Welcome here,

I hope the weird title attracted your attention, well it stands for the NAPoleonic Project.

The idea is to gather people interested in the period to create a Napoleonic mod, gather napoleonic resources (units, icons, ...), ideas and scenarios (yes, plural form) eventually (Egypt, Spain, Europe 1812,...).

Trip seems to have vanished and I am making Napoleonic units at the moment (even if only copy/paste) and they seem to me like a good way to attract attention and gather people. Because I need help : help for doing items but for discussing ideas and the era as well. So you don't need to be a unit creator to "join" the project.

I will start a set of forums at CDG as well (easier organization) but since I spend most of my time here this current thread should not die, provided there are other people interested.

We would need unit creators (of course :p ), graphics people, tester (to test ideas, not only for the finished product) and quality controllers (that is probably for later), people interested (or specialists) for some topics (ships,...), the way to handle the tech-tree or the Spaceship, people who would want to use the mod to create their own scenario on the period, wanderers and criticizers,.... :D

This is a long-term project that will take advantage of the new Conquests features and much more precise than the expected Conquests scenario.
BTW they should provide us with at least one new unit for that scenario !

NAPP mod and main scenario time frame : 1789 - 1820

1789 - 1795 the Revolutionary period (posibility to not include it to focus only on the Napoleonic era)
1795 - 1804 The rise of France
1804 - 1812 The Empire (Golden Age)
1812 - 1820 : The Decline (now of course civ is a what if history so 1815 does not have to end the process)

which makes a bit more than 300 turns if we consider one turn equals one month.

Still open to discussion and new ideas.

This post is to list the major countries, their armies, fleet and leaders and to represent the advancement of the work. When SOMEONE is written, it means somebody is welcome to take part in the job. Contact us and we will give you models.

Austria
Infantry : Austria had 64 regiments of line infantry that were divided along their ethnic origin (mostly German (44) then Hungarian (12), and some Wallons (Belgium)(5), Croatian (2) and Italian (1). They wore mostly a white uniform. Besides existed some Landwehr (territorial military, 15 regiments) and some chasseurs (light infantry).
The uniform did not evolve much during the period except for the Line helmet which copied the "French" shako after 1805.
Cavalry grouped 8 regiments of heavy cavalry (cuirassiers), hussars (12) and Uhlans (4)

Units :
Line Infantry before 1805 done by Loulong, not posted
Line Infantry after 1805 done by Loulong, not posted
Landwehr Loulong
Chasseurs SOMEONE
Cuirassiers SOMEONE
Hussars SOMEONE
Uhlans SOMEONE

Britain
Denmark-Norway
France
Ottomans
Portugal
Units :
Line infantry : StatusPerfect
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden

Austria
Barabesc (Maghreb)
Britain
Denmark (Norway)
France
Ottomans
Mamluk
Netherlands / Batavia
Poland
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain (loyalist)
Spain (Napoleonic)
Sweden
Swiss / Helvetia
USA


Italy will be divided as such :

Austria (Tuscany, Milanese Lombardia)
Venice
Papal States
Savoy/Sardinia
Naples
Small Italians (Genoa, Parma, Modena)
kingfom of Italy (Napoleonic)


Germany will be divided as such (and the empty shell of Holy Roman Empire will be forgotten or could just be a "race"). The independant cities within minor states will be incorporated

Britain (Hannover)
Denmark (Holstein)
Sweden (Pomerania)
Austria and Prussia
Bavaria
Germany (all others, including some cities)
Rhine confederacy (others than Wurtemberg)
Saxony
Westphalia
Wurtemberg (or Bade-Wurtemberg) that will be made one country


which amounts to 29, knowing than all of them cannot appear on the same map at the same time.

Another one

And the last one

Originally posted by LouLong
Trip seems to have vanished Well, I know he is busy testing Conquests. ;) I hope he will start showing up here again soon, though. :)

Of course I'm in!

And more project, one!

Originally posted by Steph
Of course I'm in!

And more project, one!

:D (without you it would not have been the same :love: )

Originally posted by Padma
Well, I know he is busy testing Conquests. ;) I hope he will start showing up here again soon, though. :)

Well, he did not answer my PMs about his project (Conquests must be real good if he is that busy) so I just decided to create a real group on that project and I intend to see it finished.

Few people interested :cry: I hope some more will join in during the process.

OK, first questions :

1/ Time Period
2/ Eras
3/ Countries

Don't hesitate to bring in your stone.

1. The mod should run from 1789 to 1816(quite obvious I think)

2. Eras:

Revolution(1798-1795)
Rise of France(1796-1802)
Empire(1802-1812)
Decline of France(1812-1816)

3. Civs:

France(duh)
Britain
Russia
Austria
Prussia
Spain
Portugal
Ottomans
German States
Netherland
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Kingdom of Naples and Sicily
North Italian States
Swiss Confederation
Poland
North African States

I'm kinda interested. :) I don't know if I'd be a permanent member, or just drop in from time to time.
I think that the conquest is fun, so you'll probably find some nice things there. :D
btw napp means teat in Swedish, so it's a silly name for a mod. :D

Originally posted by Yoda Power
1. The mod should run from 1789 to 1816(quite obvious I think)

Or perhaps a bit longer, for "what if" evolution.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
2. Eras:

Revolution(1798-1795)
Rise of France(1796-1802)
Empire(1802-1812)
Decline of France(1812-1816)
[/B]
1798-1795? Can the turns go backward?
Empire should start 1804 (2nd december 1804).
This way you have : 6 years for first era, 8 for second, 8 for third, and 4 for last (an even 6 if you continue till let say 1818), it's more balanced than 6,6,10,4.

Originally posted by Yoda Power

3. Civs:
France(duh)
Britain
Russia
Austria
Prussia
Spain
Portugal
Ottomans
German States
Netherland
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Kingdom of Naples and Sicily
North Italian States
Swiss Confederation
Poland
North African States
You can split German states, including for instance Bavaria as an independant country. You could also forget North African States, and make them barbarian (after all, Algiers was known for pirate activity).
USA could also be in if you want to include the war of 1812 against the evil English.

Or perhaps a bit longer, for "what if" evolution.I thought about that too after I posted. Then I suggest make it end in 1820.

1798-1795? Can the turns go backward?
Empire should start 1804 (2nd december 1804).
This way you have : 6 years for first era, 8 for second, 8 for third, and 4 for last (an even 6 if you continue till let say 1818), it's more balanced than 6,6,10,4. woops, typo, I meant 1789. Ok so the eras should be:

1789-1795
1795-1804
1804-1812
1812-1820

this is just my own suggestion, LouLong has´nt approved it.

You can split German states, including for instance Bavaria as an independant country. You could also forget North African States, and make them barbarian (after all, Algiers was known for pirate activity).
USA could also be in if you want to include the war of 1812 against the evil English.Well yes you could split the german states, but it should´nt be more than into two civs. They would become too week otherwise. Did´nt even thought about USA, but I think it should be Europe onyl. It wasn´t a world war.

We could have a part of the map showing the East coast of America and Canada, make Ocean impassable except to English ships.

So England can get a bit more resources from colonies, and if US decide to attack them, then they need to dispatch reinforcement that could have been useful in Europe.

But it's not an very important idea, I'd rather see a nice European only scenario

Also, the US's Barbary Wars fall in that period.
What would also be cool is a "Hundred Days" scenario, where you would start with essentially nothing but Napoleon, and build yourself up using military and high culture buildings to cause Royalist cities to flip to your side. Naturally, it would be a 100 turnish scenario :)

Originally posted by mrtn
I'm kinda interested. :) I don't know if I'd be a permanent member, or just drop in from time to time.
I think that the conquest is fun, so you'll probably find some nice things there. :D
btw napp means teat in Swedish, so it's a silly name for a mod. :D

Good news.
Hoe there will be new stuff I can use (but it won't be the same scope here)
it is an English-speaking forum (or so I have been warned about :D ) so it is OK. Besides I really don't mind such a nickname for the Swedish community (look, it attracted you attention, didn't it ? :p ).

Originally posted by jamesjkirk
Also, the US's Barbary Wars fall in that period.
What would also be cool is a "Hundred Days" scenario, where you would start with essentially nothing but Napoleon, and build yourself up using military and high culture buildings to cause Royalist cities to flip to your side. Naturally, it would be a 100 turnish scenario :)

Actually the idea behind the mod is not to actaully have it playable but to have all the resources to make scenarios. The project will include the global scenario but other ideas can be included too (and by other people) like the war in Egypt, the 1812 campaign from US to Russia,..... and I volunteer to do the special maps for everyone who intends on creating a scenario for that period).

I actually quite like the 4 eras discussed by Yoda and Steph.
I am the "moderator" here and I don't want to be the only one to decide (though I might have to do that sometimes ;) ).

That would of course represent the entire period and not only the Napoleonic one but as previously said once we have all the data it should be easy to do specialized scenarios.

So I propose the :

1789-1795
1795-1804
1804-1812
1812-1820

1815 is of course not set in stone since Civ3 is about what if history.

Please state if you disagree (and why) before it is carved in marble for eternity.

LouLong,

With bitter experience from working with ACW I say:

Be sure that AI will not treat the map as a "one-continent" map.
If AI "think" its a "one-continent" map it will never produce
a single naval unit!!!


Rocoteh

OK, most countries are agreed upon without any difficulty.

Austria, Britian, France, Prussia and Russia as the major protagonists.

