Improvement suggestions

[Mowgli]

Here are the most obvious quality of life improvement suggestions I can think of: 

• Hotkey S to toggle visible hexes overlay
  
• leader units should not prevent the usage of roads
  
• A hotkey to highlight/find the currently selected unit's superior/commander (should also work to find the parent unit of skirmishers)
  

[BigDuke66]

[*]leader units should not prevent the usage of roads

In what series do they do that? Afaik leaders are not consider for that and can be moved with a unit using road movement.

[Mowgli]

[*]leader units should not prevent the usage of roads

[*]In what series do they do that? Afaik leaders are not consider for that and can be moved with a unit using road movement.

Oops, I think you are correct. Tested it and indeed moving into a hex that only contained a leader did not prevent the use of the road. I don't know what I've seen. Must have been for some other reason. Sorry for the mistake.

I also noticed that my point on the LOS overlay is title-specific. It does work in the American Civil War battles, but not in Napoleonic battles. 

After some more games, here are more points: 

• I think artillery in the Napoleonic titles should be better handled like in the American Civil War series - I am still of the opinion that it is quite vastly overpowered in the Napoleonic titles: artillery should be able to disrupt (but perhaps not to be eliminated/uncrewed) and should suffer more from fatigue (in ACW, fatigue effects are doubled for artillery). Also, a reduction of manpower (for melee puposes) seems very reasonable. In the Napoleonic games, each gun counts as 40 men (!) in melee. As a compensation, it would make sense if artillery received a three-hexes front section (as all units have in the American Civil War titles). The constant need/opportunity to clip out of a battery's fire arc feels unrealistic and gamey.
  
• In the same vein, when playing cavalry, I often have to alternate the facing of my squadrons in a hex in order to prevent a flank attack (*1.4 melee power in Napoleonic titles). This is also a result of the 2 hexes frontal sector, which makes flanking comparatively easy. So I think cavalry would also play much more elegantly if it had a three hexes' front, not just two.
  
• Big manual update please. The manual for the Napoleonic titles is not very helpfull at all. It does not include stacking incompatibilities, does not explain elevation movement costs (full elevation cost if uphill, half if downhill; none if using roads), it does not explain when units conduct tests ("stress" tests [cas / (cas+size)] and morale tests - which work differently depending on whether they happen during your turn or at the beginning of your turn), it does not include info on explicit artillery suppply, etc. etc.
  
• It seems as if the new movement threat mechanic (which I suppose is a very welcome addition designed to give lines more staying power against column attackers?) considers the threat value in the hex you're trying to move into. This is a bit unfortunate as you cannot see the threat value and fail chance in advance. No threat values are displayed in hexes in which you have no units. I also find it a bit odd that units that your unit can't even see do cause threat. Also, the general help file implies that only cavalry can cause movement threat. The manual (and my ingame experience) suggests that all unit types may contribute to movement threat.
  
• Compared to ACW, it's weird that in Napoleonic titles the chance for a unit to disrupt depends on the unit size (due to the cas/(cas+size) test). It blurs unit size and morale a bit. I think it would make more sense to use fixed thresholds like in ACW (unit size always "25").
  
  

Some general impressions/opinion: I played a bit of both, the American Civil War series and the Napoleonic series, and even though the American Civil War series is more user-friendly, I greatly prefer the Napoleonic series when it comes to the overall flow of the game. The reason is very simple: The reaction intervals in ACW are simply too long. The American Civil War series is based on a 20 minutes' turn, whereas the Napoleonic series uses 10 or 15 minute turns. 20 minutes turns can lead to very absurd results, like infantry being able to outflank cavalry and strike out of nowhere. Also, I have troubles to identify which unit has moved where, because positions change so much in between the turns. Across clear terrain, mounted cavalry can move 12 (!) hexes per turn in Gettyburgh, infantry 6 hexes. It's by far too mobile for my taste.

[Steel God]

Some general impressions/opinion: I played a bit of both, the American Civil War series and the Napoleonic series, and even though the American Civil War series is more user-friendly, I greatly prefer the Napoleonic series when it comes to the overall flow of the game. The reason is very simple: The reaction intervals in ACW are simply too long. The American Civil War series is based on a 20 minutes' turn, whereas the Napoleonic series uses 10 or 15 minute turns. 20 minutes turns can lead to very absurd results, like infantry being able to outflank cavalry and strike out of nowhere. Also, I have troubles to identify which unit has moved where, because positions change so much in between the turns. Across clear terrain, mounted cavalry can move 12 (!) hexes per turn in Gettyburgh, infantry 6 hexes. It's by far too mobile for my taste.

I'm curious if you use Phased Play or not.  The reason I ask is because I have played with Phased play exclusively and I do not find the mobility of units to be a problem at all if your position is anchored correctly it is well neigh impossible to blitz around the flanks, and proper screening by Cavalry, is king.  Now, I have never played any of the Nappy Games, only ACW, so my perspective is limited to just that series.

[neonlicht]

I played around a bit with the Napoleonic titles and made a "wish list" of possible changes/suggestions. But, not being a programmer, I don't know if any of these suggestions are possible in the Engine:

1. Rally points for AI: ability to control direction of AI retreats/routs by placing "RP" markers in Editor.
2. Visibility affected by build up of "smoke" from repeated firing (i.e. gradual degradation of visibility).
3. Artillery effect modified by elevation: i.e. for maximum effect, artillery must be on same level (elevation) as target.
4. No line formations in urban/village areas: rule to apply to AI and human players.
5. Inclusion of dedicated Map, OOB, and Parameter Editors.
6. More severe stacking limitations, especially on roads.
7. Implementation of "reinforcement strategies" (as featured in other JTS games).
8. Timed objectives.
9. "Surrender" objectives.
10. More Hotkeys--and especially one for End Phase/Turn.

[Gary McClellan]

#2 and #6 can be done in mods on a fairly straightforward basis already. The others are more programming issues, and I really don't know what may or may not happen there.

You can't really do #2 directly, but you can more or less simulate it by using the weather system. You would set up the battle's PDT file to progressively lower visibility as the day goes on. Now, that approach is not perfectly accurate, because you're "guessing" at the intensity of combat as you program that in, and if the battle takes an hour longer to get going than you expect, you'll have the lowered vis "too soon." Also, there's no way to do localized clouds of smoke, and I would highly doubt that is coming down the line.

#6? Again, you can define stacking in the pdt file, and go from there. You can't really cap road usage (so it's entirely possible to have 5 battalions use the same 100m of roads in a single 10 minute turn...) but you can lower troop density if you want.

[neonlicht]

#2 and #6 can be done in mods on a fairly straightforward basis already.  The others are more programming issues, and I really don't know what may or may not happen there.

You can't really do #2 directly, but you can more or less simulate it by using the weather system.  You would set up the battle's PDT file to progressively lower visibility as the day goes on.  Now, that approach is not perfectly accurate, because you're "guessing" at the intensity of combat as you program that in, and if the battle takes an hour longer to get going than you expect,  you'll have the lowered vis "too soon."  Also, there's no way to do localized clouds of smoke, and I would highly doubt that is coming down the line.

#6? Again, you can define stacking in the pdt file, and go from there. You can't really cap road usage (so it's entirely possible to have 5 battalions use the same 100m of roads in a single 10 minute turn...) but you can lower troop density if you want.

Hi and many thanks for this! Interesting idea to edit the PDT file. I will definitely check that out. Again, thanks for the info, and best wishes.

[-72-]

I don't agree that 2 and 6 are that straightforward, but agree that the effects Gary outlined are there --- it would apply everywhere on the map.

You can apply some effects that abstract those ideas - and Gary pretty much nailed the impacts in detail. 

#4 can be accomplished but not without use of a map editor - I know Nick Bell has created some maps with no roads/trails running through towns. He did that because (as I recall him telling me), that having visited towns/cities of a size during his time in the Army over in Germany, that it was clear that these places were not suitable for army movement.  Also armies didn't use movement through cities/towns in the course of battles- but rather avoided them ... and I think largely for the reason that you are looking to add that sort of effect ... right now with roads running through towns - you just march right in -and form a line and there is no disruption.

#5 - well I'm all for them releasing a Map editor in public -I imagine at some future point they do that - but who knows... it always tied to how much they plan on expanding a series in the future. It's always been that way with that publisher. As mentioned previously, there are no OOB/PDT editors -they aren't held in secret -they simply don't exist. Not always a bad thing either, as if you take the scenario editor - when adding in the extra sides used per scenario in the Musket and Pike engine --- some coding was missed - with the result that the new amount of total sides were not working in the engine. Programming said they were -- so I had to go in and do some text editing, adding VP flags and sides  -and they showed in the saved scenario ... but you could never access the expanded amount in the editor.

It was fixed prior to release --- but that's more to my point -- OOB/PDT- by being the raw plain text coding- that actually is a bit of safety net.

#7  - I guess this means the strategic choice option found in Panzer Campaigns/First World War Campaigns/Modern Campaigns --- the complication with this one, is when presenting a business case with an engine change proposal it has to be tied to a game -not existing games, but games in development... and it really helps if you can also demonstrate how it could be applied to previous titles... although future ones' impact are way more important.  

The complication that the idea would run into -is you'd have to find someone to argue how they are going to use it within their current project; plus if it is a lot of coding to make work in the engine (and it might well be, because PzC/FWWC/MC are really not that similar to the grand tactical series  -it is not likely to go ahead. That's more the general rule.

#8 - might happen - I think Mr Osterlund added that to the Civil War series, and I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up happening, but it would only happen if a similar situation to CWB/PzC/PzB were to happen ... could, but I was told it wasn't ... multiple times (otoh, that doesn't mean it couldn't change).

[Nortan]

I have one additional question. Why did capture of guns and automated defensive fire ("one turn phased mode" from Civil War) not introduced in Napoleonic titles? Quite strange that such important and interesting mechanics (especially for PBEM) weren't added in NB titles for such a long time...

[-72-]

I have one additional question. Why did capture of guns and automated defensive fire ("one turn phased mode" from Civil War) not introduced in Napoleonic titles? Quite strange that such important and interesting mechanics (especially for PBEM) weren't added in NB titles for such a long time...

That's a question for the publisher.   If I had to guess as a wargamer it might be that the original coding for Battleground Waterloo can trace its origins to Wellington's Victory - a boardgame from the 1970's, and Gettysburg could be directly traced to the original version of the boardgame Terrible Swift Sword ... and there were differences in mechanics in those two boardgames.