Originally posted by Yoda Power
I agree completly on this. If the map is bigger than 140.140 I will properly loose interest too.

btw I can do the tech icons too since im doing the tree anyway(and I have a collection with more than 800 icons;))


No one have pressed for a larger map what I know.

The scenario should have an acceptabe loading-time
and not to long waiting-time between turns.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh



No one have pressed for a larger map what I know.

The scenario should have an acceptabe loading-time
and not to long waiting-time between turns.

Rocoteh I know, I just pointed out that I would be against a too big map. Actually I would prefer a smaller map(120.120 anyone??)

btw what exactly is a Grognard?

Originally posted by Yoda Power
btw what exactly is a Grognard?

You ! :D

Originally posted by LouLong


You ! :D ok, so the team is named after me:D

ok seriously what the hell is it??????

In French, "Grogner" means to grumble. Grognards was the nickname of the Grenadiers of Napoleon's old guard.
I can't find exact reference, but I think he named them "Mes grognards", because he knew they may grumble when asked to walk long distance in a very short time (something the French army was reknown for), and fight, but they will always do what he asked of them. Loulong, any comment about that?

By the way, perhaps it would be nice to give the French army a slight movement bonus?

Thanks steph:)

I think the movement bonus should consist of "ignore this terrain" abilities. Giving them more movement point would be a bit to overpowering.

@ all : yes, Padma was kind enough to change the name of the thread. I figured it would please everyone, yes ? (except mrtn maybe who might consider it less sexy)

@ all : what population equivalent should we give to cities (I am clueless)

@ Ozy : as a French I just did not have a clue about your linguistic status :D

@ Thorgrimm : we need (and have most of) the global figures for countries armies but I don't think we can use the figures of the troops you gave since the main scenario starts just after the revolution so it still is basically "to do" by the player or AI. But other infos like starting armies/organization and placement would be great.


RACES
ok, it seems races will be as follows :
- Germany : (could replace the Holy Roman Empire)
- Med : Italy, Spain and Portugal
- Muslim Med : Ottomans, barbarescs
- North-Western Europe : UK, France, Holland, Switzerland, Scandinavian countries
- Eastern world : Russia

Germany will have a large representation. Another option could have been to create artificial ones so as to isolate France.

MAP
I basically like the most recent Yoda's map. But it seems like we will have to go for two maps for the scenario. We have to define it then I will make basic work so as to represent the different states and try out resources but, mrtn, nothing definitive will be done before Conquests ships.
I totally agree with not too big a map for Europe. A tad larger for the one including the US (most of the area will be sea anyway) and (much later maybe) a very large map for maneuvers-fiends.

I will be quiet two or three days because I really want to finish and release two Austrian units. But here is a team, not a one-person mod !

Gentlemen, I realise that i am new to this forum, but since my last post with the offer to help with the order of battle i have not seen one reply with a yes your help would be nice or no your help is not required.I am beginning to feel an icy wind blowing out of my monitor when i log into this thread. Is this thread only for the good ol' boys? If it is then i will bid you gentlemen goodbye and good luck.

Thorgrimm

Originally posted by Yoda Power
I know, I just pointed out that I would be against a too big map. Actually I would prefer a smaller map(120.120 anyone??)... How "big" a map is is also affected by how much land there is on it. If it's a "just Europe" map, then even a 120*120 map is large. :p If we include that very interesting ocean, the Atlantic (Cod! Mackerel! Even Atlantis!), then it's a "smaller" map. ;)

So, I can call myself a "Grognard"? I'm certainly a grumbler. :mischief:

I must apologize for my last post. It seems that LouLong replied as i was crafting it. I will begin creating an order of battle for the combatants starting in 1795. Again i apologize.

Originally posted by LouLong
[B@ all : what population equivalent should we give to cities (I am clueless)[/B]I say: real life numbers can go to hell(btw is it legal to say that in this forum:satan: ). I think we have to do this because of gameplay. If we have all cities at their right numbers, France would have a huge problem because they did´nt have as many big cities as Britain. So this is my suggestion:

We look at each country individually, all their major cities(only compared to the other cities of the country) would be 2nd or 3rd size cities. That way every country would have a decent amount of big cities. However some major cities(London, Paris, Istanbul etc.) should still be much bigger than all the other cities, also to show their importance.
Another reason for doing this is, that many countries cities(Im sorry for my bad grammer) would be disbanded when they where under attack, and captured.

just my 2 cents

Originally posted by mrtn
How "big" a map is is also affected by how much land there is on it. If it's a "just Europe" map, then even a 120*120 map is large. :p If we include that very interesting ocean, the Atlantic (Cod! Mackerel! Even Atlantis!), then it's a "smaller" map. ;)Again I agree with you mrtn:goodjob:, but those history nut wants a big map;)

Originally posted by mrtn
So, I can call myself a "Grognard"? I'm certainly a grumbler. :mischief:
Normally, to be a grenadier of the old guard, ypu must have been NCO or soldier in the line or light infantry, bet at least 5 foot 5 inch tall, have served at least 5 years in the army, fight 2 campaigns, and distinguished yourself on the moral and military levels.

But I think we could make some exception (for once, I'm 1 inch to short).

The Guard contained multiple regiments, old guard, middle guard, young guard, marines, various cavalry types, gendarmes, artillery, both foot and horse, it was a corps, all by itself. You don't have to be a grenadier to be in the Guard.

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Gentlemen, I realise that i am new to this forum, but since my last post with the offer to help with the order of battle i have not seen one reply with a yes your help would be nice or no your help is not required.I am beginning to feel an icy wind blowing out of my monitor when i log into this thread. Is this thread only for the good ol' boys? If it is then i will bid you gentlemen goodbye and good luck.

Thorgrimm

Thorgrimm,

I am really sorry if you feel "an icy wind".

Of course your competence is needed here.
That you are new to the forum does not matter in any case.

I really hope that you will be a part of the team and work
with the order of battle.

With regard to "good ol`boys". I say this is a thread for
all those with an serious interest in this era.

For me who also write in the ACW-thread your post
feels ironic (that is just for me) since when you are the
the only one (with one exception) posting in 5 days you
can also feel an icy wind.(In the ACW-thread)

Again if you feel you have met an arrogant attitude
I am really sorry. No one of the people writing here
have such a attitude.

I hope you will stay

Best Regards


Rocoteh

Re: city population -- the gradations I have are as follows:

1,250,000
500,000
250,000
80 - 120,000
50 - 70,000
30 - 40,000

Which totals about 225 cities for the map we're discussing!

So a suggestion for methodology:

1. Finalize map size.

2. Determine how many cities we want on the map.

3. Subract that number from the total I have with whatever pop size city that happens to be equalling pop = 1; multiply accordingly for other cities.

3a. BTW no settlers, right??

3b. And how do we feel about urban unrest? - regular Civ style, or less (i.e., make the # of citizens born happy higher or whatever).

-- & @Yoda -- Yes, I'm looking forward to this too :D. May I recommend what in corporate America is called a "straw man" approach? -- I'll throw together a tech tree in the next two days or so; you chop it apart / add to it / etc.; we do this a few times (the process can actually proceed very quickly, and I do believe we'll work well together on this!) and we'll have a tech tree within 2 weeks. Are you game for this approach? ;)

-- BTW we need to finalize the years in question ... ? And, one era or two?

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by ozymandias
-- & @Yoda -- Yes, I'm looking forward to this too :D. May I recommend what in corporate America is called a "straw man" approach? -- I'll throw together a tech tree in the next two days or so; you chop it apart / add to it / etc.; we do this a few times (the process can actually proceed very quickly, and I do believe we'll work well together on this!) and we'll have a tech tree within 2 weeks. Are you game for this approach? ;)

-- BTW we need to finalize the years in question ... ? And, one era or two?
:D Sounds as a good approach, btw anyone ofcause can come with ideas for tech tree. We should do tech for all eras, so four ofcause, or did you mean something else?

Also Lou please voice your oppinion about how long time there shall go between techs. When Oz comes with his list I will start editing the tree, this will ofcause mean that I "start" the scenario file, that would´nt be a problem, right?

YP

Originally posted by barron of ideas
The Guard contained multiple regiments, old guard, middle guard, young guard, marines, various cavalry types, gendarmes, artillery, both foot and horse, it was a corps, all by itself. You don't have to be a grenadier to be in the Guard.

True, but only Old Guard were called Grognards.

@ mrtn : actually with the beard you would be a "sapeur" :D

@ Thorgrimm : sorry if you felt that way. I think it mostly has to do with the "one thread" pb where different discussions cross and meet sometimes on different pages. But you are definitely welcome as a "grognard" ! Hope you enjoy the title.
So this should not be an "old boy" thread but we are probably used to a certain way of writing/answering to messages that may seem a bit puzzling at first. Besides as we have started to organize the various tasks you have to find your "main" partner(s) ie in that case I am not your main partner until we start putting the units on the map.
Now that does not mean we (or you and Rocoteh since that seems to be your predilection topic) you have to wait for it. It is important to know where units should start and how to put them together. No icy wind, just a "creative turmoil one" maybe :rolleyes:

@ mrtn & Yoda : I understand perfectly your concern but maybe my post was not so clear about it. But that was what my "map with USA needs to be bigger but has a large ocean was about.
I think we should start with a 100 X 100 map and see if it fits or not.

@Ozy : well, city figures give a good idea but one must not overlook the surrounding countryside as well, meaning France had few big cities but had one of the largest population (largest I believe after Ottomans and Russia) in Europe (even if its growing rate had started to shrink already).
Important and useful figures but actually what I had in mind for this very question was how much does a 1 pop point in Civ3 must be equivalent to in RL terms ?

@ Yoda and Ozy : well that is basically up to you but one year could a good starting base to work on. Now it does not mean every year something important happened everywhere, the way I see it "techs" could be kind of empty if need be and they will probably be empty for many countries anyway.
No pb with starting the scenario file since we can import the different things anyway.