Spain, Portugal, Ottomans, Sweden, Denmark-Norway and NOT the Netherlands (these were part of France soon after the revolution (Batave republic + integrated into France).

Now the others: remember this is supposed to be both a mod and a scenario. As a scenario, it can only include 31 civs but the mod can include more that will be usable partly in the other scenarios that I hope some people will decide working on.

So we could have USA as well as the different states of Germany (Bavaria, Bade, Saxony,...) and Italy (Papal States, Venice....) or the forced Napoleonic allies (Westphalia, Naples, Italy, Swiss, Poland (linked to Saxony)) depending on the period so I think we should gather as many as possible for the mod (including Barbary coast) but we have to choose up to 31 for the main scenario and to keep it playable.

That is 11 with the first and secondary powers. Now, propose your list for the others !

Originally posted by Rocoteh
LouLong,

With bitter experience from working with ACW I say:

Be sure that AI will not treat the map as a "one-continent" map.
If AI "think" its a "one-continent" map it will never produce
a single naval unit!!!


Rocoteh

Thanks for the tip (and to have your experienced advice here is definitely welcome so I hope you will stick around).

Now, Britain at least will be a big island. Is it sufficent to have the AI consider it is not only a "one-continent" map. Besides, when playing TAM or MEM, the Med is often crossed by ships so that would make me consider the shape of the map acts as well (but have not decide yet what map to take).

LouLong,

Thank you. I will be around here. How much depends on
if Procifica returns to ACW. If Procifica not returns I will
close support for ACW and allocate more time to other
projects, like this.

With regard to the map I do not think Britain is enough,
but adding U.S. will make a difference.
An early existing "Suez-channel" making Africa an
separate continent in the eyes of AI, would increase
chances for naval production further more, but I guess
that idea is hard for many to accept.

Rocoteh

Im pretty sure the reason that no naval units are build in ACW is because its not the fastest way to get through the continent. In the case of the Med it is almost always the fastest way to come across.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Im pretty sure the reason that no naval units are build in ACW is because its not the fastest way to get through the continent. In the case of the Med it is almost always the fastest way to come across.

That sounds reasonable, but when we added a "ghost-CIV" on a
fantasy-continent, AI responded (after declaration of war)
direct with starting to produce naval units.

Rocoteh

There are two things I definitely cannot do myself and that would require one dedicated person each :

- the Fleet
- the Leaderheads

Fleet :

The person in charge would need to identify the number and types of vessels for the different periods, including some special ships with their names, check for graphics and ask someone to do or do him/herself the possible missing ones then to place them on the map (for later).

Leaderheads :

well, different options here (please mention what you prefer).
- just use flags (probably using the ones that will be provided in the Napoleonic scenario)
- use leaderheads if they are provided in the scenario
- (best choice IMHO) have someone create a special set of leaderheads with the same kind of graphic touch to give a sense of unity. These leaderheads would not require to be completely animated nor would they require different eras. The idea would be to have something a bit like what Gael did for the Atlantic archipelago leaderheads.

If people are interested, just post in this thread. For the fleet I know some work had already been done in the Trip's Napoleonic thread. For the leaderheads we will wait for Conquests anyway (just in case) but if someone would accept the idea beforehand, it would be nice and we can find/provide lots of art on which to base leaderheads.

Should we use units or M-units for this mod. The way I see it M-unit would allow for more realism and differenciation between corps/divisions,... and technics of the different units (grenadier columns,...).

Of course if most people like the M-unit idea, it would be nice if someone would like to do them :o :lol:

LouLong,

Do you intend to use hit-points as quantity factors or
quality factors? In ACW its a quantity factor (In my
personal mod its a quality factor). The hit-point is
in fact the basic unit in ACW, since during the Civil War
the standard regiment consisted of 1 000 men.
A brigade then could be 2-6 regiments, but normally
it had 4 regiments.

Thus the standard unit in ACW is a (veteran) brigade
with 4 hit-points.
I think this model could be used for this era also, even
if there were many more unit-organizations.

Or what do you think?

Edit: I hit "submit reply" before I saw Post 28.

Rocoteh

I think we should stick to unit not M-units, I also think we should have hitpoint acording to quality, not quantity. The way I see it this would allow more flexibility(if you have a 100 rifleman unit you cant split it into two 50 riflemen units, if the unit does´nt represent any given number it would´nt matter).

If hit-points should reflect quality, then making the
division the standard unit would be a good idea.

Napoleon had 20 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry
Divisions at Waterloo.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
If hit-points should reflect quality, then making the
division the standard unit would be a good idea.

Napoleon had 20 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry
Divisions at Waterloo.

Rocoteh sounds good to me. How many divisions did France have at its high(in this period ofcause)?

Here are the number of regiments (not division) for the main countries. I have added the date when known

FRANCE. Total : Infantry: 223, Cavalry: 77
Infantry :
- Light infantry : 32 (1804)
- Line infantry : 112 (1806, 135 (1813).
No grenadier regiment, as grenadier were mixed in line infantry regiment.
Cavalry :
- Cuirassier : 12 (1806) 14 (1809)
- Carabiniers : 2
- Dragoon : 30
- Chasseurs : 15
- Chevau-léger lancer : 6 (created in 1811)
- Hussars : 10 (1806), 12(1810)
Guard infantry (number changed a lot during the war):
- Grenadiers : up to 50 in 1813!
- Chasseurs : up to 20
Guard cavalry:
- Horse grenadier : 2
- Chasseur : 1
- Chevaux leger lancer : 2 (3 in 1812 only )
- Dragoon : 1
- Scout : 3

ENGLAND. Total : Infantry : 107, Cavalry : 34
Infantry :
- Guard : 3
- Line : 96 ( 7 highlanders)
- Lignt infantry : 6 (1 highlanders)
- Riflemen : 2
Cavalry :
- Hussar : 0, 4(1811, created from light dragoon)
- Light dragoon : 19, 15 (1811)
- Life guard : 2
- Horse guard : 1
- Dragoon guard : 7
- Dragoon : 5


Austria had until 1809 64 infantry regiments. 5 were Wallon, 1 Italian, 1 Croat, 12 Hungarian and the others German.
Austria also had 17 bounder regiment, and 1 chasseur corps.
In 1812, Austria had 8 Cuirassiers regiments, 12 Hussar regiment 3 Ulhan regiments, 6 dragoon regiments, and 6 Chevauxleger.

In 1805, Russia had 13 Grenadiers regiments, 83 musketeers regiments and 26 chasseurs regiments.
Russian cavalry had 6 Cuirassiers regiments, 30 Dragoon regiments, 8 hussars regiments, 2 horse regiment (ulhan).

In 1812, there were 12 ulhan regiments, with the converion of 7 dragoon regiment to ulhan. 8 other Dragoon regiments were converted into chasseurs à cheval.

The Russian Imperial Guard had in 1811:
- 3 heavy infantry regiment
- 3 chasseur regiment
- 2 cuirassier regiments (a third un 1813)
- 1 hussar regiment
- 1 cossack regiment
- 1 ulhan regiment
-1 dragoon regiment
- 1 chasseur a cheval regiment (1814)

Russia also had 10 cossacks regiments

To finish, here are the russian names of cavalry (but I don't speak Russian, so I hope it's correct)
- cuirassier = kyrasi
- dragoon = dragounski
- hussar = gousari
- horse = konni
- chasseurs à cheval = konno iégurski

PRUSSIA total : Infantry : 60, Cavalry : 19 to 35
Infantry
- total 60 (no details, sorry)
Cavalry, 1792-1807
- Cuirassiers : 13
- Dragoon : 12
- Hussar : 10
Cavalry,1808-1812
- Cuirassiers : 4
- Dragoon: 6
- Hussars : 7
- Ulhan : 2
Cavalry, 1813-1815
- Guard : 4
- Cuirassiers : 4
- Dragoon : 8
- Hussars : 12
- Ulhan : 4

SPAIN :
Infantry :
- Line regiment : 35
- Light regiment : 12
Cavalry :
- Dragoon : 8
- Line : 13

POLAND (Grand Duchy of Warsaw)
Infantry
- 22 regiments
Cavalry :
- Chasseur : 3
- Hussar : 2
- Cuirassiers : 1
- Ulhan : 14

BAVARIA
Infantry :
- line : 11
- light : 6
Cavalry :
- Dragoon : 2 (0 from 1807)
- Chevau-leger : 4 (6 from 1807)
- Hussar : 2 (from 1813)
- Ulhan : 1 (from 1813)

Oh, for pictures of units, check Trip's scenario old thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31693&perpage=20&display=&highlight=napoleonic&pagenumber=5), I had scanned many pictures here.

Thanks steph. How is a division composed?

The French army at Waterloo 1815 numbered 125 000 men.

When it crossed Niemen River June 1812 it had 513 479
Infantry/Foot Artillery, 98 379 Cavalry/Horse Artillery,
1 242 Field Guns, 130 Siege Guns,32 700 Vehicles,
25 000 Drivers/Grooms, 183 911 Army Horses and
150 000 Draft Horses. (When the Battle of Borodino started
7 September 1812 more than 50% of the horses had
starved to death)
If you use the figures from Waterloo it would mean 100
Infantry Divisions and 50 Cavalry Divisions.
That is unlikely since you had a "teeth to tail ratio" for
such a gigantic campaign. (I will look more in my sources
to see if I find the exact number of Divisions).

By the way during WW2 only 23% of U.S. army was "teeth",
that is in combat formations.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Thanks steph. How is a division composed?

