Thanks Tootall. I hoped this was the case, especially as a few cities can produce ships. It would be heartbreaking to hand back some of these cities after battling so hard to control them. Spain is a tough nut to crack and I'm not quite there yet, though I feel the momentum has now swung in my favour. What looked like a relatively straightforward occupation proved to be anything but. A real cat & mouse game with the British & Spanish generals. Really well executed!
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Napoléon I 1805 - 1815 ToTPP and Lua scenario updated to v1.3
- Thread starter tootall_2012
- Start date
Query/Possible correction: The Readme Appendix file says 4/6 objectives cities are required to subdue Russia but in my notes, the popup in August 1809 stated 5/6 are required. I wonder which of these is correct. I'm currently up to spring 1811 & preparing for the invasion of Russia next year and want to be clear whether a southern offensive against Kyiv is necessary or not?
Another query, this time about the Train Militaire. Does their bonus work for units stacked on them out in the open or only in cities? I've assumed they work anywhere & help counteract the effects of winter, but if I'm to march into Russia, where even the summer will grind my troops down, I need to be sure I'm employing them correctly. Thanks
I've noticed units in Spain have suffered from winter attrition when on Temperate Hills, causing a few damaged ones to disband. I'm unsure if this is the same for Temperate Forests but I know Temperate Plains are working correctly. Strangely, some of my units in northern Italy who were based on Temperate Hills seemed unaffected, while others in the south seemed to suffer attrition (at least I think they did). It's not a huge issue by any means, but one I thought I ought to query.
The Readme also states that Russian winter attrition is 20-30% of hitpoints (or 20-40% in cities). Is this intended to represent hostile citizens bumping off French troops billeted in their cities? It seems logical to be the other way around, with troops exposed to the elements suffering the higher attrition. Some clarification on this would greatly aid my planning. I guess that the Train Militaire may play a role & its purpose may be aimed more at providing logistical support in cities, but I'd like to know in advance if I'm misguided in my assumptions. After the bloodbath that was Iberia, I'm apprehensive about the invasion of the Rodina!
tootall_2012
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 943
So many questions!
I will try to answer as best I can:
Just a follow up to this question: Only in the wars of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Coalition are the Austrian and Prussian ‘core’ cities subject to being returned to their original owners after France has managed to force a peace treaty on them.
In the case of England, Spain, Russia or the Ottomans, if you are able to subdue these nations you will maintain control of any of their cities you have captured.
Starting with the War of the Sixth Coalition, you will no longer be able to force a peace treaty on either Austria or Prussia but if you are able to capture all of their respective cities on the European map you will defacto have defeated them and will keep control of their cities.
This is an oversight on my part. Originally, I required France to capture 5 of the 6 cities to be able to subdue Russia but as my last two play tests seemed to demonstrate that was much too arduous a task so I reduced it to 4 of 6.
As I indicated in a previous post, on my first try I was able to make it all the way to Moska and hold on to the city for the remainder of the game whereas in my last play test I had an absolutely disastrous campaign with a very high casualty rate.
If you or any other players are able to do better you are far better generals than I. I will definitely be interested to learn how your campaign went!
As such the ReadMe is correct and not the in game popup. I will make the correction.
It works for units stacked in any tiles, including cities. Note that due to the relatively rudimentary supply systems of the age, the TM bonus is randomly generated for each unit that is stacked with it, that is to say it can vary between 0 to 20% healing per unit per turn.
The winter effects should NOT apply to units located on any kind of temperate terrain tiles (only to non-temperate type tiles).
The temperate terrain is designed to represent the more moderate Mediterranean climate zone. If you’ve found particular temperate tiles that don't behave accordingly, I will have to review the lua code.
I made the penalty harsher in cities for two reasons: The first because historically whenever the Russians abandoned a city to the French they first ensured that they left nothing of value that could help sustain the enemy. Whereas in most of his other European campaigns Napoleon's troops were able to live off the land, any provisioning that was required to maintain French troops during the Russian campaign had to be brought up by their own supply system. One of the reasons Napoléon had to abandon Moscow was precisely because he couldn’t supply his troops there anymore.
The second is due to the game mechanics themselves which give troops an added healing bonus when stationed in cities. I found as such that the French player could simply garrison his troops there during the winter turns without any real negative effect and then resume his campaign next summer fully recuperated. This felt totally contrary to the historical reality that the French went through where the winter was a real battle for survival no matter whether they were billeted in the open or cities. Hence the harsher city winter penalty.
As I may have mentioned in a previous post, the effect of the TM is subtle whereby they only provide a 0 to 20% healing bonus to units stacked with them. In that regard, I don’t see them as a war winning instrument. On the other hand they can make the difference in key situations in sustaining a difficult siege or saving some troops on the brink of annihilation.
