Napoleonic Era

[Emperor Iaius I]

Interesting... I think I'll find this scenario the most interesting.

Vive l'Empereur! Vive l'Empire! Vive la France!

EDIT: What government types do the nations start with?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Faboba


They don't have leaderheads - they only have flags.

There was a screen of it kicking about somewhere in a thread called 'new French leaderhead' or somesuch either here or at Apolyton.

Not even an Austrian head to be seen - which is odd given their supposed to be 'the eighth official civ'.

Its only in the editor. If they gave Austria a leaderhead for the scenario, France would have to get Napoleon, England would have to get a leader of the time, Prussia could keep Bismark (I think), but many would be have to be changed.

 

[Emperor Iaius I]

Napoléon makes far more sense as a leaderhead even in the Epic game than Joan de Arc does...

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV

Prussia could keep Bismark (I think).

Bismarck was born in April 1815, and was two months old when Waterloo was fought. Maybe Prussia could have a Baby Bismarck leaderhead

 

[Emperor Iaius I]

They wouldn't really have a good choices for leaderheads. Blucher isn't remarkable, and King Frederick Willaim IV (I think that's the correct one) was a bit dull.

 

[Roundman]

They should have a Prussian Iron Cross as a leaderhead. Afterall, it was first awarded during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Nikke]

I was just wondering why Finland and it's capital Helsinki belongs to Russia in the beginning of the scenario(year 1800)?! Russia did not invade Finland from Sweden until 1808-1809. A minor detail, but very annoying.

And Finland was confirmed to Russia after Napoleonic Wars, I think it was 1815 or something, and in the same peace treaty Sweden got Norway from Denmark. So if they (developers) think Russia should have Finland, why Sweden don't have Norway.

I know, it would be more stupid, so I just think Sweden should had Finland (Helsinki) in the beginning!

Otherwise it's cool scenario....France and England have the most powerful units....

 

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV


Prussia could keep Bismark (I think), but many would be have to be changed.

Not really. Bismarck is a Franco-Prussian war chap. The retalliation for the Napoleonic Wars a half century later.

 

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Nikke
I was just wondering why Finland and it's capital Helsinki belongs to Russia in the beginning of the scenario(year 1800)?! Russia did not invade Finland from Sweden until 1808-1809. A minor detail, but very annoying.

And Finland was confirmed to Russia after Napoleonic Wars, I think it was 1815 or something, and in the same peace treaty Sweden got Norway from Denmark. So if they (developers) think Russia should have Finland, why Sweden don't have Norway.

I know, it would be more stupid, so I just think Sweden should had Finland (Helsinki) in the beginning!

Otherwise it's cool scenario....France and England have the most powerful units....

I think it's because the Fins aren't in the game. Being entirely historically accurate would require yet another minor ( no offense intended ) civ in the Napoleonic map which might have cluttered things up a bit more. The developers probably just decided to historically jump the gun and award Finland prematurely to Russia.

 

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Emperor Iaius I
Napoléon makes far more sense as a leaderhead even in the Epic game than Joan de Arc does...

Tell it to Sween. Make him create an era specific leaderhead. Firaxis are extremely unlikely to make such a major change in a subsequent update to the game as changing a leader so your bet bet is to get someone who makes really kick ass animated, era specific leaderheads and talk them into doing one of the most historically important individuals the world has ever seen.

Go on... ask Sween.

 

[Emperor Iaius I]

Originally posted by Faboba


Tell it to Sween. Make him create an era specific leaderhead. Firaxis are extremely unlikely to make such a major change in a subsequent update to the game as changing a leader so your bet bet is to get someone who makes really kick ass animated, era specific leaderheads and talk them into doing one of the most historically important individuals the world has ever seen.

Go on... ask Sween.

Is Sween a poster here? How can I contact him?

 

[Nikke]

Originally posted by Faboba


I think it's because the Fins aren't in the game. Being entirely historically accurate would require yet another minor ( no offense intended ) civ in the Napoleonic map which might have cluttered things up a bit more. The developers probably just decided to historically jump the gun and award Finland prematurely to Russia.

Yes, they probably awarded it premately....But I still don't get why? I did not think they should add the Finns to the scenario because Finland was part of Sweden. Just that Sweden should have Finland(Helsinki).... there wouldn't be another minor civ....

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Giving Finland to Russia creates a better sense of balance; some of Russia's largest cities, like Ekaterinburg and Tsaritsyn aren't included because the map doesn't go very far East into the bulk of Russian territory -- or even North, into Murmansk and Archangel, which were big Russian ports.

I mean, without the Finnish cities, Russia has less cities than England. Considering Russia is such a huge player in the Napoleonic wars, whereas Sweden was not as pivitol, it only makes sense to somewhat extend Russian power.

-Ben

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

Agreed, besides that, even in the days of Conquests you can't mod up a civ for every nation in the world in the scenario. In the old WW2 Civ2 scenario Portugal was part of Spain, Finland as part of Russia was sorta like that.

 

[patrocles]

after playing the WW2 scenario for civ 2 over the summer, i found that the city placement is also incorrect, for example, the scenario starts out when the axis begins there offensive, but the germans have tripoli and tobruk, but they didnt get those cities till later

 

[Nikke]

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
Giving Finland to Russia creates a better sense of balance; some of Russia's largest cities, like Ekaterinburg and Tsaritsyn aren't included because the map doesn't go very far East into the bulk of Russian territory -- or even North, into Murmansk and Archangel, which were big Russian ports.

I mean, without the Finnish cities, Russia has less cities than England. Considering Russia is such a huge player in the Napoleonic wars, whereas Sweden was not as pivitol, it only makes sense to somewhat extend Russian power.

-Ben

Thanks, now I get it better and it's easier to accept...BTW there is only one finnish city in the scenario.