@ Yoda : sorry for the joke but Steph answered before I even had finished my second post and seen your answer !
Could you send me/tell me where to find the first and second map. I tried by just saving the pic but quality is low.

@ barron of ideas : you are right about the different units and corps, it is just the grognards refers more to the Guard Grenadier who were always considered as the elite (since Frederic the first I believe), were the Emperor's pets and made a large part of the Guard altogether. Many regiments were copied from them "down" to the Young Guard.

@all : this thread goes pretty fast ! I typed two posts one after the other and 3 posts had already appeared in-between !

hey 100.100 sounds pretty good:goodjob:

and yes this thread is going very fast! Its 10 days old and this is post 270!

Originally posted by Yoda Power
hey 100.100 sounds pretty good:goodjob:

and yes this thread is going very fast! Its 10 days old and this is post 270!

Trying to limit the posts (:eek: ) I had edited my previous one with a few infos for you.
And YES many here are history nuts (and proud of it) :p Now I still want that to be playable and enjoyable.

Map size and number of CIV:s/units should be
limited by load time/waiting time.

Some of you seems to be computer-people.

Any guess?


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Map size and number of CIV:s/units should be
limited by load time/waiting time.

Some of you seems to be computer-people.

Any guess?


Rocoteh

How many cities (on each side) + units (on each side) do you have for ACW ?

Originally posted by LouLong
@ mrtn : actually with the beard you would be a "sapeur" :D
...
@ mrtn & Yoda : I understand perfectly your concern but maybe my post was not so clear about it. But that was what my "map with USA needs to be bigger but has a large ocean was about.
I think we should start with a 100 X 100 map and see if it fits or not.
...@all : this thread goes pretty fast ! I typed two posts one after the other and 3 posts had already appeared in-between ! You mean I'll use my beard to dig through fortifications? ;) Or use it to make the bombs with? Splinter bombs, perhaps? :D "How do you like a face full of mrtn's beard, you sons of foreigners?"

The map size is important regarding city populations (and number of cities, of course). It's also so that the terrain is dependent on if units cost 1 pop or not. If they do, we should have some extra wheat, if they don't we should try to hinder city growth, otherwise every city will be max size in a few years.

This thread is going too fast by half, I think it's one of the fastest thread I've seen in C&C. :)

"This thread is going too fast by half, I think it's one of the fastest thread I've seen in C&C." mrtn


Do not worrie.

It will slow down!


Rocoteh

Assuming membership in the OLD guard was required, and I am not sure I do want to postulate that, I am reasonably certain the old guard contained more than Grenadiers.

Another definition of grognard I saw on the web from 2nd oxford dictionary (as quoted) was a veteran soldier, a grumbler.

Alam Emerich used to have a web site up that dfined the term, but I couldn't find it right now. I will keep looking. Of course, now it means a veteran (war) gamer.

Originally posted by LouLong


How many cities (on each side) + units (on each side) do you have for ACW ?

U.S.A. 112 cities 258 units
C.S.A. 112 cities 201 units


Rocoteh

Just to get in the spirit of things --

http://www.napoleonguide.com/glossary.htm

I came across this glossary while trying to find a "definitive" definition and/or derivation of "grognard"; bon chance!

Anyway, it's good for fun -- and, besides, how many of you knew that Russian militia was called "Opolchenie", hm? ;)

-Oz

This should be useful, to anyone who wants an order of battle for Waterloo of the old guard, which seems to include Chausseurs a pied (as opposed to cavalry chausseurs).

http://www.web2.airmail.net/napoleon/1816.html

I can't this link to work, which is a shame as there are uniforms and other useful order of battle data there, maybe the home site?

http://web2/airmail.net/napoleon/index.html

and for "grognard" the nearly totally uselesss

http://www.kabalarians.com/..male/grognard.html

The link gets me to the kabalarians home page, you can enter grognard as the male name, or any other name in the box and get some possibly reliable data on what it means. I don't much agree with what they say for Richard.

Originally posted by barron of ideas
Assuming membership in the OLD guard was required, and I am not sure I do want to postulate that, I am reasonably certain the old guard contained more than Grenadiers.

Another definition of grognard I saw on the web from 2nd oxford dictionary (as quoted) was a veteran soldier, a grumbler.

Alam Emerich used to have a web site up that dfined the term, but I couldn't find it right now. I will keep looking. Of course, now it means a veteran (war) gamer.

No, no there is some misunderstanding here. Steph just described the rules to be allowed as a a grenadier inside the guard. And inside the old guard, the grenadiers (1st regiment precisely) were pet-called by Napoleon his "grognards". Now of course the term could have been used for other grenadiers or regular troops but the 1st regiment of the Guard is the summon of it all :D
For info : The Old Guard is basically made up of Grenadiers (2 regiments), Dutch grenadiers + footchasseurs 1st regiment.

Nice to have you here, BTW.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
"This thread is going too fast by half, I think it's one of the fastest thread I've seen in C&C." mrtn


Do not worrie.

It will slow down!


Rocoteh

Although I am an old-timer I did not intend to
be cynic. I just remember August/September at
ACW. We had 7 persons posting every day. Then
suddenly Procifica disappeared (silent for 3 weeks, then
a week ago there was a post he said he would come back).
Now I have had a one-man talk show for 3 days.
Today I declared at ACW I will be silence if the others
are silent since I do not like one-man talk shows.

Now you wonder: Why does this old-timer Rocoteh
grumble about that?

I grumble since things can change fast, very fast.


Rocoteh

@ mrtn : about Serbia, it did not really exist back then. Between Germany and the Ottomans there is only the Austrian Empire as a real, independant country.
About the orthodox church for Russia, definitely yes !

@Rocoteh, thanks for the figures. Then we know for sure we CANNOT use regiments for units :(
Edit : and you are welcome to grumble since you are a grognard. Just don't bring bad luck !
About ACW I think there must be a time in a scenario's life when it must be "finished" so that players start replacing the creators, first by playing and maybe sometimes by posting. Would that be the case ?

"@Rocoteh, thanks for the figures. Then we know for sure we CANNOT use regiments for units :(
Edit : and you are welcome to grumble since you are a grognard. Just don't bring bad luck !
About ACW I think there must be a time in a scenario's life when it must be "finished" so that players start replacing the creators, first by playing and maybe sometimes by posting. Would that be the case ? "LouLong

You make to fast conclusions. After that I removed the
load flag from immobile units waiting-time ,PTW-version
was reduced to 20 seconds.

"Just don`t bring bad luck !" LouLong

What exactly do you mean!!!!!

Rocoteh

LouLong,

"Just don`t bring bad luck !" LouLong

I repeat: What exactly do you mean?

If its a " joke" I do not buy it.

If its not a joke its very serious!

Concerning ACW you have got it all wrong.


Rocoteh

Rocotech, if i am wrong please correct me. All my o.b. research for the militaries suggest that the largest "permanent" organization was the regiment with varying numbers of battalions under its control. Larger formations were only formed when at war. In fact most of the French army in Italy in 1795 was organized as Demi-Brigades. If you do not use regiments as your base unit of manuver you lose the color and flavor that was the Napoleonic era. Examples are Siemonovski Grenadier Regiment, all Russian Regiments were named after the location of recruitment, most Austrian regiments were named ALL of the Confederation of the Rhine members were named. I could go on for days but the point i am making is that except for corps and divisional attachments most people know the era by the regiments. Who does not get a more vivid impression of the "Old Guard" in square formation protecting the retreat of the army after Waterloo? Or would you rather say remnants of the guard corps conducted a delaying action?

Another quick barrage of facts.

The Russian Empire as of 1795 has the following REGIMENTS:
Guard infantry 3
Grenadier infantry 15
Line infantry 63
Jaeger infantry 23
Cuirassiers cavalry 10
Dragoons cavalry 36
Uhlans cavalry 12 and various different amounts of cossacks

The United Kingdom as of 1795 has the following REGIMENTS:
Guard infantry 3
Light infantry 3
line infantry 96
Horse Guards cavalry 2
Life Guards cavalry 2
Dragoon Guards cavalry 7
Dragoons cavalry 36 4 which are classified as light cavalry
Kings German Legion
line infantry 4 battalions
Light infantry 2 battalions
Dragoons cavalry 1
hussars cavalry 1
As you can see there are not that many units even with a world spanning empire and one of the largest armies on the continent. So not using regiments and only using brigades and divisions you are reducing the number of units down to a handful.

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Rocotech, if i am wrong please correct me. All my o.b. research for the militaries suggest that the largest "permanent" organization was the regiment with varying numbers of battalions under its control. Larger formations were only formed when at war. In fact most of the French army in Italy in 1795 was organized as Demi-Brigades. If you do not use regiments as your base unit of manuver you lose the color and flavor that was the Napoleonic era. Examples are Siemonovski Grenadier Regiment, all Russian Regiments were named after the location of recruitment, most Austrian regiments were named ALL of the Confederation of the Rhine members were named. I could go on for days but the point i am making is that except for corps and divisional attachments most people know the era by the regiments. Who does not get a more vivid impression of the "Old Guard" in square formation protecting the retreat of the army after Waterloo? Or would you rather say remnants of the guard corps conducted a delaying action?

The process of regimentation actually began to solidify central monarchies' hold over a military no longer dominated by the weaponry and training of the nobility. "Regiments" with their traditions, ties to locales and thereby national and/or monarchial loyalty became the dominant unit organization -- until the French Revolution. Again, this period is not my strongest (that would be Medieval-Renaissance Europe) but did not the Levy-en-masse (sp?) by definition essentially due away with the strictly regimental (in the "traditional" sense I described above) basis of Le Grande Armee?