I will be interested to hear your feedback on their current implementation.
Just a follow up to this question: Only in the wars of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Coalition are the Austrian and Prussian ‘core’ cities subject to being returned to their original owners after France has managed to force a peace treaty on them.
In the case of England, Spain, Russia or the Ottomans, if you are able to subdue these nations you will maintain control of any of their cities you have captured.
Starting with the War of the Sixth Coalition, you will no longer be able to force a peace treaty on either Austria or Prussia but if you are able to capture all of their respective cities on the European map you will defacto have defeated them and will keep control of their cities.
This is an oversight on my part. Originally, I required France to capture 5 of the 6 cities to be able to subdue Russia but as my last two play tests seemed to demonstrate that was much too arduous a task so I reduced it to 4 of 6.
As I indicated in a previous post, on my first try I was able to make it all the way to Moska and hold on to the city for the remainder of the game whereas in my last play test I had an absolutely disastrous campaign with a very high casualty rate.
If you or any other players are able to do better you are far better generals than I. I will definitely be interested to learn how your campaign went!
As such the ReadMe is correct and not the in game popup. I will make the correction.
It works for units stacked in any tiles, including cities. Note that due to the relatively rudimentary supply systems of the age, the TM bonus is randomly generated for each unit that is stacked with it, that is to say it can vary between 0 to 20% healing per unit per turn.
The winter effects should NOT apply to units located on any kind of temperate terrain tiles (only to non-temperate type tiles).
The temperate terrain is designed to represent the more moderate Mediterranean climate zone. If you’ve found particular temperate tiles that don't behave accordingly, I will have to review the lua code.
I made the penalty harsher in cities for two reasons: The first because historically whenever the Russians abandoned a city to the French they first ensured that they left nothing of value that could help sustain the enemy. Whereas in most of his other European campaigns Napoleon's troops were able to live off the land, any provisioning that was required to maintain French troops during the Russian campaign had to be brought up by their own supply system. One of the reasons Napoléon had to abandon Moscow was precisely because he couldn’t supply his troops there anymore.
The second is due to the game mechanics themselves which give troops an added healing bonus when stationed in cities. I found as such that the French player could simply garrison his troops there during the winter turns without any real negative effect and then resume his campaign next summer fully recuperated. This felt totally contrary to the historical reality that the French went through where the winter was a real battle for survival no matter whether they were billeted in the open or cities. Hence the harsher city winter penalty.
As I may have mentioned in a previous post, the effect of the TM is subtle whereby they only provide a 0 to 20% healing bonus to units stacked with them. In that regard, I don’t see them as a war winning instrument. On the other hand they can make the difference in key situations in sustaining a difficult siege or saving some troops on the brink of annihilation.
I will be interested to hear your feedback on their current implementation.
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying that. I had forgotten about the accelerated healing effect of cities & how cozy the French troops would be huddled around a Peasant's fireplace until the snows melted. That makes sense to me now.
I may be wrong about the Temperate Hills. I will go back through some of my saves to see if I can find any evidence of this happening or if I miss remembered!
I've managed to subdue the Spanish now. It was extremely challenging. Just when I seemed to be making progress on one front a fire would break out somewhere else. You've really got the AI well drilled.
4/6 Russian cities sounds good to me. However you slice it though, Moskva & Sankt-Peterburg will be required for a decisive victory, though it may be a good insurance policy to settle for a marginal victory if victory before Spring 1813 looks unlikely. A subdued Russia would preclude a war with Prussia & Austria against my lightly guarded home defences & supply lines. Another intriguing decision to weigh up.
I may be wrong about the Temperate Hills. I will go back through some of my saves to see if I can find any evidence of this happening or if I miss remembered!
I've managed to subdue the Spanish now. It was extremely challenging. Just when I seemed to be making progress on one front a fire would break out somewhere else. You've really got the AI well drilled.
4/6 Russian cities sounds good to me. However you slice it though, Moskva & Sankt-Peterburg will be required for a decisive victory, though it may be a good insurance policy to settle for a marginal victory if victory before Spring 1813 looks unlikely. A subdued Russia would preclude a war with Prussia & Austria against my lightly guarded home defences & supply lines. Another intriguing decision to weigh up.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,898
I started a new game.
I'm not sure that the naval mechanism is working as you've intended. My score is 16 to 10 and I have not received the advance. I did some testing... If i lose an 11th ship I'll get the message that I can't invade England, but it seems that I'll never get a message saying I can. I tried a new game and cheated to get a 15 to 0 score and as soon as I hit 15 I got the message (it is October of 1807).