A French Infantry or Cavalry Division had 2 Brigades.
Each Brigade had 2 Regiments .
Each Regiment had 1-4 battalions.
The Imperial Guard had another organization.

Edit: A French Division could normally march 120 km
per week.


Rocoteh

Well, thanks for the info.
But I guess it would be better for people specialized into that to figure that part out (like you and Steph). After all I hope other people will make it into the team. I don't want (or cannot) have it my personal project only. Thanks to let me know if you are interested in a special field so that I can "assign" members to certian topics.

Here are the pbs I have. Some regiments were very special (guard for example) and it would be difficult to represent them within divisions or brigades. Now of course regiments are probably too small to be represented by units (or we would reach fairly quickly the maximum number of troops allowed).

I don't think we should care so much about the "teeth" ratio you mentionned since this cannot be represented in Civ3. Or did you have something else in mind (like city garrisons as opposed to field troops as well).

Now you consider higher hitpoints for quantity only meaning crack troops (grenadiers and especially guards) should have higher stats, correct ?

What about tech advancement ? If the project starts in 1789 I think it is needed. Otherwise ? Are there any major improvments during that period ? I know there are uniform changes which means we could require a tech tree though.

ADVERTISEMENT : Is there a good palette player who would like to modify the hussars from Cossacks to make them fit with Napoleonic armies ?

Well im joining as a member of this project. As you know im not that big on Napoleonic history, but I can do other things:)

How's this? ;)

European City Population Stats in 1815

Ca. 1.25 million:

London

Ca. 500,000:

Paris
Naples
Constantinople

Ca. 250,000:

Amsterdam
Vienna
Cairo
St. Petersburg
Moscow

Ca. 100,000:

Glasgow
Edinburgh
Dublin
Liverpool
Manchester
Birmingham
Bristol
Brussels
Rouen
Nantes
Bordeaux
Lyons
Marseilles
Barcelona
Madrid
Valencia
Lisbon
Seville
Cadiz
Milan
Turin
Genoa
Venice
Florence
Rome
Palermo
Tunis
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Berlin
Warsaw
Prague
Budapest
Smyrna
Damascus
Tunis

Ca. 60,000:

Limerick
Cork
Leeds
Sheffield
Plymouth
Ghent
Lille
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Liege
Strasbourg
Toulouse
Oporto
Granada
Malaga
Fez
Algiers
Konigsberg
Dresden
Breslau
Munich
Lvov
Verona
Bologna
Messina
Catania
Bursa
Aleppo

Cities under pop ca. 50,000 available upon request :D

BTW N. African States ca. 1815 were:

Sharifate of Morocco
Regency of Algiers
Beylik of Tunis
Pashalik of Tripoli
and the ever-popular Ottoman Empire

Have Fun! :)

-Oz

Originally posted by LouLong
OK, most countries are agreed upon without any difficulty.

Austria, Britian, France, Prussia and Russia as the major protagonists.

Spain, Portugal, Ottomans, Sweden, Denmark-Norway and NOT the Netherlands (these were part of France soon after the revolution (Batave republic + integrated into France).

Now the others: remember this is supposed to be both a mod and a scenario. As a scenario, it can only include 31 civs but the mod can include more that will be usable partly in the other scenarios that I hope some people will decide working on.

So we could have USA as well as the different states of Germany (Bavaria, Bade, Saxony,...) and Italy (Papal States, Venice....) or the forced Napoleonic allies (Westphalia, Naples, Italy, Swiss, Poland (linked to Saxony)) depending on the period so I think we should gather as many as possible for the mod (including Barbary coast) but we have to choose up to 31 for the main scenario and to keep it playable.

That is 11 with the first and secondary powers. Now, propose your list for the others !

IIRC both the Papal States, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy) and Florence (a good chunk of northern Europe) existed in 1797 independent of French rule.

I mention this in part because starting with the Sistine Chapel already built in Rome will certainly make it a juicy target ...

... although FRANCE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD CATHEDRALS -- recall there was considerable debate re: "quarrying" Notre Dame de Paris etc.

IMHO the three "German" states should be the German Empire, Prussia, and Austria.

Also don't forget "minor" possessions like Gibraltar and (1797) French control of the islands off the Balkan's western shore.

Best,

Oz

I think we should have North German States(or maybe Protestant states?), South German States(or Catholic?) Prussia and Austria.

I also think all wonders should be from this era, thus it would be alot of "event" wonders.

LouLong,

I think you misunderstand me with regard to "teeth to tail
ratio". Since Yoda Power made a question on the max.
number of divisions French had at its high, I tried to
estimate from the numbers of soldiers invading Russia 1812.

If hitpoints should represent quantity, elite forces like
the guard should have higher stats.
Edit: If on the other hand hitpoints should represent
quality: Then for example a Frendh Guard unit should
have double as many hitpoints as a regular unit.

Chasseur Division (Morand) of the Guard had 4 Regiments
at Waterloo (4 500 men). Given the extreme elite character
of the French Guard I think it could be represented by
Regiments.

I do not see a need for a tech-tree for this mod.

Yes I am interested to be a part of the team.
My special field should then be Order Of Battle and
unit organization.

Rocoteh

You dont want a tech tree? In my experience mods/scenarios without tech trees gets boring pretty quickly.

Originally posted by ozymandias

IMHO the three "German" states should be the German Empire, Prussia, and Austria.
Oz

I disagree. Prussia and Austria Hungary are major players.

The German Empire (BTW Conderacy of the Rhine would be more historically correct) was made of many different states. The biggest behind Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Wurtemberg.

I can dig out army list of all German states. It could be a good starting point to decide what to keep and what to discard.

I'm for a tech tree, but an event tech tree.
Each tech will give bonus / malus to the army.

For instance, the French army should decrease a lot in quality after 1812. This could be done with a tech that will give units which are un upgrade of earlier one, but with lower stats.

We could also use Europa Universalis II list of events to put more flavour into the game.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
You dont want a tech tree? In my experience mods/scenarios without tech trees gets boring pretty quickly.

I can think of a tech-tree if someone can come up
with something relevant to fill it with.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh


I can think of a tech-tree if someone can come up
with something relevant to fill it with.


Rocoteh Well I think there should be unit upgrades and new units. Also if we go after some event wonders it wouild be usefull too.

Originally posted by Steph


I disagree. Prussia and Austria Hungary are major players.

The German Empire (BTW Conderacy of the Rhine would be more historically correct) was made of many different states. The biggest behind Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Wurtemberg.

I can dig out army list of all German states. It could be a good starting point to decide what to keep and what to discard.

I tend to agree with you about these states, the Rhine confederacy might be too versatile for my tastes though. I could imagine some locked alliances with some (Westphalia for instance) and temporal alliance (Saxony comes to mind, wonder why ?).

No need to worry about the army sizes and such, Steph : I will do it directly (once they are chosen).

Originally posted by Steph
I'm for a tech tree, but an event tech tree.
Each tech will give bonus / malus to the army.

For instance, the French army should decrease a lot in quality after 1812. This could be done with a tech that will give units which are un upgrade of earlier one, but with lower stats.

We could also use Europa Universalis II list of events to put more flavour into the game.

If the French army should decrease in quality after 1812,
then you have pre-determined history. I mean you have de facto
determined that the invasion of Russia should end in disaster.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
LouLong,
Chasseur Division (Morand) of the Guard had 4 Regiments
at Waterloo (4 500 men). Given the extreme elite character
of the French Guard I think it could be represented by
Regiments.

I do not see a need for a tech-tree for this mod.

Yes I am interested to be a part of the team.
My special field should then be Order Of Battle and
unit organization.

Rocoteh

Welcome "Home" (:crazyeye: ) to the team.
Yes, I think you have shown your keen interest (+ experience in USCW) on that special topic. I am sure confrontation on ideas between you and Steph could bring tremenduous results :D

The tech-tree : well, since there are no events in Conquests, I copied the idea from Yoda to turn the tech-tree into an event-tree that can be calculated on a per-turn basis. But it is just my opinion.
BTW you had a tech-tree in USCW and that war lasted less longer than the Revolution + Napoleonic era !!! (so topic to be decided later).

Imperial guard : I totally agree but for one thing : can we put them on the same level as a standard brigade (seems REALLY elite then).

So my question still remains : were there any major upgrades during the war (technics, not tactics).

Originally posted by Rocoteh

If the French army should decrease in quality after 1812,
then you have pre-determined history. I mean you have de facto
determined that the invasion of Russia should end in disaster.

No, I mean I de facto determines that the French army quality decrease because of lack of manpower and enthusiasm after long years of warfare.

Originally posted by Steph


I disagree. Prussia and Austria Hungary are major players.

The German Empire (BTW Conderacy of the Rhine would be more historically correct) was made of many different states. The biggest behind Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Wurtemberg.

I can dig out army list of all German states. It could be a good starting point to decide what to keep and what to discard.

Hi Steph,

You misunderstood my comment -- I was merely listing Civs. Prussia and A-H are, without question, major powers, whereas the "German Empire" would be IMO a weak entity.

NB: the "legal" boundary of the German Empire included parts of Denmark and Austria. Other major "components" were Hanover, Saxony, and Bavaria; lesser "components" included Baden and Wurttemberg. I don't recall if entities like "The Palatinate" still existed at this time.

Abraxas,

Oz

Originally posted by LouLong

So my question still remains : were there any major upgrades during the war (technics, not tactics).

A few, like the English use of rockets. But not many.

