Napoleonic Europe 1812 - Ver 41/44 [Quenched]

[Evil DIMwit]

But don't you think you'll get in troubles with the placement of troop numbers in all these small mid european provinces ?
Maybe you should blow up the central european map (as if you'd look upon a midsized ball/globe ..ireland/portugal/egypt/etc viewed at an angle).

That's probably not necessary but just in case it would be nice to see some 888s or 8888s

[Incandenza]

Visually the map looks cleaner, tho the small map will certainly put that to the test.

However, atm there's a couple of gameplay things worthy of discussion. Right off the bat, 55 is not a great # for starting terits, in 2p and 3p games players will start with 18 terits, thus first-mover advantage. Consider perhaps merging some starting terits (this might actually end up killing two birds with one stone).

Also, the battles are going to be a bit of an issue. There are 14 of them on starting terits, and the probabilities of getting a bonus on the drop are, well, staggering. All percentages are presented in a "chance for one player"/"chance for any player" format.
Chances of dropping 3 battles (+2)
2p 91.88%/183.75% (the +100% means that someone is guaranteed to drop at least 3 battles)
3p 91.88%/275.63%
4p 71.35%/285.41%

Chances for 5 battles (+3)
2p 51.37%/102.74%
3p 51.37%/154.10%
4p 19.07%/76.27%

Chances for 7 battles (+4)
2p 10.42%/20.84%
3p 10.42%/31.27%

Those are really really high %s. Higher even than the "dropping plane bonuses" odds that ended up requiring Pearl Harbor to undergo a refit.

I'm hoping there's an elegant solution here beyond "make a bunch of 'em neutral", as I'm not a huge fan of starting neutrals (primarily due to the types of games I play, in team games if a terit starts neutral, 9 times out of 10 it'll stay that way).

[Kabanellas]

You're right Inca, 55 is not a good number. It should be 53.

17 regions per player in a 2 or 3 players game
13 regions per player in a 4 players game

http://kabanellas.webs.com/Kabanellas_Region_Distributor.xls

as for the battle sites, that might be a huge of a turn off actually. Didn't thought of it that way . And I'm not having any bright ideas atm on how to solve it.....

[lt_oddball]

as for the battle sites, that might be a huge of a turn off actually. Didn't thought of it that way . And I'm not having any bright ideas atm on how to solve it.....

what do you mean ?..the concept behind it is good.
Don't know about if the bonus is in balance with the rest of the map, yet..

[Kabanellas]

well, like Incandenza said, there's a huge chance of having lucky drops on them. There are 14 available to be distributed by the starting players.....

[Raskholnikov]

Number of players Initial deployable troops Total deployable territories Available battle fields
2 22 44 3
3 15 45 4
4 11 44 3
5 9 45 4
6 8 48 7
7 7 49 8
8 6 48 7


This should take care of it.
This is not the type of game where neutrals will always stay neutral. The bonus incentive is simply too great, even at 1 v 1. The more players, the less of an issue it becomes.

[Incandenza]

Number of players Initial deployable troops Total deployable territories Available battle fields
2 22 44 3
3 15 45 4
4 11 44 3
5 9 45 4
6 8 48 7
7 7 49 8
8 6 48 7


This should take care of it.
This is not the type of game where neutrals will always stay neutral. The bonus incentive is simply too great, even at 1 v 1. The more players, the less of an issue it becomes.

Um, what? First off, starting terits in 1v1 are not split 50-50. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the above, either in terms of starting terits or the bonus-drop issue. Besides, 45 (or 48) starting terits would be just as bad as 55. 53's the closest magic number.

[lt_oddball]

well, like Incandenza said, there's a huge chance of having lucky drops on them. There are 14 available to be distributed by the starting players.....

That can be resolved by making most of those neutrals.. the more neutrals with less participating players.
Simpel ?

[Incandenza]

well, like Incandenza said, there's a huge chance of having lucky drops on them. There are 14 available to be distributed by the starting players.....

That can be resolved by making most of those neutrals.. the more neutrals with less participating players.
Simpel ?

I'm hoping there's an elegant solution here beyond "make a bunch of 'em neutral", as I'm not a huge fan of starting neutrals (primarily due to the types of games I play, in team games if a terit starts neutral, 9 times out of 10 it'll stay that way).

[mibi]

This image is sweet... too bad the map is so convoluted.

[AndyDufresne]

This image is sweet... too bad the map is so convoluted.

Unfortunately I find myself in agreement! But I've never been a fan of maps with a lot of gameplay. But I know that quite a few people do enjoy such maps.

But sometime I hope to see a map with a similar visual style, but cleaner and slimmer.


--Andy

[mibi]

This image is sweet... too bad the map is so convoluted.

Unfortunately I find myself in agreement! But I've never been a fan of maps with a lot of gameplay. But I know that quite a few people do enjoy such maps.

But sometime I hope to see a map with a similar visual style, but cleaner and slimmer.


--Andy

I like complex maps, and have made some of my own. I just dont understand the bonuses and legend in this one, particularly the bottom left portion.

[Kabanellas]

That can be resolved by making most of those neutrals.. the more neutrals with less participating players.
Simpel ?