Did you intend for players to be able to lose up to 10 ships or only up to 9? If the former, I'm cheating and giving myself the tech advance but I wanted to check with you first.
I'm not sure that the naval mechanism is working as you've intended. My score is 16 to 10 and I have not received the advance. I did some testing... If i lose an 11th ship I'll get the message that I can't invade England, but it seems that I'll never get a message saying I can. I tried a new game and cheated to get a 15 to 0 score and as soon as I hit 15 I got the message (it is October of 1807).
Did you intend for players to be able to lose up to 10 ships or only up to 9? If the former, I'm cheating and giving myself the tech advance but I wanted to check with you first.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,898
I just did another test from the start of the game to confirm this - the French can only have 9 naval losses. Not 10. Since the opening text says "you would be required to eliminate 15 British naval units, without losing more than 10 of your own, prior to January of 1808" the event is not working as intended.
tootall_2012
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 943
Sorry for the confusion in the game text. This is the actual code:
if state.englishNavalUnitsKilled == 15 and state.frenchNavalUnitsKilled < 10 and civ.getTurn() < 30 then -- turn 30 is January 1808
Therefore the event is working as I always intended, i.e. to achieve Maritime Supremacy the French must destroy 15 British naval units before January 1808 without losing more than 9 (i.e. state.frenchNavalUnitsKilled < 10), it's just that I should have written "without losing more than 9 of your own, prior to January of 1808" in the game popup message.
I will make the correction in version 1.1.
BTW, I've been reading your OTR ReadMe. The layout looks great and it is very well written. The only comment I will make, and this is simply a statement of fact, is that there are a lot of concepts to assimilate and without actually playing the game some of them may be a little difficult to visualize. In that spirit, I may try to play the game a little on my own, even though its designed as a multi-player, to get a feel for it. I'm sure it will inspire me even more on my next project. When you play with McMonkey to you do it in HotSeat mode?
if state.englishNavalUnitsKilled == 15 and state.frenchNavalUnitsKilled < 10 and civ.getTurn() < 30 then -- turn 30 is January 1808
Therefore the event is working as I always intended, i.e. to achieve Maritime Supremacy the French must destroy 15 British naval units before January 1808 without losing more than 9 (i.e. state.frenchNavalUnitsKilled < 10), it's just that I should have written "without losing more than 9 of your own, prior to January of 1808" in the game popup message.
I will make the correction in version 1.1.
BTW, I've been reading your OTR ReadMe. The layout looks great and it is very well written. The only comment I will make, and this is simply a statement of fact, is that there are a lot of concepts to assimilate and without actually playing the game some of them may be a little difficult to visualize. In that spirit, I may try to play the game a little on my own, even though its designed as a multi-player, to get a feel for it. I'm sure it will inspire me even more on my next project. When you play with McMonkey to you do it in HotSeat mode?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,898
Yes, we play in hot seat mode. You can play yourself in hot seat mode as a bit of a tutorial, but the AI has no chance as all aircraft are "k units."
I am actually quite interested to see how two people who didn't design the scenario fare against each other (mainly to see if I need to rework the help text/add more events,etc.) Hopefully you'll feel up for grabbing a friend soon and doing battle.
As to Napoleon, that is fine - I will push forward with Britain unsubdueable and will make the best of it!
I am actually quite interested to see how two people who didn't design the scenario fare against each other (mainly to see if I need to rework the help text/add more events,etc.) Hopefully you'll feel up for grabbing a friend soon and doing battle.
As to Napoleon, that is fine - I will push forward with Britain unsubdueable and will make the best of it!
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,898
Well, Tootall & Knighttime, you've passed the "1:00 a.m. test..." I've been playing all night. This scenario makes one face just how bad they are at this game 
It's turn 45 (May, 1809) and my Spanish expedition is not going well at all... I'm working my way along the coast and have just seized Cartagena, but in the north Wellington is pushing me back towards the Pyrenees. I lack suitable weaponry to assault Zaragoza and I am bleeding troops right now.
I've kept a sizable army east to guard against Austria but if their resurgence is anything like the fight in Spain, I'll be routed for sure!
I'm starting to think a stalemate seems pretty good... Better, certainly, than a life on some desolate island.
It's turn 45 (May, 1809) and my Spanish expedition is not going well at all... I'm working my way along the coast and have just seized Cartagena, but in the north Wellington is pushing me back towards the Pyrenees. I lack suitable weaponry to assault Zaragoza and I am bleeding troops right now.I've kept a sizable army east to guard against Austria but if their resurgence is anything like the fight in Spain, I'll be routed for sure!