Originally posted by Steph

No, I mean I de facto determines that the French army quality decrease because of lack of manpower and enthusiasm after long years of warfare.

I agree with Rocoteh we should not MAKE that happen automatically.
Basically : war weariness + lack of troops resulting in cronscription is what happened after 1812 (among other things as well of course) and that can happen in the game without us interefering.

BTW I think France should be the only power able to draft citizens.

Steph,

That sounds reasonable.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Steph


A few, like the English use of rockets. But not many. Then we should just incorporate, every single of the not so many upgrades that were.

Originally posted by LouLong

BTW I think France should be the only power able to draft citizens.

And Prussia. The major part of Prussian army was in fact Landwehr regiments

Originally posted by LouLong


I agree with Rocoteh we should not MAKE that happen automatically.
Basically : war weariness + lack of troops resulting in cronscription is what happened after 1812 (among other things as well of course) and that can happen in the game without us interefering.

BTW I think France should be the only power able to draft citizens.

My idea is more to have the quality of English / Prussian troops increase faster than the quality of French one.

So France is stronger at the beginning, but not so at the end.

actually drafting could be a tech. France(and Prussia perhaps) can just draft from the start of the game. Only and idea.

@ Ozy : thanks for the stats. I will try my best while doing the map so that European cities cannot grow too much and have roughly the good population. I will have to tweak some resources (a bit like Tet in his mod) to get the good growth potential as well.
But cities in Civ3 include the countryside too. So I will consider densities too and I will avoid "giants" like Sweden in some scenarios (;) )
About the precision of the map I 'd say : Do not fear, my friend. If there is one thing I am pretty good at, it is positionning accurate histrorical cities (and I have pretty good sources too).

@ Steph : yes, you are right about the Prussians and drafting.

And I agree about having non-French units becoming stronger with time. French troops will remain the same though and not decline : their relative power will shrink or even go reverse if the others progress anyway. And if the French player tries to invade Russia, he will likely have to build a large army of conscripts back in the French territories which will make him have a lower army on average. Don't you agree ?
Edit : just saw a latest post, looks like we agree on that one.

About hussars, think we can use the converted ones from Cossacks alright ?

Originally posted by LouLong
So my question still remains : were there any major upgrades during the war (technics, not tactics).

Hmmm...

1798: British introduce wartime income tax.

1799: Rosetta Stone discovered (Rosetta Stone = Resource + Wonder "Heiroglyph Translation"); also 1799, a perfectly preserved mammoth is found in Siberia (yeah, I don't know what to do with this one either :D )

Eli Whitney first made muskets with interchangeable parts in 1800; I'm not certain how fast this spread.

1801: Bank Of France founded ("Central Bank" small wonder?)

Robert Fulton's first steam-powered boat: 1803. (First European IIRC is the British "Comet" in 1812.)

Also 1803: Henry Shrapnel invents the shell (nope, not kidding :) )

1805: British army introduces Congreve rockets (also eponymous: named after their inventor, Sir William Congreve).

Also 1805: morphine isolated (could yield "Battlefield Medecine")

1807: Great Britain prohibits slave trade.

Also 1807: street gaslight is introduced in London ("Police Station"?)

1808: Ships iron anchor-chains patented in Great Britain.

1809: Braille invented.

Canned food comes on the scene in 1810.

1811 "event": Luddites destroy machinery in North England.

First steam-operated printing press: 1814, "The London Times".

First steam-powered warship, the USS Fulton (38 tons): 1815

Kaleidoscope invented in 1816 :D

1818 The USS Savannah is the first steamship to cross the Atlantic (26 days) (a Wonder?)

1819 -- Danish scientist Hans Oersted discovers electromagnetism, followed in 1820 by (another eponym) Andre Ampere's "Laws Of The Electrodynamic Action"; followed by Faraday's discovery of the fundamentals of electromagnetic rotation in 1821 ...

Sneaking ahead a bit, Charles Babbage tries his hand at the first "computer" in 1823; Faraday liquifies chlorine ("Sanitation"?)

1825 - Stockton-Darlington RR first to carry passengers (world's first iron RR bridge had been built for this line in 1822).


Hopefully this all helps --

Oz

Originally posted by ozymandias
also 1799, a perfectly preserved mammoth is found in Siberia (yeah, I don't know what to do with this one either :D )


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe we can use this as the first step to make dinausor units ? ;)

oz-great list, we could make some good techs and buildings from that:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Yoda Power
actually drafting could be a tech. France(and Prussia perhaps) can just draft from the start of the game. Only and idea.
Prussia should start later. For the 1813 campaign, only 22000 volunteers were available, and Prussia had to rely on 120000 troops from the Landwehr.

Originally posted by Steph

Prussia should start later. For the 1813 campaign, only 22000 volunteers were available, and Prussia had to rely on 120000 troops from the Landwehr. France and Prussia should start with a non-era tech that enables drafting, however Prussia will only get draftable troops after a certain year.

I think it is even easier. Just make some units conscriptable (strange word) : French ones and Prussian ones after 1812.

BTW was the landwehr really used in large combat or were they more fixed to defend the country ?

A note on organization:

At Waterloo an French Infantry Division had an
average of 4 000 men.

A Prussian Brigade had about 6 000 men, but there were
exceptions: 1 Brigade (Steinmetz) had 8 600 men.

Rocoteh

Some army lists for the Confederacy of the Rhine :
- Bavaraia, 30000 men, 12 line inf rgt, 6 light inf rgt, 2 dragoon rgt and 4 chevaux leger (1806 to 1811), from 1811 6 chevaux legers, 1 hussard rgtfrom 1813, then 2 in 1815, 1 ulhan rgt from 1813. Bavaria was allied to France from 1816 to 1813.

- Wurtemberg, French ally 1806-1813. 12 000 men, 8 line inf rgt, 2 chasseur btn, 1 light inf rgt, 14 cavalry regiment,

- Hesse Darmstadt : 3 inf rgt, 3 cav rgt

- Westphalie : 8 line inf rgt, 4 light inf rgt, 3 guard btn, 2 chevau legers rgt, 2 cuirassiers, 2 hussars. Total 25 000 men

- Mecklembourg Schwerin : 1900 men
- Mecklembourg Strelitz = 400 men.
- Wurtzbourg : 1 inf rgt + 1 cav
- Lippe-Detmold : 500 men
- Schaumbourg-Lippe : 150 men
- Schawrzbourg - Sonderhausen : 325 men
- Schawrzbourg - Rudolstadt: 325 men
-Clèves-Berg : 5000 men, 4 inf rgt, 1 cav rgt
- Nassau: 2 inf rgt, 1 cav rgt
- Bade : 8000 men: 4 inf rgt, 2 cav rgt
- Waldeck : 400 men
- Reuss : 450 men
- Oldenbourg : 800 men
- Anhalt - Dessau : 350 men
- Anhalt-Bernbourg : 240 men
- Anhalt- Koethen : 210 mens

- Saxony : 12 (8 later) line inf rgt, 2 light inf rgt, 1 rgt of lifeguard, 2 cuirassiers rgt, 4 chevau legers, 1 hussar.

Conclusion : we could have at most 4 German civ : Westphalia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Saxony. The others are a bit to small.

Originally posted by LouLong
I think it is even easier. Just make some units conscriptable (strange word) : French ones and Prussian ones after 1812.

BTW was the landwehr really used in large combat or were they more fixed to defend the country ?

They were present at Waterloo. They didn't win the day all by themselves of course.

Originally posted by Steph
Conclusion : we could have at most 4 German civ : Westphalia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Saxony. The others are a bit to small. but the other can still be placed on many of the maps. So I suggest we put them together with the nearest of the 4 states you mentioned. Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Steph


They were present at Waterloo. They didn't win the day all by themselves of course.

Comment on Landwehr at Waterloo:

A Prussian Brigade would consist of 2-3 Regiments.
Normally 1 of these Regiments was Landwehr.

With regard to cavalry, about 30% was Landwehr.


Rocoteh

The others could be there as cites, but no independant civilizations

I think the greatest challenge for NAPP will be to
recreate the "big battles" like Austerlitz, Borodino,
Leipzig, Waterloo etc.

To achieve this we should maybe permit the building
of corps( in such case hit-points must represent quantity)

Thus a Prussian Brigade would have 3 hit-points and a
Prussian corps would have 12-14 hit-points.

This is crucial. We must avoid Napoleon-wars become
WW1 with continous fronts.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
I think the greatest challenge for NAPP will be to
recreate the "big battles" like Austerlitz, Borodino,
Leipzig, Waterloo etc.

[...]

This is crucial. We must avoid Napoleon-wars become
WW1 with continous fronts.

Rocoteh

What about starting with "army" (= corps equivalent?) in play and have them buildable as well?

Corps was normally the largest operational unit, but I agree
they could be at start units and be buildable.


Rocoteh

In Austria they had a good period in the 18th century: children were required to go to school until a certain age, influence of the church was reduced, a military academy was founded in Wiener Neustadt and the farmers were less taxed. I'm not sure if you need any of this, but since you linked this thread in the history forum...