Best,

Oz

No it did not. when the french would call up a class they would form battalions and then group them into regiments. and would only be assigned to higher levels of organization later. By the way the abandoning of the regimental system by most armies did not happen until after the second world war when by need the Germans designed the Kampfgruppe system or battlegroup in english. Which abandoned the normal regimental system in favor of forming combat units for the mission at hand.

Thorgrimm,

Thank you for your comments and historical
documentation. With regard to the basic unit that
should be used I have an open mind.

Should the regiment work I think that is okay.
A problem for me is that I have the majority of
information in divisions.

If you have a regimental documentation for the
whole period the scenario/scenarios should cover,
that is of great importance.

The situation now is that I with 90% will leave
this project. I am waiting for LouLong to explain
what he means with "Just don`t bring bad luck".

I grew up in a time and in a culture where the word
respect meant much. If someone insulted you, there was
no way you could cooperate with such a person.
If I choose to leave the project this time it will be for good.


Rocoteh

To continue the barrage.

This order of battle is from the Armee Du Nord De Espagne on 25 June 1812. Then we will break it down into game terms and you will see what i mean.

1st Division General Abbe:
1st Brigade 1rgt of Legere, 2 rgts of Ligne
2nd Brigade 2 rgts of Ligne

2nd division General Vandermasson:
NO BRIGADES
2 rgts Legere 4rgts Ligne 1 Hussar cav

3rd Division General Palombini:
1st Brigade 2 rgts Ligne
2nd Brigade 2 rgts Ligne

4th Division General Dumoustier:
1st Brigade 1 rgt Legere 2 rgts Ligne

Cavalry Division General Laferriere:
NO BRIGADES
3 rgts Dragoons 1 rgt Hussars 1 rgt Lancers 1 rgt Cuirassiers

Now if you use either Brigades or Divisions as your base unit level lets see what the numbers tells us.
At brigade level you have 5 infantry units and 1 cavalry unit.Not
much.
at divisional level its even worse, 4 infantry and 1 cavalry unit.
At either level you also lose your color and flavor. No Legere, no
Ligne, no Hussars, no Lancers, no Dragoons, no cuirassiers. Only at regimental level do you regain what was lost. By the way at regimental level you only have about 25 units. Not very much for The Army of North Spain. As i have pointed out if you make the scale regarding units any bigger than regimental you will lose a lot . By the way as you can see even the French organization above regiment was hap hazard.

Rocotech i agree with you 100% about respect. I may be an American but i was raised by a German immigrant to America,my father. Also if you know anything about the United States Marine Corps then you know me. I spent 8 years in the Marines.

By the way if you read Latin then my afterthoughts will make sense to you. If not it means Saepius Exertus Often Tested, Semper Fidelis Always Faithful, Frater Infinitas Brothers Forever.

And yes as you can see in my last few posts in can get down to the regimental level of any country in the world. All i need is a start date. I would have put down the exact regimental designations in my last post but i tried to keep it brief. if you do decide to leave this post please leave me a way to contact you.

Originally posted by Rocoteh

The situation now is that I with 90% will leave
this project. I am waiting for LouLong to explain

If I choose to leave the project this time it will be for good.


Rocoteh

*sigh* yet once again risking to speak for someone else (it's the diplomat in me, I suppose :rolleyes: ) -- IIRC what this exchange is about, I THINK LouLong was playing on the double-entendre of "grognard": of course you are a "Napoleonic"/wargaming grognard, a comrade, etc., yet "grumbling" per se has sometimes been believed to be unlucky by virtue of being disruptive. I am certain that his emphasis was on the first, and the secondary meaning and thereby the pun merely something which literally got lost in the translation (IIRC English is neither of your native tongues?) and a cute pun became a poorly translated and readily misunderstood joke.

BTW if I had made such an attempt, unsuccessfully, in French I'm certain I'd be aghast and not quite know what to say (hint: LouLong, my friend, this is your cue to jump in :) )

Peace To All,

Oz

Thorgrimm,

After reading your posts I think regiment as the basic
unit will work. Its also of great importance that you seems
to have broader documentation on regiments than I have
on divisions. I also think Steph have lot of information on
regiments. Yes if I choose to leave this project I will send
a way to contact.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by LouLong
@ mrtn : about Serbia, it did not really exist back then. Between Germany and the Ottomans there is only the Austrian Empire as a real, independant country.
About the orthodox church for Russia, definitely yes !
...I know Serbia wasn't independent then, that's why I said it would be hard to include them. :p
I seem to be adding to the confusion. :crazyeye:

ozymandias,

Maybe you are right. I will see what LouLong will answer.

Anyway you are Man of Honour and I will continue to
write in your thread.

LouLong seems to think ACW is dead. Its not!
1) Its on Ataris Bonus CD. 2) We were planning great
things for ACW when Procifica had to deal with problems
outside the CIVIII-world.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
ozymandias,

Maybe you are right. I will see what LouLong will answer.

Anyway you are Man of Honour and I will continue to
write in your thread.

LouLong seems to think ACW is dead. Its not!
1) Its on Ataris Bonus CD. 2) We were planning great
things for ACW when Procifica had to deal with problems
outside the CIVIII-world.

Rocoteh

Ooops ! :o
Sorry for the "bad" joke then. Ozy was right about the ambiguous term of "grognard" as both Napeolonic emblematic unit and translation of "grumble". The fact that it was close to the remark about ACW did not mean a link in my mind. And I did not imply ACW was dead. It is just my opinion that a scenario must reach a quiet time with little changes at one time for players to be confident it is quite a "final" version. I definitely congratulate you on the fact it is in the bonus CD and I did not imply the scenario was dead at all but that it has reached a certain stillness which is normal after a while to allow players to actually play a stable version. IMHO at a moment modders should let the scenario be for players to take over. So not dead but complete with some more testing. Sorry if I made you feel bad about it. I am both strightforward and pun-liking : straightforward meaning there are no hidden critics in my remarks but pun-liking meaning sometimes people can understand what I write in a way that I did not intend (albeit legitimate probably). You said you have decided to bring new changes to the scenario which means there is still interest and ideas on the modders side so in that case it was not complete in your mind, I just thought (mistakenly obviously) it was.
Sorry for that agin, Rocoteh.

Explanation accepted.


Rocoteh

@ Thorgrimm and Rocoteh : :confused: I totally agree with you Thorgrimm (200%) about the regimental idea, both for the military organization and the colourful uniforms. Now I am a bit surprised because for a long while I was the only one in favor of this idea (and Steph at CDG when I tried launching it there).
One shortcoming it has in my mind is the number of units it implies on the map. Since it would be much higher than the figures in ACW (that is why I asked you (Rocoteh) about these figures I thought it would be impossible to do.
So if it seems possible for you now : I am both puzzled and happy. With the locations and names, like as you said Russians or Spanish regiments having their city location names it could be extremely precise (Russia would have some regiments outside of the scope of the mod/scenario I believe BTW).

Now I must say I am eagerly waiting for the Conquests improvements about armies. My idea (but remember you are both more on charge of that issue) was to use the Temple of Zeus ability to generate every X turns a division or a corps or a brigade that could be used by the AI (no need to build them) by filling them with regimental troops. Best would be if there is an unloading ability for theses "armies" so as to make them really flexible, which would fit Napoleonic technics very well. France could start with a higher capacity (to show the organization strength) but other countries would later reach the same level.

What do you say ?

Again, since Thorgrimm seems to have a much broader
documentation (+ Steph doc.) than my dvisional doc.
regiments as basic unit should be the best idea.

With regard to divisions/corps it sounds reasonable that France should start with an edge.

I Corps Ziethen (Prussian) had 11 infantry regiments so
we must have a solution to such aspects, should +20 HP
remain the limit in Conquests.

Rocoteh

LouLoung, We are not talking a lot of units in this era.

for example the Bavarian army of 1805 consisted of the following units.
10 rgts line infantry
6 bns light infantry which can be condensed into 2 rgts. as the Bavarians organized their rgts on the triangular system.
2 rgts Dragoons
4 rgts Lt Horse
1 artillery rgt


most modern people do not realise that the armies of this period were not that massive.
The French army throughout the entire Napoleonic period never had more than around 130 line rgts which makes up most of the period armies. If your map is relatively large you are going to have a lot of open territory at the bde or div level. If you look at one of my last posts you can see that the ENTIRE RUSSIAN ARMY consists of 162 regts. that may sound like a lot but remember that the Russians also had units in the far east and against the Ottomans.

In 1803 the French Army consisted of the following forces:

89 rgts Line Infantry
25 rgts Light Infantry
8 rgts Foot Artillery
4 rgts Horse Artillery
2rgts Carabiniers Cavalry
12 rgts Cuirassiers Cavalry
30 rgts Dragoons Cavalry
26 rgts Chasseurs Cavalry

GARDE IMPERIALE
1er Regiment Grenadiers a Pied de la Garde Imperiale
1er Regiment Chasseurs a Pied de la Garde Imperiale

Grenadiers a Cheval de la Garde Imperiale
Chasseurs a Cheval de la Garde Imperiale

Imperial Guard
1st Regiment of foot
1st Regiment of foot Chasseurs

Horse Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard
Light Horse of the Imperial Guard
I forgot that you wanted everything in english. Even though i prefer the French version of their army designations.Unfortunately my computer cannot make the French accent markings.

1803 was the decisive year for the French Army because that was when Napoleon's reform of the army took effect.

Thorgrimm, for accent marks try this:

Hold the ALT key down while typing these numbers out on your number keypad:

160 á

133 à

131 â

132 ä

130 é

138 è

136 ê

137 ë

135 ç

There's way more, but I think that should do it for French (my french is a tad rusty, eh).

Originally posted by ozymandias

Anyway, it's good for fun -- and, besides, how many of you knew that Russian militia was called "Opolchenie", hm? ;)

I did :D Because of Napoleon in Russia from Talonsoft.

Games are great for foreign language

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Rocotech, if i am wrong please correct me. All my o.b. research for the militaries suggest that the largest "permanent" organization was the regiment with varying numbers of battalions under its control...

That's why I'd like to see regiments

Thorgrimm,

Your knowledge of units and organization
during this period will be of great importance
for this scenario/scenarios.

I am glad that you are a member the team.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh

Should the regiment work I think that is okay.
A problem for me is that I have the majority of
information in divisions.

If you have a regimental documentation for the
whole period the scenario/scenarios should cover,
that is of great importance.

Rocoteh

I have the number of regiments for the main powers, and can find it for the smaller one. Check one of the first posts in the thread.
I also have the names of these regiments, and even regimental colors if someone is crazy enough to want to edit the animation one by one to change it :crazyeye:

Mithadan, thank you very much for the information.It doe indeed make the accents that are required.

Originally posted by Steph


I have the number of regiments for the main powers, and can find it for the smaller one. Check one of the first posts in the thread.
I also have the names of these regiments, and even regimental colors if someone is crazy enough to want to edit the animation one by one to change it :crazyeye:

Very positive. It sounds like the Order of Battle
subject can be solved and that the OOB will be
very accurate.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
The situation now is that I with 90% will leave
this project. I am waiting for LouLong to explain
what he means with "Just don`t bring bad luck".

I grew up in a time and in a culture where the word
respect meant much. If someone insulted you, there was
no way you could cooperate with such a person.
If I choose to leave the project this time it will be for good.


Don't worry about that, I'm sure Loulong meant it as a joke or try a play on word, and it probably didn't translate well so you didn't understand it (I didn't either).
Play on word are always very hard to translate into another language (so does Play The World apparently as we waited a long time for non US version of the patch).

Thorgrimm,

I personnally found detailed army list quite interesting, and I have some difficulties to imagine it is not the case for every human being (:D ), but perhaps we could both work on this in private, perhaps exchanging army list by email, and produce a complete definitive version that we will post here, so we don''t clutter the thread for the others ?

Should we list the names of regiments when we have them, and set them in the editor? This would be quite "flavourish".

Steph i would more than be happy to work on this with you and rocoteh. and you can email me at rikardon99@comcast.net.

But what we need to determine is if this is a scenario or just a mod and dyo scenarios. If a scenario then detailed oob will be required. If not then detailed oobs are just a moot point and just starting numbers would suffice. Also as to putting the names in the editor i say

YES!!!!!!!!!
That is what i have been presenting this information for:goodjob:

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Mithadan, thank you very much for the information.It doe indeed make the accents that are required. De rien! :)

argh you guys made two pages while I was away:cringe:

btw Lou would it be possible to catch you on messenger today?

Comrades!

I was going through the Edited Chat Log of the most recent Conquests o/l chat here at CFC and just wanted to list the following known and unknown factors --

1. Armies can (i) pillage without loss of an MP; (ii) they GET an extra MP; (iii) they have "much better" healing abilities; (iv) possess "blitz" and "radar" by default.

2. Re: artillery: all we were left with is the tantalizing "bombard has been improved" -- an "improved priority in picking bombardment targets".

LouLong, I know you've been following these matters more closely than I -- can you offer any elaboration on the improvements in bombardment?

Good Morning From New York :)

Oz

Originally posted by Yoda Power
btw Lou would it be possible to catch you on messenger today?

Make me thing. My email address is also my MSN address.

At one time I was involved in a napoleonic campaign using lead miniature soldiers, each person taking a different historical country that participated, with the "campaign providing a reason for battles and the forces that participated.

I think that it may be possible to take what is being done here and turn the battle part into such a campaign. There would need to be some way to edit the situation at the end of each turn to reflet the battle results that occurred on the table-top. Is there some what to build that function into the mod? It might bring a lot of "lead pushers" to Civ as setting up the details of the campaigh are always one reason there are so few of them. Particularly when the AI's will run the countys that are not represented by live players. Or the whole thing can be done solo, with the one player fighting with miniatures to determine the outcome of battles.

But the key to using the scenario in that way is some way to edit the forces after each turn to reflect losses and the outcome of the various battles. Can this be an option?

LouLong,

I thought things were back to normal, until you
moved in at ozymandias thread making a new provocation
against me.

This will not work. I am leaving this project and this time its
100%. Should I use your way of joking the fact that I leave
should mean luck for the project.

Let me clarify: I have nothing personal against you and I
respect you.

.... but during a long life I have had enough of this sort
of conflict. When I sit down with CIVIII/PTW I want to
have a good time I do not want to feel provoked and so
on.

I do not think you and I should work together.
OK, still and I really mean it 100%: Good luck.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Rocoteh-If you really want to leave, then so be it. But please dont leave totally, let us ask you in cases you would be the best to answer:)

LouLong,

Your arrogant insulting answer in ozymandias thread
only shows that I took a correct decision when I choosed
to leave this thread.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
LouLong,

I thought things were back to normal, until you
moved in at ozymandias thread making a new provocation
against me.

This will not work. I am leaving this project and this time its
100%. Should I use your way of joking the fact that I leave
should mean luck for the project.

Let me clarify: I have nothing personal against you and I
respect you.

.... but during a long life I have had enough of this sort
of conflict. When I sit down with CIVIII/PTW I want to
have a good time I do not want to feel provoked and so
on.

I do not think you and I should work together.
OK, still and I really mean it 100%: Good luck.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

:confused: :confused:
I have nothing personal against you and I think you would have been important for the project so I was glad when I saw your interest in it. Besides I don't think I have looked for conflict at all. Your personality perfectly allows you to have not appreciated my "bad joke" even though there was nothing bad intended at you.
Now, on the other hand you accuse me of making a provocative move aginst you in Ozy's thread :
1 - I post there sometimes so it was not a strategic premiere of mine
2 - There was nothing provocative intended and this time I don't see how you could have interpreted that way. Basically I wrote "point taken" for one of your remarks and that was the only reference to you in the entire post.

Put simply : I just don't get it.

But you are as free to leave as to join. What annoys me is that it will be a loss for the mod and that you did not understand this is not only my project but a team 'that should not even need me zctually). I saw you had these kinds of issues with Procifica sometimes in ACW thread so I start to find a distinct pattern. But I am not gonna spend my time apologizing in this thread (it is off-topic for instance) if you feel attacked all the time. Worst case would be you use that as an excuse to leave but I don't think it is the case.
Now good luck with what you do later on but please do consider posts (or talks) carefully (or on the contrary maybe not so carefully to find hidden attacks) before jumping to the conclusion people are showing a lack of respect to you.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
LouLong,

Your arrogant insulting answer in ozymandias thread
only shows that I took a correct decision when I choosed
to leave this thread.

Rocoteh

My ... WHAT ?
OK, I finish that discussion. If you feel you have pb with me, you can PM me but I won't carry in a thread.

LouLong,

So now you are acting Dr. Freud.

Okay then, we have nothing more to discuss.

Good bye!

Still no answer to my last post whats up guys:confused:

Hi All,

Here's a first cut at a tech tree. For the time being, it's one era with 19 techs and 4 Era=None techs.

Three of the four Era=None Techs are really meant to limit Government types: Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Revolutionary Republic. The fourth Era=None is "Bourgeois Society", helping delineate those nations where an active and increasingly powerful middle class either existed or was developing from where latter-day feudalism remained the norm.

In approximate order, the 19 techs are:

1. NATIONALISM. This is the beginning of an historical era which would ultimately see the rise of the middle classes and the nation-state. The previous era had its apogee in "L'etat c'est moi" and its end in "Apres moi le deluge" (kindly forgive any errors in my French!).

2. INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS

3. MILITARY INVENTION -- simply that, the willingness to be inventive, often led, it seems, by those most bourgeois of military arms, the artillery and engineers.

4. (1)+(2)+(3) = LEVEE EN MASSE / CONSCRIPTION (conscript infantry; ?militia)

5. (4) leads to MORPHINE (Battlefield Medecine?)

6. (2) leads to IRON ANCHOR CHAINS (Darwin's Voyage Wonder?)

7. (2)+(3) = Shrapnel (imrpoved artillery of some sort)

8. (7) leads to CONGREVE ROCKETS (units of the same name)

9. (6) leads to CANNED FOODS (due to improved metallurgy)

10. (9) leads to STEAM POWER

11. (10) leads to STEAM POWERED WARSHIPS (Wonder = 1st Trans-Atlantic Crossing by same)

12. (11) leads to RAILROADS (worker task)

13. (9) also leads to the first "event", the northern UK LUDDITE REVOLT.

14. (13) takes us, roughly chronologically, into the next "event", the BRITISH-AMERICAN WAR OF 1812

15. (14) yields the next event, "MAIN MANPOWER POOL DEPLETED" -- inferior "upgrades" to line units?

On the right-hand side of the chart are four techs which I'm not certain how to best integrate:

16. WARTIME INCOME TAX

17. EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION ("Rosetta Stone" Wonder)

18. NATIONAL BANK (minor wonder - Capitalization?)

19. SLAVERY ABOLISHED


I hope this is a decent start!

All the Best,

Oz

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
But what we need to determine is if this is a scenario or just a mod and dyo scenarios. If a scenario then detailed oob will be required. If not then detailed oobs are just a moot point and just starting numbers would suffice. Also as to putting the names in the editor i say
YES!!!!!!!!!
That is what i have been presenting this information for:goodjob:

Well it is actually both. The general mod about Napoleonic era + the main scenario about the period so yes they are needed for the scenario. Thye might be needed as well if other people decide to do more precise scenarios on the period using the mod as a base.
:)

Ozy : just a quick remark about the tech before goinf to bed (zzzz). I am not sure Battelfield Medecine shoud be used in the scenario :
- I believe it is too early in history; it would refer more to USCW or the Crimean war.
- I would not like to see French armies in Russia refilling thier strength, that would make the disaster of the invasion difficult to do.

Now maybe you have better reasons than mine to be in favor of it. ?

Originally posted by LouLong
Ozy : just a quick remark about the tech before goinf to bed (zzzz). I am not sure Battelfield Medecine shoud be used in the scenario :
- I believe it is too early in history; it would refer more to USCW or the Crimean war.
- I would not like to see French armies in Russia refilling thier strength, that would make the disaster of the invasion difficult to do.

Now maybe you have better reasons than mine to be in favor of it. ?

Your point is well taken! -- perhaps this can allow a Hospital improvement instead? (it just seems too important -- given how few techs we can use for the era -- to ignore)

-Oz

For the scenario i need a definite start date to get a precise oob.

My nominations are 1792 Formation of the 1st coalition.
1796 Napoleons accepting command of the army of Italy
1805 the Austerlitz campaign

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
For the scenario i need a definite start date to get a precise oob.

My nominations are 1792 Formation of the 1st coalition.
1796 Napoleons accepting command of the army of Italy
1805 the Austerlitz campaign

1792-94 would put us in the position of trying to simulate the French military under the terror; to again quote McEvedy:

"As Carnot, 'the organizer of war' supplied [...] nothing else but [untrained] men and guns the French had to attack to keep alive."

Mid-1794 would give us the Republic back under middle class control, which I think will be easier to mod around than first simulating the Terror and then the relative stability which followed.

Yet I would opt for mid 1797 as, aside from the above, (1) it gives us Napoleon in command; (2) the "messiness" (i.e., chaotic to model) conditions of the first coalition are done; (3) northern Italy is conquered; (4) Holland has become the Batavian Republic -- and became so because Moreau's troops seized the Dutch fleet by virtue of being able to cross the frozen Scheldt River (also difficult to mod ;) ).

-- Just some food for thought :)

-Oz

Ozymandias i think mid 1794 would be ok as i already have the entire obs of Austria, France, United Kingdom, Russia, Prussia, Spain, and most of the German Duchies and Kingdoms, as of 1795. They can easily be retrofitted to mid 1794. Thanks for the suggestion. :goodjob:

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Your arrogant insulting answer in ozymandias thread
only shows that I took a correct decision when I choosed
to leave this thread.

Then so be it. Frankly, I've read all Loulong answers and yours to try to sort out what happened. And it seems to me that your tolerance threshold is extremly low. I wonder how you can live a normal life as you seem to feel insulted very quickly: don't you think you are making mountains of mole hills?
If 20% of your message are question to check if the others tried to insult you, 20% to complain about being insulted and 60% else, then I have the personal feeling that the 60% that are indeed very interesting are not worth the trouble caused by the other 40%.

Originally posted by LouLong
Ozy : just a quick remark about the tech before goinf to bed (zzzz). I am not sure Battelfield Medecine shoud be used in the scenario :
- I believe it is too early in history; it would refer more to USCW or the Crimean war.
- I would not like to see French armies in Russia refilling thier strength, that would make the disaster of the invasion difficult to do.

Now maybe you have better reasons than mine to be in favor of it. ?
For the French army, the medical corps was the least organized. Some medical officers were really devoted to their task, and tried to ease the suffering of wounded. Like Larrey, who invented in 1797 a kind of ambulance. But the general feeling was a kind of indifference, like an old Grognard said "I know that nobody cares about us when we are wounded. Well! Let kill us so it is over".
Most military surgeon had absolutely no skill, and happen to go there because their wealthy familly used it as a mean to escape drafting.

So I think the area is to early for battlefield medicine.

Originally posted by ozymandias
... Moreau's troops seized the Dutch fleet by virtue of being able to cross the frozen Scheldt River (also difficult to mod ;) ).

Could you find another example in history where a cavalry units captured an ennemy fleet during a "naval" battle :eek: :D ?

Gentlemen I just found some interesting information that i would like to pass on. since no one else is up at the same time as me.

CORPS EXPEDITIONNAIRE D' EGYPTE: March 1801
Général en Chef Général Bonaparte
Aides de Camp: Duroc,La Valette,Louis Bonaparte,Junot,Merlin,Guibert Eugène de Beauharnais,Croisier,Zayonchek
Chef d' état major: Général Bertier
Commandant du génie: Général Caffaréli du Falga
Commandant de l' artillerie: Général Dommartin

DIVISION DESAIX:
Brigade Belliard: 21 Demie Brigade Légère (2bns)2000 men
Brigade Friant: 61 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1800 men
88 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1500 men

DIVISION BON:
Brigade Menard: 4 Demie Brigade Légère(2bns)1010 men
Brigade Verdier: 18 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1550 men
19 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1500 men
32 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1850 men

DIVISION KLEBERT:
Brigade Damas: 2 Demie Brigade Légère(2bns)1368 men
Brigade Rampon: 25 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1530 men
75 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1700 men

DIVISION MENOU:
Brigade Vaux: 22 Demie Brigade Légère(2bns)1509 men
Brigade Vial: 13 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)2430 men
69 Demie Brigade de Ligne9(2bns)1500 men

DIVISION REYNIER:
Brigade Fugières: 9 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1509 men
6 Demie Brigade de Ligne(1bn)520 men
Brigade Lanusse: 85 Demie Brigade de Ligne(2bns)1720 men
80 Demie Brigade de Ligne(1bn)410 men
Grenadiers(3 cos)150 men

DIVISION DE CAVALERIE DUMAS:
Brigade Leclerc 7 bis de Hussards(6 esc)600 men
22 de Chassuers a Cheval(2 esc)250 men
Brigade Murat: 15 de Dragons(2 esc)200 men
18 de Dragons(3 esc)300 men
Brigade Mireur: 3 de Dragons(4 esc)350 men
20 de Dragons(5 esc)500 men
Brigade Davout: 14 de Dragons(6 esc)600 men

ARTILLERIE DE L' ARMEE:
12 pièces de 3 livres,12 pièces de 8 livres,16 pièces de livres,20 pièces de 24 livres.

Now their Anglo-Turkish enemies.

ANGLO-TURKISH FORCES EGYPT MAR 1801:

ENGLISH ARMY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN:
Commanding General Sir Ralph Abercrombie
Aide de Camp Lt. General Sir Hely-Hutchinson

Guards Brigade: M. General Luddlow
1st Regiment of foot Guards
2nd Regiment of foot Guards( Coldstream Guards)

1st Brigade: M. General Coote
54th (West Norfolk Regiment)
92nd Regiment

2nd Brigade: M. General Kraddok
8th (King's Own Regiment)
18th (Royal Irish) Regiment
13th (1st Somersetshire)Regiment
90th (Perthshire Volunteers)Regiment

3rd Brigade: M. General Cavant
50th (West Kent) Regiment
79th (Cameron Highlanders) Regiment

4th Brigade: Bg. General Doyle
Régiment La Reyne (émigrés)
30th (Cambridgeshire) Regiment
44th (East Essex) Regiment
89th

5th Brigade: Bg. General Stuart
Régiment de Minorca
Roll Regiment (swiss)
Dillon Regiment (swiss)

Reserve: M. General Moore
40th (2nd Somersetshire) Regiment
23rd (Royal Welsh Fusilers) Regiment
28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment
42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment
58th (Rutlandshire) Regiment

Cavalry: Bg. General Finch
11th Lt. Dragoons
12th (Prince of Wales) Lt. Dragoons
26th Lt. Dragoons
ARTILLERY 5 companies

Troops arriving after 10 march with Admiral Keith:
24th (Warwickshire) Regiment
26th (Camerons) Regiment
25th (King's own Borderers) Regiment
27th (Inniskilling) Regiment
ARRIVED IN JUNE
20th (East Devonshire) Regiment

ENGLISH TROOPS FROM INDIA: M. General Baird
84th (York and Lancaster) Regiment
3 Regiments of Bengalese troops
4 Regiment of troops from Bombay

OTTOMAN TROOPS

Corps of Captain Pacha: Albanian Janissaries 6000 men

Army of the Vizir
Advance guard of the Pasha of Jerusalem 2000 men 1500 cavalry
Pasha of Aleppo: 3000 men 2000 cavalry
Pasha of Damascus: 3000 men 5000 cavalry
Guard Janissaries of the Vizir: 3000 men 1000 cavalry.

As you can see the Ottomans still used the Feudal Levy system to raise troops. Also as to the status of Mameluke Egypt was in was in a state of vassalage to the Ottoman Empire. Ozymandias would you please explain what vassalage means, this post is long enough.

:egypt:

@ Thorgrimm :

5th Brigade: Bg. General Stuart
Régiment de Minorca
Roll Regiment (swiss)
Dillon Regiment (swiss)

Were these Swiss British mercenaries, mercenaries of emigrés (though you wrote emigrés at another place but just in case), "private" regiments ?

I mean I had no idea British had Swiss troops with them. Learning something every day.

Do you think it would be possible for you to find the garrisson cities of French, Austrian, British regiments ? Steph and I have them for Spain and Russia but not for the others (albeit Steph might have more infos on Prussia and England than me) ?

I have a few more, as Prussia and England are in volume I. But just regiment lists, no garrison city.

Originally posted by Steph
I have a few more, as Prussia and England are in volume I. But just regiment lists, no garrison city.

Can we consider regiment names for Spain and Russia to be their garisson names as well ?

It may seem logical, but I'm not sure of that. At peace time OK, but at war time?

Gentlemen --

@Steph - thanks for the info on the French military medical system -- and to think that we're taught in the English speaking world about how ghastly the British system was before the Crimea and Florence Nightingale!

Also @ Steph -- "Could you find another example in history where a cavalry units captured an enemy fleet during a 'naval' battle"

:lol: I think even I'd have a hard time with that one ... but you never know ;).

@Thorgrimm -- Excellent research :goodjob: -- & "Vassalage" means "feudal servitude" -- troops raised by feudal obligation, almost invariably in a principally agrarian society, and thereby not paid and/or equipped by the "central" authority calling up the troops.