I'm starting to think a stalemate seems pretty good... Better, certainly, than a life on some desolate island.
tootall_2012
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 943
I think that was meant as a compliment.
I guess what your saying is that the scenario has passed your Test of Time!This scenario makes one face just how bad they are at this game
You know what they say; practice makes perfect.
Spain is no cake walk in this scenario, anymore than it was historically, but as my and McMonkey’s play tests have demonstrated it is by no means an impossible task to overcome the Spanish and British in the Peninsula.
As you are finding out, and as Napoléon did himself, you are not entirely in control of the agenda on the continent. And though you are always trying to strive to achieve your overall goals and objectives, you are at the same time frequently forced to respond to events that are not under your control.
There would definitely be no shame in achieving a stalemate in your first play throughs.
tootall_2012
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 943
Hi McMonkey,
I'm not certain what you tried to post in the previous thread because it just shows up as a blank or x on my browser.
I'm not certain what you tried to post in the previous thread because it just shows up as a blank or x on my browser.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,898
I think that was meant as a compliment.
Oh, it's definitely a compliment.
I have to be honest, I restarted a few times when I first played this but then I got to thinking... This is a scenario that I'm supposed to lose--Napoleon certainly did. Doing anything better than that is a win. It's just a question of how big of a win. That's a weird thing to come to terms with because I feel like in most scenarios, you're generally expected to win. Trying to get a player to have fun losing is tough, but I am thoroughly enjoying this game. The fact that I've had to make the decision to abandon ground to Wellington in order to preserve my general and something of an army is quite a bit of fun. Judging just how far I can have Napoleon push along the coast, balancing the need to defend all cities en route lest he be totally cut off is also fun. I'm planning on finishing this match, even if I have to conduct a fighting retreat in some areas.
I really hope that I can pull of something similar in Hinge of Fate when it is released, because it's very hard to get someone to have fun losing, but really that's another scenario where--if you don't achieve particular successes--the odds should start stacking firmly against you. I will say I had a pretty good time losing to Prof. Garfield in OTR, but I've never had as much fun getting my butt kicked by the AI as I have in Napoleon. You two have really pulled off something special here.
My full report will likely follow in a week or so. I've been keeping a word document of the highlights of each turn, will fill out your spreadsheet, and will offer my full thoughts once I've completed this play through.
tootall_2012
King
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 943
I believe you nailed the essence of the scenario very well. It isn’t designed to give the player an easy win at all. As you indicated Napoleon certainly didn’t win. But at the same time, it’s by no means impossible to do so; but you have to surpass yourself to succeed... otherwise you may end up on some desolate island!
Spain is quite a challenge for certain but if you are methodical and provide the manpower resources you can overcome the opposition. You have to see the Spanish campaign in terms of years and not months.
As I mentioned in a previous post, in my last play test I merely managed a stalemate as opposed to my previous attempt where I achieved a marginal victory. But to be honest, I was more proud of that stalemate because I had to work much harder to achieve it. The fact that I was able to reconquer three objectives on the last turn, after much maneuvering and bold forays against superior enemy forces, was quite satisfactory.
That sounds great. I’m looking forward to it. The more feedback I get the better I will be able to evaluate the changes that might be required.
Last edited:
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
right-click on it and select view image.
That's strange. The image (Napoleon meme) was showing on my home PC after posting it but is now a missing image icon here on my work PC. I know some websites block links as it somehow used their data. I guess that's what happened. The meme was just summing up my feelings stuck outside Sankt-Peterburg with the snow storms raging and no way to capture the city.
-
I would echo John's comments regarding the nature of the challenge. The AI is a real handful, but not just due to large numbers such as in older scenarios (my Spanish Civil War for example). To be forced to make tactical retreats & sacrifice cities to fight on another day is not completely unique, but it almost feels like I'm playing a human and not the AI at times. As I just said in a PM to Tootall, the attrition/supply system is a real game changer.
With K units, strategic bombing, supply lines & mass city exchanges (to name a few features of ToTPP/Lua) the potential for new scenario development seems unbounded in a way it's not been for many years. Masters of the art of scenario design have pushed ToT to it's very limits and created classics but it had seemed that a natural limit had been reached. We're all in uncharted territory again and can start dreaming big. Now we have several examples of Lua to reverse engineer, just as I did all those years ago with Macro, the number of new scenarios should continue to multiply.
For years I've advocated for co-operative projects, but they never seemed to really gain traction. It's great to see the fruits of these collaborations. Inspiring stuff.
To all at the Scenario League, have a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year. I have a feeling 2019 is set to be one of the most productive in a very long time.
techumseh
Deity
And to you, Drew. 