Austrian General is, off course Mack. The Austrian Emperor was, at that time, Franz. While Napoleon resided in Vienna archduke Karl blockaded the transport of food and caused a famine. Napoleon was a strange occupier: he left the 10.000 men of the Austrian national guard armed during the occupation. The reaction of the population was divided; in Vienna he seemed to have support of them, while in Tyrol Andreas Hofer incited guerilla warfare against him. (You could probably make a unit of this, the fight against Napoleon is still remembered and celebrated in Tyrol.) There were two groups: "Schützen" (36.000)and "Landsturm" (40.000).

http://www.tiroler-schuetzen.at/einst-feinde/fotos/album/Bilder/veteranen_jpg.jpg

http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.photo.data.image.fw19/fw16293h.jpg

Originally posted by test_specimen
Austrian General is, off course Mack. The Austrian Emperor was, at that time, Franz. While Napoleon resided in Vienna archduke Karl blockaded the transport of food and caused a famine. Napoleon was a strange occupier: he left the 10.000 men of the Austrian national guard armed during the occupation. The reaction of the population was divided; in Vienna he seemed to have support of them, while in Tyrol Andreas Hofer incited guerilla warfare against him. (You could probably make a unit of this, the fight against Napoleon is still remembered and celebrated in Tyrol.)

That is an important idea. Should we use the generals as the leaders or immediately as armies, I mean name the original armies (I agree with Rocoteh, my idea was to create armies easily to create large epic conflicts) ?

About Hoffer I planned on making him a leader but maybe he could be some kind of early partisan unit. Too bad we won't have triggers otherwise his capture and execution by the French could have triggered an event of some kind.

Originally posted by LouLong


That is an important idea. Should we use the generals as the leaders or immediately as armies, I mean name the original armies (I agree with Rocoteh, my idea was to create armies easily to create large epic conflicts) ?

About Hoffer I planned on making him a leader but maybe he could be some kind of early partisan unit. Too bad we won't have triggers otherwise his capture and execution by the French could have triggered an event of some kind.

About this (really, about guerillas in general) I've been mulling over the notion that they really do tend to be tied to one area for obvious reasons (it's their homeland; etc.). The approach I'm considering (for another mod ...) requires pre-placement of the guerillas, as they have MF=0 BUT they have a bombard strength, a range = their operational area, and a ZOC.

Thoughts?

-Oz

Unit organizations were different, but nearly all states
had the corps as the largest operational unit ( in fact armies
were counted in corps and not in divisions as late as 1914.
2 months ago leading U.S generals ceased to count the
U.S. army in divisions and instead started to count in brigades.
If this will spread to other NATO nations remains to see)

Anyway, having corps as the largest start and buildable unit
have advantages: Different unit organizations will not matter.
(Such as Prussian brigades were larger than French divisions).

An example from Waterloo:

Prussian III corps (Thielmann) 24 000 men and 48 guns

9th Brigade (Borcke) 6 750 men
10th Brigade (Kampfen) 4 050 men
11th Brigade (Luck) 3 650 men
12th Brigade (Stulpnagel) 6 200 men
Reserve Cavalry (Hobe) 2 400 men

I think we should break out the cavalry. Then we have
a unit with 10-11 hitpoints (if its a regular unit).

French II corps (Reille) 25 000 men and 46 guns.

5th Division (Bachelu) 4 100 men
6th Division (Jerome Napoleon) 7 800 men
7th Division (Girard) 3 900 men
9th Division (Foy) 4 800 men
2nd Cavalry Division (Pire) 2 000 men

Again I think we should break out cavalry.
This would also result in a unit with 10-11 hitpoints.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Yoda Power
sounds good to me. How many divisions did France have at its high(in this period ofcause)?

Yoda Power,

After digging around in my sources I finally found
the answer:

The French Army that invaded Russia had 31 Infantry
Divisions and 27 Cavalry Divisions.
Its obvious that the average French Infantry Division at this
time was much larger than at Waterloo:
I Corps (Davout) numbered 72 000 men in 5 Infantry Divisions
and 1 Cavalry Division. When entering the Battle of Borodino
7 September it was down to 36 300 men.

A large part of this army was foreigners.
There were Regiments and Contingents from 12 German
states, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Poland, Portugal,
Naples, Spain and Switzerland

Rocoteh

Have you guys thought about city graphics? I may lend my hand to that. :) You may of course use the ordinary Industrial or Medieval ones, but at least my view of it is that there wheren't factories in all European cities at this time.

Originally posted by mrtn
Have you guys thought about city graphics? I may lend my hand to that. :) You may of course use the ordinary Industrial or Medieval ones, but at least my view of it is that there wheren't factories in all European cities at this time.

Actually there were really scarce and Eastern Europe still had servage. So, well, happy to welcome you :) and happy if you bring in your help too.

Now of course we need to figure out the different "races".
Ottomans and Barbaresc (Maghreb) would be one
Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, all of Italy) could be one
North West Europe (France, England, Denmark, western Germany states) could be another one (most-advanced)
Eastern Europe would be the last one (Prussia, Saxe, Austria, Russia) ?

This is just a proposition, any opinions ?

Originally posted by Rocoteh
I think the greatest challenge for NAPP will be to
recreate the "big battles" like Austerlitz, Borodino,
Leipzig, Waterloo etc.

To achieve this we should maybe permit the building
of corps( in such case hit-points must represent quantity)

Thus a Prussian Brigade would have 3 hit-points and a
Prussian corps would have 12-14 hit-points.

This is crucial. We must avoid Napoleon-wars become
WW1 with continous fronts.

Rocoteh

I agree definitely about the battle idea.
Now does it mean we should have all different sizes (from regiments to corps) ? I don't think it is possible to create armies of different sizes (number of units inside) at the same time.

If brigades have different sizes in different countries it sure is a real pb.

The main advantage IMHO of the early French Imperial army was (besides its number) its speed and adaptability and the latter would be represented by armies that have the unloading (and reloading) ability but what size are they supposed to represent ?

So. regiments, brigades, divisions and corps altogether ?
There is the conscription issue as well.

I think we shall make a compromise with history and
make the division basic unit representing 4 000-5 000 men.

The largest buildable unit would then be the corps
representing 16 000-20 000 men. Then there can be exceptions
with brigades and regiments, but divisions and corps should
be the rule.

With regard to use Army-type units I must come with a warning:
We (at ACW) have worked 7 months with this without
a good solution. AI refuses to build Army-type units.
Right now AI builds leaders, 10 in 10 turns at one city.
Leaders are converted to Army-type units which are
used in a not very bright way.

Rocoteh

Well, in Conquests, armies have been modified somewhat so we can hope the AI has been changed when dealing with armies as well (= knows how to use them in a better way).

LouLong,

Sounds good.

What is your opinion about division as basic unit
and the role of corps?


Rocoteh

I think the division as standard unit is the best
solution.

Remember there were great differences within
national organizations:

At Borodino French 5 th Infantry Division (Compans)
had a strenght of 8 300 men. Compare that with
French 1 th Infantry Division (Ledru) 3 000 men.

On the Russian side you have 11th Infantry Division
(Bakhtemev II) 6 300 men. Compare with 3th Infantry
Division (Konovnitsyn) 3 600 men.

To many unit organizations wll only cause confusion.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh

To many unit organizations wll only cause confusion.


Then how about a "notional" unit -- say, one unit ~ 1,000 men.

BTW, this is a time-honored approach under just such circumstances from the ancient-and-hoary days of paper-and-cardboard wargames, whence such a notional unit might be referred to, very generically, as a "strength point". If required, having an "SP" be anywhere from 500-1500 men might be another factor to use in simulating varying levels of troop quality.

-Oz

Loulong,
even with the limited amount of time my "real life" work schedule allows me, I would like to be available to contribute to the NAPP - a great and much needed idea, if you ask me!;)

Anyway, what I could help you guys with is - no, not making units, unfortunately! :( - civilopedia, historical context, illustrations (yep, those icons and such!), etc.

Just clue me in via PM/IM, that should work.

Originally posted by LouLong


Actually there were really scarce and Eastern Europe still had servage. So, well, happy to welcome you :) and happy if you bring in your help too.

Now of course we need to figure out the different "races".
Ottomans and Barbaresc (Maghreb) would be one
Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, all of Italy) could be one
North West Europe (France, England, Denmark, western Germany states) could be another one (most-advanced)
Eastern Europe would be the last one (Prussia, Saxe, Austria, Russia) ?

This is just a proposition, any opinions ? Are we talking "era" changes, or just one city graphic for the whole period? My first thought is that era changes is unnecessary, ideas?
Assuming we don't have era changes, what about having one "culture group" being partly industrialised (Britain and maybe some more. France? The Netherlands?). I see LouLong only named four groups, so we have one left. :D
Did the eastern european cities look different than the western european? I can see that Orthodox (at least the Russian ones) churches would make a difference, but is there some other differences?

Originally posted by ozymandias


Then how about a "notional" unit -- say, one unit ~ 1,000 men.

BTW, this is a time-honored approach under just such circumstances from the ancient-and-hoary days of paper-and-cardboard wargames, whence such a notional unit might be referred to, very generically, as a "strength point". If required, having an "SP" be anywhere from 500-1500 men might be another factor to use in simulating varying levels of troop quality.

-Oz

ozymandias,

That alternative is clearly worth to consider.
It was used in "War and Peace" (Avalon Hill) for example.

By the way, are you like me an old wargamer?


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh

...By the way, are you like me an old wargamer?
This is a computer game site. So of course no one here has played any board/tabletop games. :p ;)

Originally posted by Rocoteh

By the way, are you like me an old wargamer?

Rocoteh

*creaking with age* :D I was playtesting for the old SPI with Jim Dunnigan & Co. as far back as 1972, and of course had some experience prior to that ...

Hmmm... Maybe I should add the Neil Young line "It's better to burn out than it is to rust" to my signature line :king:

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by mrtn
This is a computer game site. So of course no one here has played any board/tabletop games. :p ;)

CIVIII and this site would not have existed
without its roots to wargaming.

Avalon Hill and the group around the first CIV fought
a long legal battle concerning the right to "Civilization".


Rocoteh

ozymandias,

Then you are an old SPI "grognard".
In fact I think you are an old staff-member.

That was positive, very positive.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
ozymandias,

Then you are an old SPI "grognard".
In fact I think you are an old staff-member.

That was positive, very positive.

Rocoteh

Oui, je suis un grognard :D although I was actually too young to be a staff member in 1972, or even to have much interest in the post-playtesting Friday night poker games. But I hung with Dunnigan, Al Nofi and others who, to me at the time, were luminaries, fine fellows all ...

... Okay I'll confess that, even sans staff status, my name is listed in the back of a game or two, and my byline was once seen in Moves magazine ;)

Yours Grumbling Away*,

Oz


*You of course do know that the literal translation of "grognard" is "grumbler", yes?

-O.

Originally posted by mrtn
Are we talking "era" changes, or just one city graphic for the whole period? My first thought is that era changes is unnecessary, ideas?
Assuming we don't have era changes, what about having one "culture group" being partly industrialised (Britain and maybe some more. France? The Netherlands?). I see LouLong only named four groups, so we have one left. :D
Did the eastern european cities look different than the western european? I can see that Orthodox (at least the Russian ones) churches would make a difference, but is there some other differences? I thought about having the same cities all the way through game, with one exeption, we could add an industrial building(or industrial like) to the last eras, just to represent the advantege of this era. It was 30 years afterall.
I would´nt matter doing city graphics, but if mrtn wants to do go ahead. I think its best if its the same person who do all the city graphics, to get the same "look".

edit-Lou named 5 groups. which I agree with.

Concerning "grognard" = "grumbler" I did not know that.

I live in Europa and many, many years ago in school I lost
interest for English and French since both teachers hated
me for some reason. In fact I am self-learned in English.

With regard to NAPP I think that the best solution is to
have divisions/corps and some brigades+regiments since it
will add "chrome"to the scenario.

Still I do not think we should rule out a strenght-point
solution since it would simplify things.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by mrtn
Are we talking "era" changes, or just one city graphic for the whole period? My first thought is that era changes is unnecessary, ideas?

You know -- as there seems to be something of a consensus not to "force" a recapitulation of history -- there's no reason why this scenario shouldn't end in 1848.

Granted, Napoleon died in 1821, but he was only 52, and would have been a respectable-yet-plausible 79 in 1848.

By 1848, wider forces did indeed tip nearly all of Europe towards revolution, even causing a short-lived devolution of "Austria-Hungary" into the separate Austrian Empire and Republic Of Hungary -- my point is that the political environment remained stable until that year insofar as national aspiration and expression were concerned. There's no reason the "punctuated equilibrium" of the Napoleonic Wars (and an infinitiude of other possible conflicts, which did indeed occur as Austria, Russia and Prussia all jockeying for position in Mittel Europa) couldn't have continued sans Waterloo.

This also yields a reasonable pre- and early-industrial division into two eras based around techs (if there's enthusiasm, I'm happy to track down the major "tech advances" through 1848 -- Darwin's Journey and all that -- and Lord only knows what else might have been found freeze-dried in the Siberian tundra ... :rolleyes: ); this would make both historical and graphical sense.

Just a thought.

-- Oz

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Concerning "grognard" = "grumbler" I did not know that.

I live in Europa and many, many years ago in school I lost
interest for English and French since both teachers hated
me for some reason. In fact I am self-learned in English.

With regard to NAPP I think that the best solution is to
have divisions/corps and some brigades+regiments since it
will add "chrome"to the scenario.

Still I do not think we should rule out a strenght-point
solution since it would simplify things.

Rocoteh

Well, your English is certainly very good :thumbsup: -- and (back OT :) )the more I think of it, the more virtue I see in a strength point approach.

Consider: no matter how it's analyzed, the basic decision for AF/DF/HP is ultimately going to be some metric re: relative troop quality (sound familiar? :rolleyes: ).

Personally, I would suggest using HPs to simulate training and elan -- recall this was an era that men were willing to line up in straight lines in open fields in bright clothes and fire and withstand volley after volley because they were more afraid of their officers than death or being maimed!

Strength points can then be used as a straightforward numbers game, with, e.g., 1AF = 1000 troops yet also being used as a "fudge factor" when a finer gradation than 1000 men x N#HP is required, so that a truly wretched group of 5000 conscripts could have an AF=3 and HP=1, etc.

... And we should definitely try to get BomberEscort to run some numbers for us! :D

As Ever,

Oz

ozymandias,

Yes with regard to "what-if", Napoleon had plans for
both India and China if Russia had been defeated.


Rocoteh

ozymandias,

Yes, I agree strenght-points have many positive aspects
and we could still have "chrome".

I think we should completely rule out to have different
national organizations since (mentioned before) a Prussian
brigade was larger than a French division and so on.

By the way: At Borodino only 12 out 20 Infantry divisions
were "real" French. Maybe we should think out a system
to simulate Napoleons cap. to set up armies from de facto
occupied nations.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by ozymandias

*creaking with age* :D I was playtesting for the old SPI with Jim Dunnigan & Co. as far back as 1972, and of course had some experience prior to that ...
Oz
I wasn't even born :eek:

But I also have a small wargaming background. I used to play a lot a small wargame. Ever heard of Advanced Squad Leader?;)

Originally posted by Rocoteh

By the way: At Borodino only 12 out 20 Infantry divisions
were "real" French. Maybe we should think out a system
to simulate Napoleons cap. to set up armies from de facto
occupied nations.

Rocoteh

The idea was not from me, but we could have small hidden resource (below the city), and this resource will be prerequesite for "occupied land units".
Every civilization would have two versions of its unit : when when it is independant, one when it is occupied.
So French can decide to:
- Ally with German states, and trust them to send troops to Russia.
- Occupy German states, and recruit local troops from there. He will have more controls, but the troops won't be as good.

This should be done for all units and countries : Highlander can be recruited only in Scotland, Cossacks only in Ukraine, French troops only in France, etc.
This would probably give a nice national feeling to the army recruiting. It could even be refined more.
For instance, if Polish cities is occupied by France, then France can recruited good guality polish troops. If it is occupied by Russia, troops will be less efficient.

This would need a lot of work with the editor, but as we can keep the same graphics and change only the name, it's perfectly doable.

Beside, I don't think settlers should be allowed. we should stick to initial cities.
And we could make every unit cost 1 pop (as we won't have settlers, we need a way to "use" extra pop).
Beside, it could be a nice incentive fro conquest : to avoid completly deplete your cities by en masse recruiting, you may want to occupy a country to recruit local troops.

Steph,

The solution you describe sounds very good!

With regard to settlers I agree, they should not be
allowed. Let us hope there will be an "never burn cities"
option in Conquests.

Rocoteh

Nice to see there are dynamic ongoing discussions but to get them organized I will start working on the CDG NAPP forum so that we can use the polls and separate files/threads for separate topic discussions.
Give me a day or two to organize that at :
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/index.php?h=1&pf=395

Does not mean I will stop this thread at all though.

CFC is the only fansite where I is a member so
I will continue to post here.

Rocoteh

I also lurk mainly here. It may change if I open a forum at CDG for SSS, but I will continue posting here anyway.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Steph,
The solution you describe sounds very good!

Thanks. From time to time I happen to have some not to bad ideas.

I lurk more around here too but for such a project to have its own set of forums is, I believe, both important and useful.
So updates and discussion can carry on here but the real organization will likely take place there. You can register there without any dificulty.

BTW Rocoteh, where are you from ?

And if armies work well in Conquest, what about using regiments or maybe more brigade size units and a small wonder that creates automatically an army every few turns (using the Temple of Zeus ability) ? We could have different versions (= different number of turns) for the diferent countries and we would not have to worry about the AI building armies but only about using them (and it seems Conquests aims at doing that) ?

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Steph,

The solution you describe sounds very good!

With regard to settlers I agree, they should not be
allowed. Let us hope there will be an "never burn cities"
option in Conquests.

Rocoteh

YES definitely.
Now it seems culture plays a large role in deciding whether the AI razes a city or not. And we will need to have strong culture in some small cities (Scandinavia mostly) to represent their frontiers correctly. I hope C3C will help on that too !

"Ever heard of Advanced Squad Leader" Steph

A short off-topic comment.

Interesting that you mention that game.
It was perhaps the most complicated wargame
ever done. Despite that it was very popular.
Avalon Hill failed to make a good conversion of ASL
to computers and that is one of the reasons to
why The Avalon Hill Game Company now rests in peace.

Rocoteh

LouLong,

If armies works well in Conquest we should use
them, no doubt. The army-type concept used in ACW
is very good if AI could use it.

"BTW Rocoteh, where are you from?" LouLong

I am from the Europa Union.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Interesting that you mention that game.
It was perhaps the most complicated wargame
ever done. Despite that it was very popular.
Avalon Hill failed to make a good conversion of ASL
to computers and that is one of the reasons to
why The Avalon Hill Game Company now rests in peace.
Rocoteh
Yes, it is the most complicated wargame I know. It is still very popular. I've played several games that tried to recreate the feeling of this game in computer, such as the Steel Panthers serie.
I've come to the conclusion that it is NOT possible : I've never been able to get the right view of the map when playing a computer game. It's simply not the same.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
ozymandias,

Yes with regard to "what-if", Napoleon had plans for
both India and China if Russia had been defeated.


Rocoteh

I knew for China and for the West Indies, never knew about China though. Nevermind his ego !
At the moment I am more planning on doing a purely European version but a more worldly scenario might be done by someone else (including Canada, USA, West Indies, Egypt and India, the rest of the world would not bee too relevent.

Err, Rocoteh, you don't have to say it if you don't want but I had a country in mind (rather than the generic European Union). But no matter !

LouLong,

I did not mean we should make a worldwide scenario.
I mentioned the plans for India and China since I
mean the outcome of the war in no way was given.
Napoleon could have won.

About the nation I am from.

I had no intention to be impolite, but there is a reason
I do not mention it.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Steph

I wasn't even born :eek:

But I also have a small wargaming background. I used to play a lot a small wargame. Ever heard of Advanced Squad Leader?;)

:lol: Nope, I quit after the ORIGINAL Squad Leader series -- university was taking up too much time.

Nonetheless -- Comrades-in-arms! :beer:

:soldier: ,

Oz


PS BTW IIRC the best wargaming magazine these days is French -- Vae Victis, yes?

-O.

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Steph,

The solution you describe sounds very good!

With regard to settlers I agree, they should not be
allowed. Let us hope there will be an "never burn cities"
option in Conquests.

Rocoteh

Agreed re: Steph's ideas 99% etc. with this 1% caveat: remember that Moscow was indeed burned; even though by the Russians, nevertheless as part of the post-Borodino course of battle.

Also (as -- I'm delighted we all seem to agree! -- we should consider hypotheticals) had Napoleon invaded Britain, I can readily imagine whatever port city he seized being put to the torch to keep it from being used as a base of operations.

-Oz

Originally posted by LouLong

At the moment I am more planning on doing a purely European version but a more worldly scenario might be done by someone else (including Canada, USA, West Indies, Egypt and India, the rest of the world would not be too relevent.


Agreed -- even though that little 1812 affair in the New World did cause the British to divert some resources from Europe ...

Besides, Mod #3 on my post-Conquests schedule is "World War Zero" -- the 7 Years War globally, with the "cheat" of having a few American cities already in place.

:D ,

Oz

Oz-If the scenario stopped much later then 1820 it would´nt be about Napoleon as much, but more a generic 19th century scenario. We would also have to come up with alot more techs, and you would reach the 1815 too fast, maybe even before it would have been possible to make all those campaigns. Its a good idea for a scenario, but I think this mod should focus in the Napoleonic era only.

I think U.S. must be included should there be any naval production.

In the north you can also make the edge somewhere in
the Baltic Sea so AI "thinks" Scandinavia is a continents.

More "continents" will increase chance that AI starts
some naval production.

Rocoteh

I agree, it does´nt look like we are going to run into the 31 limit, so we might aswell include them. Maybe we could include the Mamluks for some certain scenarios?

Originally posted by Rocoteh
I had no intention to be impolite, but there is a reason
I do not mention it.

Are you from England? And afraid Napoleon's admirer try to burn you?
On a second thought it can't be. England is not a European Nation .;)

Originally posted by ozymandias
:lol: Nope, I quit after the ORIGINAL Squad Leader series -- university was taking up too much time.

PS BTW IIRC the best wargaming magazine these days is French -- Vae Victis, yes?


To bad, ASL is so much better than SL.
Vae Victis is indeed French. One of the first to work there was one the top guy in the French ASL player association.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Oz-If the scenario stopped much later then 1820 it would´nt be about Napoleon as much, but more a generic 19th century scenario. We would also have to come up with alot more techs, and you would reach the 1815 too fast, maybe even before it would have been possible to make all those campaigns. Its a good idea for a scenario, but I think this mod should focus in the Napoleonic era only.

I agree. We should start a bit before (1789 seems nice) and a bit later, like 1820, but not to much.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
I agree, it does´nt look like we are going to run into the 31 limit, so we might aswell include them. Maybe we could include the Mamluks for some certain scenarios?

Weren't Mamluks part of the Ottoman empire at the time?

Originally posted by Steph

Are you from England? And afraid Napoleon's admirer try to burn you?
On a second thought it can't be. England is not a European Nation .;)

No, I am not from England in fact have never been there.

Rocoteh:)

Originally posted by Steph


Weren't Mamluks part of the Ottoman empire at the time? As far as I remember they fought against Napoleon independently(sp?). Ofcause they werent really a country by that time.

Rocoteh-I´ll bet an € that you are from a German speaking country, dunno why though:hmm:

Yoda Power,

I think its reasonable to have Mamluks as a seperate
CIV, since they had a very great de facto influence
over Egypt.

With regard to my background you are 50% right since I
have German Family-name, although that Family-name
is much more known in U.S.A. than in Germany.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Oz-If the scenario stopped much later then 1820 it would´nt be about Napoleon as much, but more a generic 19th century scenario. We would also have to come up with alot more techs, and you would reach the 1815 too fast, maybe even before it would have been possible to make all those campaigns. Its a good idea for a scenario, but I think this mod should focus in the Napoleonic era only.

Hi Yoda,

Again, it's a matter of "do we wish to force history's hand"? Had Napoleon not gone down at Waterloo (or earlier) his health might have taken him far beyond the tender age of 52; the political realities of Europe from the Congress of Vienna through 1848 were essentially stable, so the Civs would be the same; and the military technology ("technics and tactics" in Steph's phrase, which I like) would have only slowly / slightly changed -- yet there'd be enough advances to fill out tech trees very nicely for two eras.

BTW I'm indifferent to America in the mod per se, but it occurs to me that -- dealing with a flat map -- the map could literally accommodate two different scales, with New World tiles representing larger areas. This would necesssitate playing with both MF cost and factor, for both the New World land tiles and the intervening Ocean tiles -- but there's no reason this (for Civ) novel approach couldn't work, given the relative importance of the New World vis-a-vis Europe -- Oh, and BTW about that burning cities thing, some Yank I am -- the Brits put Washington DC to the torch IIRC.

Best,

Oz

Oz-My main reason for being against this is gameplay reasons. However the 1848 revoluttions properly would´nt have happened, atleast not in that year, if Napoleon had stayed in power.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Oz-My main reason for being against this is gameplay reasons. However the 1848 revoluttions properly would´nt have happened, atleast not in that year, if Napoleon had stayed in power.

My (albeit limited -- and very influence by my Marxian historiography training) POV is that the pan-European 1848 unrest had to do with the chafing of the non-noble classes under (1) the influence of Bonapartism / French Republicanism and (2) the demands of the increasingly vibrant middle class for political power commensurate with their economic power -- this latter is why I spoke of "wider forces" re: the causative factors of '48.

-- So, no, they a priori wouldn't have happened wherever Napoleon ruled, but almost certainly would have elsewhere.

-- Now, granted, Louis-Phillippe's rule in France exacerbated matters, but (a) France was of course where modern European republicanism had begun in the first place and (b) France wouldn't have necessarilly been subject to the chaose if Napoleon -- or one of his more competent marshalls, perhaps Grouchy -- had (i) still been alive and in power (ii) not gotten too carried away with his Imperial touches and (iii) hadn't bankrupted / collapsed the French people into war weariness.

All this would have taken would have been Napoleon more closely studying Charles XII's misadventures in Russia ... As an aside, that's got to be one of the weirdest unlearned lessons in history, that both Napoleon and Hitler followed in those disastrous footsteps, decimated by the Russian winter and destroyed at Poltava in 1709 ...

Anyway, as I said, it's just an idea :grad:

Best,

Oz

Originally posted by Steph


Weren't Mamluks part of the Ottoman empire at the time?

Mamlukes first appeared on the historical scene as slave soldiers of the Ayyubids in Egypt in the 1170s CE. They overthrew the Ayyubids in 1250, and ruled until conquered by the Turks in 1516-17; yet they continued to rule under the Ottomans' until massacred by Mohammed Ali in 1811. It was them to whom Napoleon dictated his famous line after the Battle of the Pyramids: "4,000 years of history look down upon you." -- At least, I think "4,000" was the number he used ...

-Oz

Rocoteh, I was just bugging you with that board game comment. :)

I've started some ASL scenarios (but never finished them, they took too much time :lol: ), but the board game I've played the most was Advanced Civilization. I could probably still depict large areas of the map, with city sites and population points. :crazyeye:

Advanced Civilization is also a very good game, I loved to play it.

Originally posted by Steph
Advanced Civilization is also a very good game, I loved to play it.

Ditto! -- And somehow I'm not surprised that it's a game more than a few of us enjoy.

Steph,

With regard to the Steel Panthers serie, I really
remember Steel Panthers III had a large "chrome" factor.



Rocoteh

I don't konw, I didn't play much SPIII, I didn't like the scale. I prefer Steel Panthers World at War and Steel Panthers MBT.

Back to the topic, for icons I could convert Napoleon in Russia or Prelude to Waterloo. There would be plenty of icons then.

Yes, you are right!!! Back to topic!!!

So far, although an interesting discussion no
consensus on the important issues.



Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Yes, you are right!!! Back to topic!!!

So far, although an interesting discussion no
consensus on the important issues.

Rocoteh

LouLong my friend, this is your baby! As you and I seem to rival one another in our ability to draw up lists ;) how about listing -- letting us all know -- what you feel the most important, unresolved issues are?

Abraxas,

Oz

What about launching a test-scenario, before
making the mod complete?