@LouLong and Steph re: garrison / regiment names: Even if not strictly historical for those countries, it would certainly work within the context of the period, as many e.g. English regiments were named after their place (often county or "nation") of origin -- Welsh Fusiliers, Cameron Highlanders, etc.

Sorry but all for today -- much to do in the allegedly real world! :crazyeye:

Best,

Oz

Lou the swiss were mercenairies that were raised by the British.

Here is a quick run down on encampments in 1794:

L' ARMEE DE SAMBRE ET MEUSE 1794
Advance Guard: Lefebvre 11,958 men at Vers Rolduc.
1st Division: Mayer 8165 men at Cornelis & Munster.
2nd Division: Hacquin 9,668 at Idem ???? never heard of it.
3rd Division: Marceau 8,852 at Eschweiller
4th Division: Bonnet 7,636 at Huy
5th Division: Hatry 5,951 at Aix-la-chapelle
6th Division: Morlot 10,083 at Aix-la-chapelle
7th Division: Championnet 10,197 at Aix-la-chapelle
8th Division: Dubois 3,239 at Fouron
10th Division: Duhem 7,663 at Maastricht
11th Division: Ricard 9,961 at Maastricht
12th Division: Friant 8,762 at Maastricht

Remember that the army organization was still very hap hazard because Napoleon has not yet reorganized the army.

Does this answer your question Lou
:D As a piece of trivia at the battle of Talavera in Spain the British swiss fought the French Swiss. A precursor to the ACW ?

Originally posted by ozymandias

@LouLong and Steph re: garrison / regiment names: Even if not strictly historical for those countries, it would certainly work within the context of the period, as many e.g. English regiments were named after their place (often county or "nation") of origin -- Welsh Fusiliers, Cameron Highlanders, etc.
Oz

Like the 4th regiment? The King's Own Regiment? Can you place King's Own on a map of England ;) ?

But that's true for most of them.

It works for English Infantry.
France had only number.
Prussian regiment were named after colonels, same for Austria
For Spain it's province/cities (with some exception)
Russia used cities.

So we can use the name of the regiments to place it only for Russia, Spain and England

About Swiss mercenaries: I'm not sure if it is true, but I believe at the treaty of Vienna in 1815 it was decided that no country will be allowed to recruit Swiss mercenary corps except the Vatican.

exactly Steph,but look at the dates 1801 Egypt
1812 Talavera also after France annexed the Swiss cantonments no more were forthcoming. And the treaty was 1815. The place i found the Information was in the history department in Oxford England and i doubt they would put out erronous information.

Here are some other sources that you can check.
Historie critique et militaire des guerres de la révolution. Jomini 1842
Bonaparte et la campagne d'Egypte J.C Carmiginiani 1988

Tech tree:

If we have events in the tech tree(ex: Egyptian Expedition) then there can only be one line of techs. Since the tech should be discovered by the time of the campaign. This also means that there has to be a fixed amount of techs per age.

Or did I get this wrong?

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
exactly Steph,but look at the dates 1801 Egypt
1812 Talavera also after France annexed the Swiss cantonments no more were forthcoming. And the treaty was 1815. The place i found the Information was in the history department in Oxford England and i doubt they would put out erronous information.

My remark was not meant to say your were wrong : as you said Vienna is 1815. It was more question to ask if someone can confirm this clause of the treaty because I'm not sure of it. For my personal culture.

@ Yoda, that is how I saw things.

pros : it can replace events
cons : it might be a bit too directive


@ all, Austrian line released (check link in my sig).

@Oz You have Railroads in the tech tree. I don't doubt that this is historically correct, but did you think to include railroad in the mod? I think that would get the game play totally out of whack. :(
One of the techs (some kind of Engineering tech) could enable bridges in the mod (ie you don't lose movement points when crossing a river). And I know bridges where around before Napoleon ;), this is just game play.

I agree with mrtn about the RR, not sure about bridges though.

BTW mrtn, do you think you could make a graphic that would replace the radar tower by a supply depot/train (not RR train) along Kryten's idea ?

Originally posted by LouLong
...BTW mrtn, do you think you could make a graphic that would replace the radar tower by a supply depot/train (not RR train) along Kryten's idea ? I could probably do a c'n'p with the "Colony" graphic as base, what do you think?

RR should not be in, Bridges would be good for gameplay reasons, but we should find a realistic reason to include them.

Originally posted by LouLong
@ Yoda, that is how I saw things.Well in that case Oz have to split all the techs in one line, but I dont see how this can be done before we deside how many turns/months/years that should go between each tech.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
RR should not be in, Bridges would be good for gameplay reasons, but we should find a realistic reason to include them.

1st Euro RR was 1821, so I tend to agree -- how about changing "Iron Anchor Chains" to "Improved Metallurgy" and putting bridges then?

-Oz

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Well in that case Oz have to split all the techs in one line, but I dont see how this can be done before we deside how many turns/months/years that should go between each tech.

I was basically assuming ca. 1795 - 1820 and further assuming about 1 year to research 1 tech (sorry, I forget who suggested this metric and I don't have time to check now) -- If we nail down the # years and like that approach then the length of time per turn becomes irrelevant from this POV.

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Tech tree:

If we have events in the tech tree(ex: Egyptian Expedition) then there can only be one line of techs. Since the tech should be discovered by the time of the campaign. This also means that there has to be a fixed amount of techs per age.

Or did I get this wrong?

E.g., "Egyptian Expedition" and "Darwin's Expedition" could be Wonders dependent upon an optional "off-shoot" tech called "Scientific Inquiry" or some such.

-Oz

I agree RR should be out. For bridge, it could be link to some event / tech, like the creation of the "Pont & Chaussées" by Napoléon in 1804, with a complete reform of the civil engineer.

Here are some "tech - events"' for France, if we can

- First use of Mongtolfière 21-10-1783 : Pilâtre du Rosier and Marquis d'Arlandes are the first to leave the ground with a Montgolfière. A long human dream is fulfilled : a man can fly!
-> mongolfière unit with radar flag?

- Civil constitution of the clergy : 12-07-1789 : All priests must swear to the civil authorities, as all the other civil servants. Bishops are elected by citizens, without the need to ask the Pope any confirmation.
- > Adverse effect with the papacy if included?

-Declaration of the rights of Men and Citizens 26-08-1789, "All Men are born free and equal in their rights". The monarchy if divine right is definitely abolished in France.
-> New government? Wonder?

-War of Vendée and war of the Chouans (after "civil constitution of the Clergy" )The people of Vendée, very pious, is upset by the new civil constitution of Clergy. Their nobles, who didn't fled as the others, supported by English, lead a series of wars against the French revolutionaries.
There were several wars : 1st of Vendée (1793-1794), Federalist War (1794), 1st Guerre of the Chouans (1793-1796), 2nd war of Vendée (1795-1796), 3d war of Vendée (1799-1800); 2nd war of the Chiyans (1799-1800). The people of Vendée and the Chouans were not really the same, but in game termes, I think they could be treated as one.
-> Don't know how to translate it in Civ III effect

- Continental blocus : allow trade embargo

- Civil engineer reform : In 1804, Napoleon creates the corps of "Pont et Chaussée", in charge of roads and bridges in France.
-> allow bridge?

-Civil code : 1804, 21 march, With the Civil Code, Napoleon writes a book including laws for almost all the cases known at that time. The judgment can then be equitable everywhere in the country: a true equality before the law is possible.
-> Courthouse?

-Napoleon sell Louisiane to the US : Napoleon , to oppose England, first tried to create a carribean empire, in 1802, but the English fleet prevented it. Then in an attempt to get the USA on his side, Napoleon sold them the Louisiane, a huge territory, west of the USA.
-> locked alliance with USA?

-Creation of the Polytechnic School:Date : 1st September 1795. -> increase tech

-Carnot reforms the army : March 1793 The army was reformed, and scheduled to have 1 million men.
-> increase army size?

-Creation of St Cyr 1802
-> barracks in every city

-Creation of Sugar industry, based on sugar beet :1812
As sugar cane supply is difficult to find due to the English blocus, the French developed a sugar beet industry
-> new resource appear in France?

Just some exemple

Steph, re: the tech events -- :goodjob: nice!

-Oz

Oz- Could you make a line with yours and stephs ideas combined, then I´ll begin placing the techs.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Oz- Could you make a line with yours and stephs ideas combined, then I´ll begin placing the techs.

Shall do -- now that life's back to "normal" :rolleyes: I was planning to have a second draft ready by Sunday.

-Oz

PS - Is my understanding correct: approximately 1 tech per year and approcuimately 25 years (~1795-1820)?

-O.

Originally posted by ozymandias
PS - Is my understanding correct: approximately 1 tech per year and approcuimately 25 years (~1795-1820)?

-O. yes that should be correct:)

bump#

Oz im still waiting:)

Originally posted by Yoda Power
bump#

Oz im still waiting:)

Apologies -- r/w deadlines for the stuff I actually get paid to do :)

-- I'll have a second draft posted by tonight, New York time.

-Oz

Originally posted by ozymandias


Apologies -- r/w deadlines for the stuff I actually get paid to do :)

-- I'll have a second draft posted by tonight, New York time.

-Oz No problem, I just had to be sure you havent forgot us;). Now im off to play stephs mod...

No, you are off to start downloading Steph's mod :D

About Grognards :

some infantries (such as the Austrian one) changed during the game era. Should these be just graphical changes (era changes and era-specific unit graphics would therefore be needed) or actual upgrades ?

mrtn asked how the support train (using radar flag) should look like. Any ideas ? Wagons ? fortified camp ?

Originally posted by LouLong
No, you are off to start downloading Steph's mod :D

About Grognards :

some infantries (such as the Austrian one) changed during the game era. Should these be just graphical changes (era changes and era-specific unit graphics would therefore be needed) or actual upgrades ?

mrtn asked how the support train (using radar flag) should look like. Any ideas ? Wagons ? fortified camp ? I had just finished downloading the mod when i made the post:p

I think it should be unit upgrades, thats simply more fun.

support train? did I miss something?

The units should upgrade. The Prussian army complety changed in a few years. The Russian also had changes in tactics with officer sudh as Barclay du Tolly.
And it would be nice to have better French units at the beginning, with a filling of the gap toward the end, as coalition units will upgrade faster than the French.

*Paalikles delurks:
Giving the French an advantage strengthwise over the other nations sounds risky - imho there should be some element slightly balancing out the action, as you wouldnt want the french to conquer the entire map too soon....
In order to have coalition units upgrade faster - does that mean that there will be civ specific tech trees, or did I just misread/misunderstand?
On second thought I guess there could be some way to upgrade a UU to another UU...:hmm:...(havent really checked out the editor yet, myself)

BTW - I will lurk in this thread - and can probably help playtest if there is something to test in holidays (too busy studying rest of the year:( )

As promised ... :cool:

Notes:

1. "Era=None" techs remain the same.

2. On the chart, circles with abbreviations in them are simply meant to make the chart readable: e.g., after the box "Military Invention" come the circle "< Mil. Inv. >" letting you know what the tech's abbreviation is. ("Bourg Soc" = "Bourgeois Society" and "Rev. Rep." = "Revolutionary Republic". )

3. Just a few symbols as minor notes / thoughts: "+" = new ability and "=" = improvement / wonder.

4. There's actual thought behind all this :crazyeye: so if something isn't readily apparent, just ask!

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by Paalikles

In order to have coalition units upgrade faster - does that mean that there will be civ specific tech trees, or did I just misread/misunderstand?

Actually what we had in mind was a tech-tree that would correspond to yearly events so as to replace events (that cannot be implemented in Civ3) and allowing some kind of progress.

Feel free to lurk around but the testing won't begin any time soon I am afraid. :D

Originally posted by Yoda Power
support train? did I miss something?

It is in reference to Kryten's idea of having the radar flag used by support trains since logisitcs were already very important then. Of course their presence would reinforce the fighting power of nearby armies (by support). Now of course these would be only static and only in one's territory (as radars).
BTW does any one know if the radar of an allied power gives you a bonus in combat too ?

@ all : OK, we will stick to to upgrades. And don't ruin your lifes (RL ones I mean) over the project already. Conquests has not even shipped yet !

If National Bank = Central Bank, then I might be able to do some civilopedia work - at least textwise, for you. I am curious as to what you want it to do in the civ3 world though

Edit: inserted topic to post

Originally posted by Paalikles
If National Bank = Central Bank, then I might be able to do some civilopedia work - at least textwise, for you. I am curious as to what you want it to do in the civ3 world though

Edit: inserted topic to post

Yep - particular reference is to founding of the Bank Of France in 1801; I've not looked into any others (Bank Of England, etc.) Civilopedia work would certainly be appreciated :goodjob:

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by Paalikles
In order to have coalition units upgrade faster - does that mean that there will be civ specific tech trees, or did I just misread/misunderstand?

No, same tech trees, but the most advanced coalition forces will be better relatively to France than the oldest.

Example :
-Early infantry : 3/3/1 for Coalition, 4/3/1 for France
-Late infantry : 5/5/1 for coaltion, 5/5/1 for France.

Just a note for those who had downloaded the Austrian Line !

I forgot to zip in the death anim, now that is corrected. Please update if you had downloaded the file.

Oz thats a nice tree, but its not one line.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Oz thats a nice tree, but its not one line.

I know -- I laid it out this way for these first two cuts to examine the logic of what we're involving. I'd like some feedback:

(1) Are the events indeed the right ones?

(2) Do we wish them simply laid out in chronological order or, for gaming reasons, should anything in particular preceed anything else.

Best,

Oz

I think cronicel order is whatwe should go for. Afterall this is how the techs will appear. Also since a tech shall pop every year I suggest we make a table with all the years, and simply and try to fill it out. Then we will also know whats missing:)

Originally posted by Yoda Power
I think cronicel order is whatwe should go for. Afterall this is how the techs will appear. Also since a tech shall pop every year I suggest we make a table with all the years, and simply and try to fill it out. Then we will also know whats missing:)

:goodjob: Expect it before the weekend.

-Oz

Originally posted by ozymandias


:goodjob: Expect it before the weekend.

-Oz ops, that reminds me im having a little vacation soon(starts saturday), so I cant work on the tech tree before sometime next week(I havent desided how long im away yet;)).

hope you can live with that:p

Originally posted by Yoda Power
ops, that reminds me im having a little vacation soon [...]
hope you can live with that:p

I think I'll survive ;) -- Have fun!

-Oz

Originally posted by ozymandias
-- Have fun!

-Oz I will:D

properly not actually, but thats another story......

Hello Grognards!

I contacted loulong last night and asked him if you already have a map for your mod. I asked because there would be no sense of doing a brand new, since I already have one from the area you thought would be good to be covered.

So here it is. Map size is 200x200. The brown area on the map is called 'Terra Incognita' in my mod, impassable by all units, but in the map I'm about to send it's simply flood plains as I didn't change the rules. I thought it would be realistic to have such area (TI), as they were not explored before 1900's (except that of Russia, maybe, don't know for sure).

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/grognardsmap1.jpg

And here's the preview file. loulong warned me about your criticism, but don't worry, I think I can handle it:D By the way, before you say anything about African size, it is a little bit smaller because world is round, you know, and the viewpoint is focused on Europe. Phew. But send all correction comments so I know what to do, if this map is acceptable anyway.

Preview map (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/MapforGrognards.zip)

edit: The map is not quite finished, as there are no seas and oceans yet. But that's not a big job to do.

The map seems to be nice, but we don't need the bottom part, and the west part (America) could be used only in some scenario.

Its a nice map, but I dont really think we can use it. Its too big, and have to many areas that we dont need.

Originally posted by LouLong
mrtn asked how the supply depot (replacing the radar tower) should look like. Any ideas ? Wagons ? fortified camp ?

Oh, anything would do.
May I suggest something like a couple of small triangular grey tents, one larger square brown tent, and a couple of piles of barrels & boxes (and, if there is room, maybe a small wagon).
A flagpole with a banner would also look nice, and make it stand out a bit. :)

In the mean time, I wonder if I could interest anybody in a "Worker Supply Wagon" unit.... :D

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/preview_Worker_Supply_Wagon.gif

Suggested stats: exactly the same as an ancient worker, with a move of 1.
(I'm afraid that I cannot find a way of making him climb into & out of the wagon, so he 'jumps' a bit from one animation to another)

:)

Hey Kryten thats beutifull:goodjob:, though does this means you will complete it too? Within a near future;)

:lol: You know me too well master Yoda. :lol:

Yes, I'll have it ready in a day or two. :)

Oh, and I have a further suggestion for the 'Supply Depots/Dumps'.....
.....can I assume that the Civ3 Fortresses will be changed into something more 'Vauban-like'? If so, then it might be a good idea if the 'Supply Depot/Dumps' were made a tab smaller than these, so that they can fit INSIDE a Vauban Fort.
Then we can have fortified supply dumps, or alternatively, supplied fortresses. ;)

:p

BTW the indutrial fort in civ3 is Vauban-style I think.

Gentlemen,

I know we're attempting for 1 event / year for the years 1795-1820. I've nearly managed this by "doubling up" some years (e.g., there are the "years" 1804a and 1804b, whuich obviates the "need" for 1806). With the events etc. that Steph and I have worked out, this only leaves 1819 and 1820 as requiring ... soemthing ... Not much actually happened poltiically in the post-Napoleonic exhaustion (Serbia rebelled from the Ottomans in 1817; the Greeks likewise, with Great Power intervention, in 1821); the next "real" tech AFAIK would be the railroad ca. 1822.

Nevertheless, here goes --

I. KEY FOR YEARLY ADVANCES:

“=” Improvement; WONDER
“+” Worker task
“#” Government type
“%” Event-type ability (e.g., “Trade Embargo”)
“&” New unit type


II. Era=None techs:

FEUDAL SOCIETY
# “Monarchy”

BOURGEOIS SOCIETY
# “Constitutional Monarchy”

REVOLUTIONARY REPUBLIC
# “Revolutionary Republic”
& “Hot Air Balloon”


III. Pre-existing WONDERS:

= “DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS” (French) (= “Heroic Epic”?)
= “ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE” (French)


IV. TECH “TREE”

1795: NATIONALISM

1796: MILITARY INVENTION

1797: LEVEE-EN-MASSE / CONSCRIPTION
& “Conscript infantry”; “Reserve Infantry” (Landwehr, etc.)

1798: WARTIME INCOME TAX
= “Bank”?

1799: EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION
= "HIEROGLYPHS TRANSLATED" (requires “Rosetta Stone” unique resource)
1800: INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS

1801: BANK OF FRANCE FOUNDED
= "CENTRAL BANK” (5% Shields - Gold flag?)

1802: MILITARY STAFF COLLEGE
= “ST. CYR”

1803: SHRAPNEL SHELL

1804a: CIVIL CODE / CIVIL ENGINEERING

1804b: LOUISIANA PURCHASE

1805a: CONGREVE ROCKETS

1805b: MORPHINE
= “Hospital”?

1806 n/a; = “1804b”

1807a: GREAT BRITAIN PROHIBITS SLAVE TRADE.
= EMANCIPATION

1807b: STREET GASLIGHTS
= "Police Station"

1808: IRON ANCHOR-CHAINS
% “Trade Embargo”

1809: n/a; = “1805b”

1810: CANNED FOOD

1811: LUDDITE REBELLION

1812a: ANGLO-AMERICAN WAR

1812b: STEAM-POWERED SHIPS
= “FIRST TRANS-ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP CROSSING” (actually by The USS Savannah in 1818)

1812c: BEET SUGAR REFINED

1814: STEAM-POWERED PRINTING PRESS

1815: STEAM-POWERED WARSHIPS

1816: MAIN MANPOWER POOL DEPLETED

1818: n/a; = “1807b”

1819: ???

1820: ???


-- Over to you, Yoda! (post-holiday, of course! ;) )

Best,

Oz

My com crashed, and still is so I havent been here for awhile.

Now why is this thread not active? Has everyone disappeared or something?

Originally posted by Yoda Power
My com crashed, and still is so I havent been here for awhile.

Now why is this thread not active? Has everyone disappeared or something?

Welcome back! :) How was your holiday?

-- I think we've been (i) waiting for you to take the next step with the tech tree and (ii) perhaps waiting and holding our collective breath to see what Conquests has to offer (now supposedly shipping ca. November 4th here in the States).

... Oh and Steph's been happily preoccupied ;) ...

Abraxas,

Oz

Sorry for the "dead thread" impresion.

As far as I am concerned :

- virus pbs (computer)
- much busier real life (have to stay in Paris 3 days of the week)
- waiting (eagerly) to see some C3C new stuff (and what they can do for the scenario)
- working on units (BTW statusperfect has done the Potuguese infantry).
- am still looking for the perfect map to do (and I still hope Steph will start working on really important products (no size limits for the bmp to bic converter) rather than wasting time with his children ;) ).
But the project is not dead (AFAIC anyway), still it is a long-term project so I don't want to rush anything.

Originally posted by LouLong
- am still looking for the perfect map to do (and I still hope Steph will start working on really important products (no size limits for the bmp to bic converter) rather than wasting time with his children ;) ).

Don't hope to much. It's far down my TODO list. Very far... So far it isn't on the list...

Thomas Hancock
Thomas Hancock was an English inventor who founded the British rubber industry. Hancock invented the masticator, a machine that shredded rubber scraps, allowing rubber to be recycled after being formed into blocks or rolled into sheets.

In 1820, Thomas Hancock patented elastic fastenings for gloves, suspenders, shoes and stockings. In the process of creating the first elastic fabrics, Hancock found himself wasting considerable rubber. He invented the masticator to help conserve rubber.

Hancock kept notes during the process of invention. He made the following comments: "pieces with fresh cut edges would perfectly unite; but the outer surface, which had been exposed, would not unite... it occurred to me that if minced up very small the amount of fresh-cut surface would be greatly increased and by heat and pressure might possibly unite sufficiently for some purposes".

Hancock initially did not patented his machine, instead he gave it the deceptive name of "pickle" so that no one would know what it was.

The first masticator was a wooden machine that used a hollow cylinder studded with teeth - inside the cylinder was a studded core that was hand cranked. In 1821, Hancock joined forces with the Scottish chemist and inventor of waterproof fabrics, Charles Macintosh. Together they produced macintosh coats, or mackintoshes. The wooden masticator turned into a steam-driven metal machine, used to supple the Macintosh factory with masticated rubber.

In 1837, Thomas Hancock finally patented the masticator, when Macintosh's water-proofing patent was being challenged.

In the pre-Goodyear and pre-vulcanization age of rubber age, the masticated rubber that Hancock invented was used for pneumatic cushions, mattresses, pillows and bellows, hose, tubing, solid tires, shoes, packing and springs. It was used everywhere. Hancock became the largest manufacturer of rubber goods in the world.

Ok so we are waiting for C3C, no prob:)

btw im back online from now(I hope;))

I’d like to suggest some of the following ways of adapting Napoleonic tactics into civ3. Not actually read the whole thread yet, just transferring this from the history forum to here :)

The Corps System: Napoleon made early and constant use of forming his armies into corps, which represented a miniature army in it’s own right, combining the strengths and weaknesses of all units within. Though out of scale as I would imagine the Civ3 version on larger maps to have units representing regiments or battalions (therefore civ “armies” being little more than divisions or brigades) my recommendation to represent this is to give the French a Military Academy from the beginning, free. Others may build it in the normal fashion, but as the French were alone for most of the war in adopting this type of system, then they should get the advantages this brings.

Army limits: In the reality of this period, Napoleonic armies were small, this was prior to the age of mass conscription it should be remembered. Though Napoleon’s army of the Russian campaign is often cited as an example of mass armies (it was 500,000+ strong after all) it is to be remembered that something close to ½ of this was not even from France! Though probably 250,000+ were serving in Spain (mostly French) and probably 1,000,000+ were reserves across Europe, this was rare in the European armies of the time. Britain never fielded more than 125,000 troops in a campaign army of the time, not even with Portugese and Spanish and German allies.

Because of this I would recommend making it harder to produce new units, if not extremely hard. This represents two things, firstly the general trouble nations had with recruitment at the time, and also represents the way that commanders like Wellington were forced to protect what precious little troops they actually had. I would suggest making it even harder to rebuild elite formations such as the Guards (of all armies) as this would again produce the effect of each player protecting such units rather than flinging Napoleon’s guard into combat in every battle. (more on this later)

There were rare occasions on which mass drafts occurred, namely in Napoleon’s army in the wake of the 1812 disaster, or during the hundred days or the French revolutionary troops, or in the Prussian army through the use of Landwehr during the 1813, 1814 and 1815 campaigns, BUT this can be accurately portrayed through the drafting system. The troops raised in all these examples were quite inferior to the standard for the army in previous times

Your ideas are interesting. However, even if the global size of armies was relatively constant (in terms of number of regiments), the casualties were heavy. So it means we would need a way to replenish units. This means battlefield medicine, but then the Russia campaign is unlikely to happen that way.
Beside, remember that a regiment was seldom "destroyed". It was dispersed during the battle becase of losses, routed troups, etc, but then the regiment was "reborn". As in civ III a unit cannot rout, it is destroyed. So the only way to revive the unit would be create a new one.

But I agree we would need a way to limit the size of army.

Perhaps we could make city improvements and wonders cost nothing (I don't think they are that important for the mod), so the cost would be only upkeep, and try to change the maintenance cost to match cities?

I just feel it's more accurate to do it that way. Armies of this time had severe limits on recruitment, even France had trouble and Napoleon more than once had to mass draft troops to replace losses, and the quality would be closer to conscript than Vetran. Trained formations were hard to come by, making it too easy doesn't exactly sit historically, even if it might for game purposes a better game. Reform it may do, but each time the standard dropped again, the units formed for the 1812 campaign were numerically the same as those fighting in the 1805 campaign, but by that stage were very much inferior in quality to those of 1805.

Whilst reforming after routing is true, could that not be done by retreating the unit? Forgive me if some of the suggestions seem silly games wise, I don't play civ3 as often as I'd like. Unfortunately there's no exact way to limit the army sizes without consent of the players I guess....

Also, one thing I think it will represent is the effect a serious defeat in battle causes. Prussia's defeat in 1806 took her the best part of 6 years to recover from, Austria took 4 years to recover from Austerlitz and so on. With excpetions such as Russia and France, it was rare for armies, once serious losses were inflicted to bounce back, they needed time to reform, rebuild and so on.

It cannot be done with retreat, because an army can retreat only if it has 2 movement point, and the other 1 MP.
So there's no way to give infantry the possibility to retreat.

I think the cost should vary from civ to civ, to reflect quality / size of army.

England should have troops which are long to build, so it should try to keep initial troops.
Early Prussian army should be very expensive, but then it should be cheaper -> if the Prussian army is destroyed, then it wille take time to recover, except if the Prussian army has been reformed and cheap landweher can be recruited.
France should have relatively cheap army, because Napoloen was quite good to raise new armies.
But as it would give a quality drop, I would suggest two versions of French troop : inexpensive lower quality, expensive normal quality.
And I agree, for all armies guard / elite units should be very expensive.

It cannot be done with retreat, because an army can retreat only if it has 2 movement point, and the other 1 MP.

Well that just plain sucks :( Silly game need changing ;)

The rest, yes I agree with some of it, also I think that Russia should have relatively cheap formations, cheaper than the British anyway. Also they raised militia during the 1812 campaign, so should they have the option of drafting/cheaper but inferior units from then on also?

The two unit french infantry sounds good as well as it gives the opportunity to represent french ability to draw on conscription without bringing in mass vetran fusiliers :D

Another thing to consider is Cavalry. Though Napoleon did manage to raise armies fast, it's true, the main problem he had was Horses. It could be argued a large part of the reasoning behind his defeat in the 1813 campaign was down to a lack of cavalry. Though it's probably already been considered, it wouldn't be right to allow infinite numbers of cavalry formations and/or cavalry replacements. These were expensive units, costing many times more than a standard infantry unit to both recruit and maintain. I would think this should be represented by a higher than normal cost for these units to represent the difficulty in raising them.

aww ****

hey guys when is this scenario comeing out?

Originally posted by Al Zan
hey guys when is this scenario comeing out? When its finish.=We dont know.

Wehavent even startet making the biq file yet.

I think march-april 2004 could be a good date for a complete release.

And sorry for the recent contributors who thought the thread was "dead". It isn't, we just wait for the new C3C features and statusperfect and I are working on some units too.

BTW all help is welcome.
Private Hudson had nice ideas (I just don't agree with the light infnatry now) but that is something we will do later on anyway and I hope you will be a playtester for the armies, combats etc... private hudson.

Maps should be OK but leaderheads would be real cool as well as graphics such as the Rosetta stone, special city graphics and support trains (great Kryten's ideas to represent bonus for logistics) graphics (mrtn should do them).

Any takers for leaderheads ? I think a good Napoleon leaderhead could be used by many people, not just this mod. Pitt, ... ??

Although I am no longer a member of the Grognards-team,
I think it can be a good idea for you to visit the
The Wargamer:s site.

They have info concerning 2 books that give 100% info
concerning Order of Battle:s,