I'm not keen on planting more neutrals than this map already has... though, like I said, I don't have any bright idea atm.....

I like complex maps, and have made some of my own. I just dont understand the bonuses and legend in this one, particularly the bottom left portion.

mibi, the legend board in this map was done in the same style as the legend from the Third Crusade map. Bonus regions are organized by factions.

[yeti_c]

Issues I can see at the moment...

Prussia/Rhine colourisation - whilst I can just about understand it - it is a significant departure from the rest of the map - and makes it look very cluttered.
Corsica - Is this part of France or is it hatched - it's impossible to tell.
Corsica one way attack seems to go under Italy?!
Naval Battles - are given as "+1 per pair" but there doesn't seem to be any visible pairing on the map?
Egypt - What does the hashing mean here?
"K of" - Suggest dropping anything that has "K of" - as it adds to confusion and clutter and doesn't really tell anyone anything.
Abbreviations - Don't like them in general... anyway of rationalising them?!
Legend - as stated by others - it's very complex and perhaps overly complicated? Is there a better way of mentioning the outlying territories instead of naming each and every one?
Gibraltar on way attack is easily missable - if Malta was further away from the legend it would be better.
Lisbon - Didn't the brits land in Lisbon and fight their way into spain and france? (My Duke of Wellington history is a bit rusty?!)
UK as a whole - no fighting actually took place in the UK - but as they provided a large amount of troops to the war they can't be removed either - but it does raise the point that perhaps the map is of too large a scale and is encompassing a lot of things that weren't really part of the war?!

C.

[lt_oddball]

have a good new year..

Great to have this forum back.

[Kabanellas]

U2 Odd. Indeed, indeed, good to be back!

Thanks Yeti for the input:

Prussia/Rhine colourisation - whilst I can just about understand it - it is a significant departure from the rest of the map - and makes it look very cluttered.
I do like the colours here – but I suppose I could try to make that orange a bit browner.

Corsica - Is this part of France or is it hatched - it's impossible to tell.
Part of France, the absence of hatching seems quite legible here imo

Corsica one way attack seems to go under Italy?!
I do not intend to draw the real naval course, it’s just a scheme translating the intention.

Naval Battles - are given as "+1 per pair" but there doesn't seem to be any visible pairing on the map?
we’ll change it to ‘ +1 for every 2’

Egypt - What does the hashing mean here?
the hatching means that Orient (Egypt+Palestine) is an add on to the Ottoman bonus

"K of" - Suggest dropping anything that has "K of" - as it adds to confusion and clutter and doesn't really tell anyone anything.
We prefer the use of the ‘Kingdom’ word to mark the difference between Italy (the region) and Kingdom of Italy (the bonus zone).

Abbreviations - Don't like them in general... anyway of rationalising them?!
I don’t have any bright ideas

Legend - as stated by others - it's very complex and perhaps overly complicated? Is there a better way of mentioning the outlying territories instead of naming each and every one?
like I’ve explained before, it’s done accordingly to the ‘Third Crusade’ style which doesn’t seem to be raising any problems......

Gibraltar on way attack is easily missable - if Malta was further away from the legend it would be better.
I’ll take a closer look at it

Lisbon - Didn't the brits land in Lisbon and fight their way into spain and france? (My Duke of Wellington history is a bit rusty?!)
not that rusty. Well, Wellington landed well near Mondego which is below Porto and then advanced towards Lisbon.

UK as a whole - no fighting actually took place in the UK - but as they provided a large amount of troops to the war they can't be removed either - but it does raise the point that perhaps the map is of too large a scale and is encompassing a lot of things that weren't really part of the war?!
That could be a problem if we were naming this map ‘Napoleon Invasions’. Rather than that this map aims to show Europe’s political dynamics by 1812. In a time where Napoleon’s power was at its peak and his undeniable presence and influence was felt throughout the continent.

Also, I think we got a way to deal with the lucky drop bonus over those battle sites. What if a player only get that bonus if he/she also owns a capital?

[Evil DIMwit]

Also, I think we got a way to deal with the lucky drop bonus over those battle sites. What if a player only get that bonus if he/she also owns a capital?

That could work. It concentrates a lot of power in the capitals, though: victory conditions and auto-deploy and required for battle. That may not be a bad thing if it reflects the Napoleonic era accurately. How much did they rely on capitals?

[Industrial Helix]

Also, I think we got a way to deal with the lucky drop bonus over those battle sites. What if a player only get that bonus if he/she also owns a capital?

That could work. It concentrates a lot of power in the capitals, though: victory conditions and auto-deploy and required for battle. That may not be a bad thing if it reflects the Napoleonic era accurately. How much did they rely on capitals?

I think stressing capitals with this much power beyond the historical context. The allies sacked Paris, for example, but found themselves fighting France yet again 6 months later. Napoleon sacked Moscow, not the capital but generally regarded as the most important city in Russia, and yet Russia fought on for 3-4 years.

[Raskholnikov]

Actually I disagree. Capitals were absolutely critical. every time when Napoleon got close to Vienna or Berlin peace treaties were proposed by the Austrians or Prussians. When Vienna or Berlin fell to Napoleon, Austria and Prussia actually switched sides and became French allies. When the Allies got close to Paris, Napoleon was forced to resign, in 1814, rather than have the Allies sack the capital. The very reason why Napoleon marched to Moscow is because he thought that taking Moscow would force the Russian emperor to seek for peace. The reason Alaxander did not is Russia's incredible depth and his abilitry to endlessly retreat east - which was Napoleon's undoing. This is reflected on the map though the Russian Winter and the territories to the East of Moscow. But as a general rule, it was quite clear that at the time, capitals were the nervous nodes which determined the fate of their countries. Even when Napoleon came back from Elbe, in 1814, he first had to ride to Paris and take control over the reigns of power there as Louis XVIII fled the capital for exile before the Emperor could again raise an army. So I am totally comfortable with the power vested in capitals. I think that the solution of not starting to get battle bonuses until one control a capital is both very elegant in terms of gameplay and very accurate historically. Great idea Kab - and as far as I know, unique for CC maps.

Kab, how exactly would it work? Let's say I get a capital, start getting battle bonuses, then lose my only capital - would I also stop getting battle bonuses until I would again secure control of a capital? I think that would be correct. It woulld force each player to consolidate and defend at least one capital so as not to lose it, which in effect would establish their "identitly": whoever holds and consolidates Paris would be the French player, Berlin the Prussian player, etc. It still wouldn't really recreate exactly the national dynamics of the Napoleonic wars, but that was never our goal. It would however bring it closer to that than a game like Europe 1914 where the only roles capitals play is to get a bonus. Here, each player would literally be forced to make one capital as powerful as possible to resist it being taken so as not to lose the battle bonuses - so that capital would become the centerpiece of that player's strategy.

Therefore we should add to the legend:

"Must have a capital to get land/naval bonuses."

[Evil DIMwit]

Mm, only six capitals could mean a big difference between 6-player games and 7-player games (and 5-player games, since Moscow is so much harder to take initialy). I like it.

[yeti_c]

Just a small point - Belgium has a battleground that I'm pretty sure you are referring as Waterloo (as referenced earlier in this topic)...

Of course Waterloo happened in 1815...

C.

[lt_oddball]

Actually I disagree. Capitals were absolutely critical. every time when Napoleon got close to Vienna or Berlin peace treaties were proposed by the Austrians or Prussians. When Vienna or Berlin fell to Napoleon, Austria and Prussia actually switched sides and became French allies. When the Allies got close to Paris, Napoleon was forced to resign, in 1814, rather than have the Allies sack the capital. The very reason why Napoleon marched to Moscow is because he thought that taking Moscow would force the Russian emperor to seek for peace. The reason Alaxander did not is Russia's incredible depth and his abilitry to endlessly retreat east - which was Napoleon's undoing. This is reflected on the map though the Russian Winter and the territories to the East of Moscow. But as a general rule, it was quite clear that at the time, capitals were the nervous nodes which determined the fate of their countries. Even when Napoleon came back from Elbe, in 1814, he first had to ride to Paris and take control over the reigns of power there as Louis XVIII fled the capital for exile before the Emperor could again raise an army. So I am totally comfortable with the power vested in capitals. I think that the solution of not starting to get battle bonuses until one control a capital is both very elegant in terms of gameplay and very accurate historically. Great idea Kab - and as far as I know, unique for CC maps.

Therefore we should add to the legend:

"Must have a capital to get land/naval bonuses."

I like that idea as well.

One thing to think about is what should it mean in the game if you conquer 2, 3, 4 capitols and another player is stuck to 1,2 max ?
Does acquiring more capitols mean much more bonus ? (the conquered territories DO join the conquerer and troops and economics are 100% added) or should there be some sort of reduction modifier to the extra bonusses ? (always "franc-tireurs", revolts, occupation army being tied, conquered economy sinks in, less trade) ?
I'd vote for the latter.

Normally the "growing nearly unstoppable" player has already the benefit of acquiring more and more bonus each turn while he controls some bottle necks.
Now with eliminating other player's capitols he is depriving them immediately of some extra bonus..so the fresh troops difference is immediately larger... so it speeds up the "sound of inevitability" .
So in order to temper that a bit in realistic and historical sense i'd say with conquering an extra capitol comes a reduction of e.g -3 (open for debate) ?
Or something like 2nd capitol: -2 3d capitol : -3 4th Capitol : -4 ?


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.

[yeti_c]

I think that having 5 capitals or 1 capital shouldn't make more battle bonuses.

Also - I don't think Capitals should affect Naval Battles.

C.

[Kabanellas]

Just a small point - Belgium has a battleground that I'm pretty sure you are referring as Waterloo (as referenced earlier in this topic)...

Of course Waterloo happened in 1815...

C.

I don't know if Rask has anything else to add on this, but ... lets say that the political boundaries are relative to Europe in 1812 but the battles are related to a larger time-scope, before and after 1812.

As for the bonus, I do agree with Yeti. Holding more capitals shouldn't yield more bonus apart from the auto-deployed ones, and they should only act as triggers for the ground battle sites not the naval ones.

[Kabanellas]

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.