a strategic point not to make it a capital, and had Napoleon taken St Petersburg the Tsar would have just gone to Moscow - which is why Napoleon didnt bother with it and marched directly on Moscow.

[Kabanellas]

latest changes posted now:

-new rules concerning Battle sites
-1 more capital - Madrid
-Prussia orange is now a bit browner

Click image to enlarge.

[Raskholnikov]

Stunning! Just amazing! I am in awe! Thanks, Kab!

[Industrial Helix]

Although St Petersburg was the administrative capital of Russia, Moscow remained by far its largest city and the Kremlin was still considered the sacred centre of all Russia. That's why Napoleon marched on Moscow and not St Petersburg. For game purposes, we consider it best to have Moscow as the Russian capital and not St. Petersburg. The reason Napoleon lost the 1812 campaign was not because we mixed up objectives and marched on Moscow instead of St Petersburg, but because winter and ambushes pretty much killed off his entire army. In any case, Moscow is too important a strategic point not to make it a capital, and had Napoleon taken St Petersburg the Tsar would have just gone to Moscow - which is why Napoleon didnt bother with it and marched directly on Moscow.

Yes and no, personally, I think that the primary reason Napoleon lost the Russian campaign because of poor objective setting. But that's besides the point, let's talk about the game.

As it stands, a player who occupies Moscow is going to sit on Moscow and face any invasion full on for fear of losing the capital, which is the direct opposite of what Alexander did during the war. I think adding the duel capitals will allow for more maneuver that is true to the history.

[jefjef]

Looking good. Hope it gets thru the process quickly.

This is probably a graphics thing but not really.

The one way attack from Corsica to Aboukar is crossing land at Italy and thru the greece army tert. Is it your intention to have to attack thru greece?

If not an only water path would be good and is very doable.

Thanks.

[Kabanellas]

Hi Jef,

I do not intend to draw the real naval course, it’s just a scheme translating the intention. I want to make it in the more simpler way, with no twisted curves and turns.

[Raskholnikov]

Kab, can you please upload this latest version at the top of the thread? Thanks!

[Kabanellas]

Done!

[Raskholnikov]

Great!! Many thanks....

[Raskholnikov]

Yes and no, personally, I think that the primary reason Napoleon lost the Russian campaign because of poor objective setting. But that's besides the point, let's talk about the game.

As it stands, a player who occupies Moscow is going to sit on Moscow and face any invasion full on for fear of losing the capital, which is the direct opposite of what Alexander did during the war. I think adding the duel capitals will allow for more maneuver that is true to the history.
Image

Sticking to the game, as you say (we can discuss Napoleon forever lol), Moscow is already very difficult to take and easy to protect because of the Russian winter territories surrounding it. In addition, while I might agree with you in a complex strategic game with milkitary units where a player would take the armies of each power, in this game the situation is very different: there will rarely if ever exist a recreation of the real Napoleonc wars, as players will have troops / territories all over the map, as happens on all other CC games. No one will be a purely "Russian" or "French" player and "wait" to be invaded. Finally, giving Russia dual capitals next to each other would unbalance the game.

Therefore, we think there is both historical justification and gameplay reason to keep Russia with just one capital, in Moscow.

[Industrial Helix]

Sticking to the game, as you say (we can discuss Napoleon forever lol), Moscow is already very difficult to take and easy to protect because of the Russian winter territories surrounding it. In addition, while I might agree with you in a complex strategic game with milkitary units where a player would take the armies of each power, in this game the situation is very different: there will rarely if ever exist a recreation of the real Napoleonc wars, as players will have troops / territories all over the map, as happens on all other CC games. No one will be a purely "Russian" or "French" player and "wait" to be invaded. Finally, giving Russia dual capitals next to each other would unbalance the game.

Therefore, we think there is both historical justification and gameplay reason to keep Russia with just one capital, in Moscow.

What about making St. Petersberg a non-winter territory and splitting Vilno to make the ring of winter territory's around it.

Also... There are no starting points on this map, right? So the capitals are starting neutral, and so are the Russian Winter Territories? You're going to have a giant neutral corner in this map...

Unless of course I'm misreading things.

[yeti_c]

Also... There are no starting points on this map, right? So the capitals are starting neutral, and so are the Russian Winter Territories? You're going to have a giant neutral corner in this map...

Unless of course I'm misreading things.

This is a valid point... the top right of the map might well be ignored for 90% of the games.

Hi Jef,

I do not intend to draw the real naval course, it’s just a scheme translating the intention. I want to make it in the more simpler way, with no twisted curves and turns.

Yeah - I pointed this out as well - but I think you should definitely consider it... or at least make it go via the sicillian straights?!

C.

[Kabanellas]

So the capitals are starting neutral, and so are the Russian Winter Territories? You're going to have a giant neutral corner in this map...

Unless of course I'm misreading things.

True indeed Helix and Yeti.... though its a neutral cluster, the profit is high. Also, being the capitals so important to activate those battle bonus I don't think that Moscow will remain untouched. We could of course drop that 4 to 3, but I'm not really sure about it.....

[jefjef]

Hi Jef,

I do not intend to draw the real naval course, it’s just a scheme translating the intention. I want to make it in the more simpler way, with no twisted curves and turns.

Ok. But as it is it is passing thru the Greece army circle. Do you have to attack greece before Aboukar? That's what it looks like.

[Kabanellas]

well, the arrow is in Aboukir... though I can understand that some people could get mislead by it.

I will try to make a different version....

[yeti_c]

well, the arrow is in Aboukir... though I can understand that some people could get mislead by it.

I will try to make a different version....

Also - I notice that in the legend we have "one way attacks" but not the connections for the navy...

I think it needs to be both or neither... Where the current one is kindof confuses matters as well as it's actually next to a 1 way attack and on the map - instead of in the legend?!

You could apply the same to the russian winter arrows too... having said that - I think that it's fairly obvious - but will all players?!

C.

[Kabanellas]

I really think that everything its pretty obvious with the current lay out... unless if (maybe) you are a first time CC player and not used to the mechanics of it.

[skepticCS]

Ok, first off, I love the concept and I like the fact that you are the one making this as I am a big fan of your Third Crusade map (having made a tournament based on it ). I think the map is looking great overall, both in terms of graphics and gameplay. A few comments:

Gameplay

- why do you need to own a capital to receive the army bonus, but not for the navy bonus? I would say, make it the same or eliminate the bonus all together.

Graphics

- I like the idea of representing the dual importance of some regions of the map, but for territories that have only one imperial association (i.e. French Empire territories, the Orient), why not fill in the territories with that striped patter that you currently only have on the borders. It's not impossible to see, but why not make it easier?
- A related problem is the difficulty in distinguishing the battle swords from the basic territory color (I am colorblind). I think some folks earlier had mentioned this issue and I am not sure whether you have dealt with it yet or not. If so, I think it may need some more work. Filling in territories rather than coloring only their borders (as suggested above) may solve this...or make it worse...

Overall, I think this is looking great!

[Kabanellas]

Thanks a lot Skeptic for your input!
Glad that the Third Crusade could be a base map for a tournament!!!!

Ok, first off, I love the concept and I like the fact that you are the one making this as I am a big fan of your Third Crusade map (having made a tournament based on it ). I think the map is looking great overall, both in terms of graphics and gameplay. A few comments:

Gameplay

- why do you need to own a capital to receive the army bonus, but not for the navy bonus? I would say, make it the same or eliminate the bonus all together.

We needed to add that combination (capital + battle site) to the battle bonus to avoid lucky drops. We have 14 of them which would led to a lot of players getting initial bonus, unless we turned them all to starting neutrals. That’s why the combination. The Naval Battles sites being a different thing and all starting neutral didn’t raise any problem.

Graphics

- I like the idea of representing the dual importance of some regions of the map, but for territories that have only one imperial association (i.e. French Empire territories, the Orient), why not fill in the territories with that striped patter that you currently only have on the borders. It's not impossible to see, but why not make it easier?

Maybe I could try that, though I’d like to keep the map clearer.....

- A related problem is the difficulty in distinguishing the battle swords from the basic territory color (I am colorblind). I think some folks earlier had mentioned this issue and I am not sure whether you have dealt with it yet or not. If so, I think it may need some more work. Filling in territories rather than coloring only their borders (as suggested above) may solve this...or make it worse...

I’ll try to come up with something that makes them more distinguishable

Overall, I think this is looking great!

[Evil DIMwit]

You forgot to change Madrid to start neutral now; and you should probably pick some other territory to start neutral as well so that the total number of player starts is 53 -- the nearest 'safe' number.

[Kabanellas]

yes, you're right Evil.... We have 55 terrs to be dealt (without Madrid). We should make another 2 neutral but which ones?

[Evil DIMwit]

yes, you're right Evil.... We have 55 terrs to be dealt (without Madrid). We should make another 2 neutral but which ones?

I count 54 without Madrid...

show: Full account...

As for which should become neutral: I am not sure that there's a best territory for this. Perhaps pick a territory that is notoriously independent or difficult to control; make it as obtrusive or unobtrusive as desired.