Rocoteh

Well I let you guys have your OT for a while. Seems you enoyed it :p

Anyway I am trying to organize the different topics so as to make polls and specific threads but that is at the CDG address for it is much more convenient (provided you guys accept to spend some time there as well). It is just various topics are completely mixed up in a ingle thread so I plan on publishing more the results here.

I have sort of recruited a unit-creator (Statusperfect) who has joined the team and who will hopefully do a few units. You can already see his first preview there
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?p=48442#48442

I don't think it is possible to create a test-scenario already. Too many items missing !
Anyway the idea for the mod is to gather all resources and ideas so as to make the main scenario and probably others easily. So the "mod" aspect is the priority and ASAP I will make a test-scenario.

LouLong.

Clarification:
I did not mean you should launch a test-scenario now.

I did mean before the mod is complete.

Rocoteh

I think we should find a place to start, then take things step by step.

Example: First we do civs, then unit lines, then tech tree, then somethnig else.....

I does´nt have to be in that order, but I think it would help us getting startet.

Originally posted by Yoda Power
I think we should find a place to start, then take things step by step.

Example: First we do civs, then unit lines, then tech tree, then somethnig else.....

I does´nt have to be in that order, but I think it would help us getting startet.

Good idea albeit I think in the CDG forum set we can have parallel works done at the same time, depending on the center of interest of the different people.

But in any case we should define the Civ list first

Originally posted by LouLong
But in any case we should define the Civ list first Well the ones that is defiently going to be in is:

France
Austria
Prussia
England
Russia
Spain
Portugal
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Ottomans

The ones I think we still have to agree on is:

Germany(how to split them)
Netherland
Italy(how to split them)
Maghreb(how shall they be included?)
USA
Switzerland
and some others that I have properly forgotten;)

Germany : my proposition (could cover different period for the Mod) :

- Bavaria
- Bade
- Wurtemberg
- Saxony
- Westphalia
- other Rhine confederacy
- other Germans

7 civs though !

Mamluks could be included in the mod if someone wants to make the Egyptian campaign.

Switzerland and Netherlands were occupied or controlled pretty quickly but at least Switzerland kept her independance officially.

France
Austria
Prussia
England
Russia
Spain
Portugal
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Ottomans
Bavaria
Bade
Wurtemberg
Saxony
Westphalia
other Rhine confederacy
other Germans
Switzerland
Netherland
USA
Mamluks

thats 21. Then we would have 10 just for the rest of the states(Italian states, 2 or 3 I guess and North Africa 1-5 highest). Conclussion we have plenty of room for new civs.

"if we consider one turn equals one month" LouLong Post 2

Since a French Infantry Division could march 500 km in
1 month there will be really fast infantry moves with
that time-scale.....

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
"if we consider one turn equals one month" LouLong Post 2

Since a French Infantry Division could march 500 km in
1 month there will be really fast infantry moves with
that time-scale.....

Rocoteh That really depends on the map size. Which brings me to another point -movement, but that is for later I think:)

Originally posted by Yoda Power
That really depends on the map size. Which brings me to another point -movement, but that is for later I think:)

Well, its Strasbourg to Berlin in 1 turn
no matter the map size.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh


Well, its Strasbourg to Berlin in 1 turn
no matter the map size.

Rocoteh Well who says the infantry has to have a movement of one? And then there is roads. Also since the first railroads did´nt open before after the end of the mod maybe we should try to find a way to implement them as somethnig else??

No, I did sure not say that infantry shall have a movement
of one!!!!!
Still in many CIV/PTW scenarios infantry only have 1 movement-point no matter map-size and time-scale!

I just wanted to point out that 500km per month is
something to consider when choosing time-scale and
map-size.


Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
No, I did sure not say that infantry shall have a movement
of one!!!!!
Still in many CIV/PTW scenarios infantry only have 1 movement-point no matter map-size and time-scale!

I just wanted to point out that 500km per month is
something to consider when choosing time-scale and
map-size.


Rocoteh I know you werent saying that, it just happens to be the most common oppinion. The problem is that if we go with weeks the mod will be to many turns. It would be somethnig like 1600 turns! A normal game is 500something turns. On the other hand having infantry that moves 10 every turn would be unbalancing(the cavalry wuodlbe somethnig like 15-20) and quite boring(think about moving 40 infantry units 10 squares each turn). I dont think infantry should have more than 3 movement points. If we have roads unchanged that would be 9 moves every turn. If we raise roads to 4 instead of 3, it would be 12. I dont think it should go higher than that, but then we are pretty close to realism(on most Europe maps).

edit-I just realised that today is my 1 year anniversary(or however you spell that) :D

Originally posted by Yoda Power
WNetherland
Italy(how to split them)
Maghreb(how shall they be included?)
Switzerland


Italy :

Cisalpin republic, then kingdom of Italy (appears in 1805).
Guard : 1 grenadier rgt, 1 chasseur, 2 cavalry
Army : 20 line inf rgt, 10 light inf rgt, 10 cav rgt.

Kingdom of Naples (1808 : Murat is king).
Guard : 1 grenadier rgt, 2 velites.
Army : 9 line inf rgt, 4 light inf rgt

Netherland : Was under French domination, but also independant as the "Batavian republic" (even if French controlled). And then Dutch troops were a major part of Wellington's army at Waterloo. They should remain independant I think.

Maghreb = I don't see the point in splitting them.

Perhaps we should also consider Poland for some scenarios

MAp of Europe in 1800 (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1800.htm)

Another question : how do we do alliance? Locked alliances? Between which countries?

Originally posted by Yoda Power

Why not make infantry 2 points, ligh infantry 3, heavy cavalry 4, medium cavalry 5, and heavy cavalry 6?


Originally posted by Yoda Power
[B]
edit-I just realised that today is my 1 year anniversary(or however you spell that) :D

Funny... We have the same "CFC age", but I'm twice you real age, and you have a more than twice my number of posts :D

Maghreb-I agree they should´nt be splittet. I also agree that we could have Poland/Duchy of Warsaw.

Allainces would really be up to the scenario creator. I also think we should wait and see if the HI can break Locked Allainces.

Originally posted by Steph

Why not make infantry 2 points, ligh infantry 3, heavy cavalry 4, medium cavalry 5, and heavy cavalry 6?

Funny... We have the same "CFC age", but I'm twice you real age, and you have a more than twice my number of posts :D Thats a good idea. I presume you mean Light Cavalry 6 points though?

as for the second part my only answer would be: :p

Aye Aye Aye, starts to go in every direction once again :

so I list what we can probably agree on :

Units :

Infantry : Movement

- line (regular) N
- grenadiers (assault) N
- chasseurs/light troops F

- Guard (usually grenadier) N

Cavalry :

Hussars F
Dragoon N
Lanciers/Uhlans N
Cuirassiers/Carabiniers S

Do we all agree on that line, knowing some countries will have extra units (Scots for the English line, landwehr for the Austrians).

Movement indicates only references to other types, no discussion about MovPoints right now, please !
S = slow, N = normal, F = fast :rolleyes:

BTW Wurtemberg being the smallest of the German states mentionned it can be left out and incorporated into (other Rhine confederacy).

BTW please try to organize your discussions at CDG it will be much easier to sort things out. Here we don't even know who is answering to what sometimes !

Originally posted by LouLong
so I list what we can probably agree on :

Units :

Infantry : Movement

- line (regular) N
- grenadiers (assault) N
- chasseurs/light troops F

- Guard (usually grenadier) N

Cavalry :

Hussars F
Dragoon N
Lanciers/Uhlans N
Cuirassiers/Carabiniers S

Movement indicates only references to other types, no discussion about MovPoints right now, please !
S = slow, N = normal, F = fast :rolleyes:

I would go for something more generic, as there was a lot of national specifities.
The units line should be I think:
- Line infantry S
- Light infantry S
- Grenadier S

Cavalry :
- Light F
- Medium N
- Heavy N

On a second thought, I don't see why light infantry should be faster than line or grenadier at game scale.

We may also have a slight pb with France of Austria, as Grenadiers were not specific regiments, but elite companies of line regiments.

LouLong,

If you look at the front-page of ACW, you can read:
"Main support for this scenario is here at CFC, in this
thread"..

It seems to me that you want the main support for
your mod./scenarios should be at CDgroup.org. and in
fact people SHOULD write there.

OK, then I have nothing against the people there or
the people at Apolyton, but I have no intention to join
these groups.

As long as I write CIVIII/PTW related things it will be
here at CFC.

In logic with that I leave this project.
It will have no impact in general.
I can only say: good luck.


Rocoteh

Rocoteh dont leave, you are a great contributer to this project. As Lou said, this thread will stay active:)

Oh yes it will.

I personnaly don't like CDG very much. I will go there from time to time, but I will definitly post most here.

Yeah, CDG has "quieted down" dramatically over the past year or so. I know some very talented people are making units and mods over there which they refuse to see posted here, but IMHO CFC represents far and away the best pool of ACTIVE designers (I actually joined J26 over there hoping to bang around thoughts on how to simulate guerrilla / partisan / national liberation warfare, only to receiving deafening silence in reply).

Just MHO.

-Oz

Well (discreet) I prefer here too but to discuss everything in one thread is not so convenient.

Rocoteh I respect your choice of remaining only here but this thread will stay active so please don't leave. I am really planning on using your thourough testing skills (among other things).
People who don't want to do anything there can stay here news will always appear at both places, although not always simultaneously.