Announcement

**Fried-Psitalon** · December 1, 2003, 12:31

The lack of settlers was intended.

**Niessuh** · December 1, 2003, 12:40

I think it's a design element. Build new cities would break the spirit of that conquest

**planetfall** · December 1, 2003, 13:01

Originally posted by Niessuh
Build new cities would break the spirit of that conquest

So in other words it is a design to guarantee that France is not too strong in this scenario.

Thus,
-- can't increase effective citizens by building new cities,
-- can't abandon cities to remove nationals,
-- must either live with reduced production or pay high prices for luxuries or conquer distant lands for luxuries.

I don't see how not having settlers breaks the spirit of this conquest. Other civs could have been given unique units/capabilities to keep conquest scenario in balance.

Under current design limitations, doubt this is a scenario to play very often. Rise of Rome, Fall of Rome, AoD, WWII PTO, those all are worthy of replay. Especially AoD. Naturally without playing this game yet I reserve the right to change my mind, but at first review this scenario seems too limited.

-- PF

**Dis** · December 1, 2003, 17:41

I guess it was intended to be limited- esp. for France.

Ugh, the war weariness sucked the big one. Every nation had embargos against me, so I really couldn't trade for luxeries.

I struggled with unhappiness problems the whole way. With so many entertainers I had no production to build a massive army. Being 6th and 7th in GDP and productivity? I can't stand that

.

I guess their intent (as you can see my review in my Napoleon thread) was to limit france and force them to fight for their lives.

**planetfall** · December 1, 2003, 17:48

agreed, it's ugly. I noted your problem with Spain cavs. This time I need to review the options before starting playing. Playing a level down should make it easier, but still messy. I'm going to go ahead and play WWII first and then go back to this one. Scenario 9 should be fun many times. Without any tools to fight waste/corruption plus WW, this does not sound like my idea of fun. If it wasn't on the track, I would skip it.

As an aside, is there a method to modify these original scenarios? Like add settlers as option etc? Just wondering.

later, appreciate your comments

-- PF

**planetfall** · December 1, 2003, 17:55

agreed, it's ugly. I noted your problem with Spain cavs. This time I need to review the options before starting playing. Playing a level down should make it easier, but still messy. I'm going to go ahead and play WWII first and then go back to this one. Scenario 9 should be fun many times. Without any tools to fight waste/corruption plus WW, this does not sound like my idea of fun. If it wasn't on the track, I would skip it.

As an aside, is there a method to modify these original scenarios? Like add settlers as option etc? Just wondering.

later, appreciate your comments

-- PF

**Ecthy** · December 1, 2003, 18:09

There's absolutely no reason to allow settler building in any post-medieval European scenario

**planetfall** · December 1, 2003, 18:42

Ecthelion,

Shucks, that means I can't use the WWIII scenario where atom and biological bombs are about the price of 1 MI and carried by invisible terrorists? ICBM's are absolete and superceded by car and suitcase Atomic bombs. V-1's and V-2's are now suitcase-1 and suitcase-2.

And you assume all old cities were planted according to divine reason and not just dropped in place by some scenario designer who felt a mischievous impulse.

Now if you could add your Euro wisdom to get American planners to stop rebuilding via condemning family homes/lakes for business and city building, then it might make sense to only have settlers available in early eras.

Finally, if some player wants a city country, where each city is interconnected with others so the whole country is one big city and no city center is more than 2 tiles from another city, why should that be precluded? Isn't it because of the high population density of Europe that your rail pass system will work, whereas we are stuck in boring commutes?

-- PF

**cursif** · December 4, 2003, 06:07

Something I didnt notice until late [like ten turns left] in my game... Mobilization is available to France from the start and, unlike in the epic game, you CAN produce non-military stuff in yr cities under mobilization in this scenario. I think if more people knew about this, it would [have] help[ed] their games.

**planetfall** · December 4, 2003, 11:16

I finished WW2 and now going back to this scenario. Did a little more checking before starting and another major problem for France is huge WW and on turn 1, Brits will not even accept an envoy to allow for peace.

So tonight, figure out strategy and then this weekend have a go at it.

Cursif, if playing WW2 as allies, you can also use mobilization, but there the only none military build is workers.

-- PF

**Panzer32** · December 4, 2003, 12:28

Originally posted by cursif
Something I didnt notice until late [like ten turns left] in my game... Mobilization is available to France from the start and, unlike in the epic game, you CAN produce non-military stuff in yr cities under mobilization in this scenario. I think if more people knew about this, it would [have] help[ed] their games.

Hmmm... it wasn't like that in my game

Anyways about the war wearinouss issue, I think the best course of action is to switch to monarchy pretty quickly

**planetfall** · December 4, 2003, 12:42

Panzer32,

When does Panzer32bit get an upgrade to Panzer64bit? ;-)

Interesting, like I mentioned I hadn't started play yet. Naturally you're right, monarchy would make a big difference. Now I am curious, I thought they were already in Monarchy. Maybe not. Sounds better than Republic with 68% WW. I was thinking of trying multiple MPP to see if that would buy me an audience and possibility of peace during early phase for buildup.

-- PF

**JazzToucan** · December 4, 2003, 15:39

Originally posted by planetfall
I finished WW2 and now going back to this scenario. Did a little more checking before starting and another major problem for France is huge WW and on turn 1, Brits will not even accept an envoy to allow for peace.

-- PF

Yes, that's the whole idea of the scenario and locked alliances. There wouldn't be much point to a Napoleonic war scenario if you could have peace between France and Britain... that would be like allowing peace between the U.S. and Japan in the WWII scenario.

A lot of the "flaws" you point are, IMO, vital to recreating a relatively accurate scenario. Particularly settlers... using settlers to allow abandoning cities and plopping down new ones would take a lot away from the historical charm of the scenario. Yes, it's hard when the people of Prussia or Austria, etc. aren't to pleased with French rule, but that's how it was in reality.

**planetfall** · December 4, 2003, 15:56

Jazz,

I have never studied the Napoleonic wars. Hummmm.
So what's the overview of the background. France started war and then found Napolean to lead troops, or Brits started war and Napolean rose from the ranks to combat the invaders. Had war been going on a long time before Napolean?

I actually wasn't looking for settlers to plop down cities to replace abandoned ones as much as looking to increase city density in France.

I don't mind at all being at war, it is the degree of WW that is amazing. It's like the war continued for 30 or 40 turns before you get a chance to move. Yes Prussia is vulnerable, but surprising so seems to be Spain.

-- PF

Announcement

Conquest #8, Napolean, is this a bug or design?

Conquest #8, Napolean, is this a bug or design?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment