01-12-2003 20:43									#1
	Conquest #8, Napolean, is this a bug or design? Inflate your Upload Space

Wow, soooooo many scenarios. When do I get to the real game?

Only 2 left, Napolean and WWII. WWII has a limit of 50 turns so I can see why build options are restricted for that scenario.

But, whats the deal with Napolean? I haven't started playing yet, but even though settlers are listed in civopedia and no modification is noted for this scenario. I can't get settlers to appear on the build menu.

Is no settler build option a bug or restricted design element?

Thinking it may be a problem with first turn, I let scenario row to second turn with no action, and still no settlers available.

What about when capture cities? Still no option of bringing along a settler? Scenario limit is about 100 turns, this doesn't make sense.

France is settup strangely:
-- 2 leaders, great,
-- almost all cities have 3-4 entertainers, this sucks.

I can understand a need to go to war for luxuries, but with so many entertainers, a key French trait is negated.

So, what do you all think?
[ ] bug in scenario, or
[ ] scenario unadvertised design "feature"

And while thinking,
[ ] does removing settlers from build queue make sense?
[ ] why is this scenario only 100 turns and not 150?
[ ] if you were designing the scenario, what changes would you make?

Thanks for the feedback.

-- PF

	01-12-2003 21:31									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

The lack of settlers was intended.

	01-12-2003 21:40									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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

	01-12-2003 22:01									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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

	02-12-2003 02:41									#5
	Got spare money?

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.

	02-12-2003 02:48									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	02-12-2003 02:55									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	02-12-2003 03:09									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	02-12-2003 03:42									#9
	Got spare money?

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

	04-12-2003 15:07									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	04-12-2003 20:16									#11
	Support Apolyton

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

	04-12-2003 21:28									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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

	04-12-2003 21:42									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	05-12-2003 00:39									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	05-12-2003 00:56									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	05-12-2003 03:40									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

There's 3 main reasons there are no Settlers in this scenario:

1) Not historically accurate.
You didn't see large bands of migrating hordes wandering around the Napoleonic battlefields. Europe is settled and it's settled in a way designed by the scenario designer for how he thought this conquest should be shaped.

2) Gameplay
This isn't the kind of scenario where you should be trying to grab land. This one's about knocking the snot out of your neighbors. Yes, it's annoying that if the AI (or you) raze a city then it's gone for good with no chance of reappearing, but that's how things go. I wish there was just a way to turn off the razing of cities.

3) AI Behavior
The AI puts too much focus on building Settlers/cities and REXing which hurts it for this kind of scenario. Solution: disable Settlers.

	05-12-2003 03:47									#17
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by planetfall 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?

The French Revolution began in 1789, ousting the king and put into place a "republican" government (often times it was a stretch just for killing aristocrats or anyone else who got in the way of who was in charge). The rest of the European monarchies felt threatened and tried to get rid of this new republican government and reinstate the Bourbon monarchs.

Through chance and blundering France managed to fight off most of Europe, and eventually decided to try and "republicanize" the rest of Europe itself. Thus the wars continued through the next decade when an artillery commander in northern Italy rose to grandeur and through success was able to eventually crown himself emperor in November 1804. Over the next few years Napoleon defeated Prussia, Austria and Russia to make France the master of Europe. However, in this era countries weren't ever fully annexed so the defeated countries only lost territory and had to pay indemnities (and usually had to ally with Napoleon against his next enemies).

The wars continued on until 1815, around 25 years since they had first begun. Europe managed to fully unite against France and the increasing experience of the Allies (troops and commanders) and the waning manpower of France led to the ultimate downfall of the Napoleonic Empire.

	05-12-2003 04:56									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Trip There's 3 main reasons there are no Settlers in this scenario: 1) Not historically accurate. You didn't see large bands of migrating hordes wandering around the Napoleonic battlefields. Europe is settled and it's settled in a way designed by the scenario designer for how he thought this conquest should be shaped.

weak argument. question is only about France

quote: 2) Gameplay This isn't the kind of scenario where you should be trying to grab land. This one's about knocking the snot out of your neighbors. Yes, it's annoying that if the AI (or you) raze a city then it's gone for good with no chance of reappearing, but that's how things go. I wish there was just a way to turn off the razing of cities.

Weak argument still, scenario starts at 1800. Aus has just sued for peace, Napolean is victorious. Peace continues with only GB at war until 1805. Only GB should be at war, but should be in locked alliance and MPP with others.

quote: 3) AI Behavior The AI puts too much focus on building Settlers/cities and REXing which hurts it for this kind of scenario. Solution: disable Settlers.

strong argument, and the only one that makes sense. Alternative would be to make a special Settler unit only available with a new cheap tech and set AI so it NEVER researchs that tech. Wouldn't quite fit the bill, but would have city fill available by turn 7.


Thanks for the short history lesson.

I pulled up an intro to the French Empire and it matches. Now the biggest things that do not match are:
--Designer, start is "Jan 1800" and game has 4 civs at war with France. But in 1800, half of Italy was still French.
-- 1793 GB got involved, that's only 7 years for WW to build. It should not be at the 60% mark by start of game at 1800

Looks like modded schools to add one happy face.

Are you suggesting this is a fun scenario?

-- PF

	05-12-2003 05:29									#19
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by planetfall -- 1793 GB got involved, that's only 7 years for WW to build. It should not be at the 60% mark by start of game at 1800 -- PF

Don't forget to look at the bigger picture with Britain and WW. They'ld been fighting with the French in one form or another since the days of William the Conquerer. At the renewal of fighting with France in 1793, it had only been a little more than a decade since the end of the war in America. There was continuing unrest in India and Ireland.

Politically, there was a large section of the British aristocracy that felt that Britain was safe behind the protections of the Channel and the fleets. They saw no reason to get too envolved in continental squabbles. I'm sure more than a few thought that King George's ties to Saxe-Coburg and Germany were coloring his foreign policy for the worse.

Furthermore, the industrial revolution was starting to swing up, and the social changes it would engender were begining to make themselves felt.

All of these conditions together do tend to make a high WW for GB in 1800 somewhat reasonable.

	05-12-2003 13:46									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: 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. 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

?? I was using mobilization. I could build non-military stuff- this was at regent level btw. I went back to my normal shields though, I didn't get the bonus shields. I was able to build harbours and airports and such.

	05-12-2003 13:52									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

how do you tell what percentage the WW is?

And the WW should not extend past when France instituted the republican form of goverment over the monarchy.

It is a fun scenario. but you have to play diplomacy carefully. I ignored diplomacy my first game . The whole world ganged up against me . I did fairly well considering it was me against the world. I had worse GNP, man. fact goods, and productivity that many of the countries, yet I still held off 6 or 7 civs at at time .


but you'll have an easier time if you use diplomacy. You can get some MPP, right of passages and alliances vs. the english on turn 1. This buys you 20 turns at least to take Amersterdam and most of Italy.

P.S. if you do switch to Monarchy, it will take about 9 turns. I ran a test and that's how much it took me. You lose a lot of research and production. And you still have some happiness problems, but I guess it's worth it- maybe- I'm not a number cruncher, so I can't say for sure.

	05-12-2003 20:29									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dissident how do you tell what percentage the WW is?

And I thought I had nothing I could teach.
Don't have the data with me, I will give you the info tonight.

My guess is the average is about 65% WW. 2 cities have pop of 4 and so have none, so if exclude those the range was from 7X% to 65%. Again I will get the numbers tonight.

The way to get WW numbers is to go to city view and change entertainers to workers until you have at least one unhappy citz.
Click on the unhappy citz for the causes and it gives you a percentage for WW as "give peace a chance, etc".

quote: And the WW should not extend past when France instituted the republican form of goverment over the monarchy.

Isn't that backwards, WW won't extend from repub to monarchy

quote: It is a fun scenario. but you have to play diplomacy carefully. I ignored diplomacy my first game . The whole world ganged up against me . I did fairly well considering it was me against the world. I had worse GNP, man. fact goods, and productivity that many of the countries, yet I still held off 6 or 7 civs at at time . but you'll have an easier time if you use diplomacy. You can get some MPP, right of passages and alliances vs. the english on turn 1. This buys you 20 turns at least to take Amersterdam and most of Italy.

I have played ONE turn only. That was similar to my plan. I set up MMP with almost everyone except Amersterdam, Prussia and Italy.
I want amersterdam, some of Prussia and a bit of Italy. I skim read a history overview and saw the French actually took all of Italy but then easily lost it in a few years. Taking Italy would increase huge vulnerability to Ottomans and Austria.

I forget to check govt types yet, but wanted to equalize the playing field a bit by building a WW base in the other civs and try to avoid too much of a multifront war. Trying to not repeat history here.

1804 is the earliest I expect to put the armies to work. Well actually one is playing with Amsterdam, but the other is waiting for elite troop tech.

quote: P.S. if you do switch to Monarchy, it will take about 9 turns. I ran a test and that's how much it took me. You lose a lot of research and production. And you still have some happiness problems, but I guess it's worth it- maybe- I'm not a number cruncher, so I can't say for sure.

Now this is interesting. If you switch at beginning/middle of turn you get 9 turns. But if switch at end of turn it is only 6.

I decided NOT to switch yet. The amsterdam invasion started GA so decided to wait until after end of GA to switch. I bought 2 lux's instead and plan to get schools during GA. So this will be limited warfare at first.

-- PF

	06-12-2003 13:39									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I understand in real life holding italy was a chore. But I had no problem. This is mainly due to the ai's reluctance to use massive amphibious assaults. I should mention the spanish, portuguese, and esp. the British did land 4 units (sometimes 8) in my territory. I never seen an ottoman ship the entire game.

One Austrian city I took was Venice. The ai did try to head towards that city a couple of times, but I had no problem holding that. And Frankfurt was a target as well.

	06-12-2003 19:26									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I like the inability to build settlers. As Trip points out, it's far more historically realistic, and it forces the player to deal with the problems of subject populations, just as conquering European nations have always had to do.

While we're at it, call me a pedant, but can we please all try to spell "Napoleon" correctly? It is one of the most famous names of history, after all.

	07-12-2003 00:27									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ok, finally finished. Lack of settlers was annoying but not scenario breaker I suspected it might be. I might even play this one again. The designer note to build schools seem to be a red herring. I ran out of time and was about 13K VP short. Spain seems to have non stop cavs.

Don't know if it was the lower level or what, but expected big British invasion. It never came.

Thanks for all your comments.

== PF

	07-12-2003 12:46									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I finished this scenario a couple days ago and won a victory points win with 4 turns left.

I'm glad there are no settlers in the game. We should have to deal with the map, including cities, as it is. Population density will increase as your cities grow.

War Weariness wasn't a terrible problem for me. By the time it really got bad I had researched almost everything and I finished the game with a 50% entertainment budget.

I signed MPPs with Spain, Ottomans, and Russia early. Then I moved to take Italy and Amsterdam. I allowed some time to pass before attacking Austria and Prussia. When I finally attacked in 1810 or so I had six armies. Armies coupled with grand cannons take down cities quite nicely, but I always needed more than one army to take a city in one turn. My usually attack force was three armies and five to eight grand cannons. I got the VP win the turn I took the last Prussian city (Austria was crushed a few turns earlier. Thus it was now France and Russia face to face.

I enjoyed it immensely.

	07-12-2003 13:17									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by planetfall Ok, finally finished. Lack of settlers was annoying but not scenario breaker I suspected it might be. I might even play this one again. The designer note to build schools seem to be a red herring. I ran out of time and was about 13K VP short. Spain seems to have non stop cavs. Don't know if it was the lower level or what, but expected big British invasion. It never came. Thanks for all your comments. == PF

I hear you about the non-stop cavs. Next game if I play the french, I'm going to try to remain more friendly with Spain .

As for my game the British did get a big feisty in the late game. They landed 4 units followed by 4 more units the turn after on a weak part of my territory- the AI always lands units on the most weakly defended part of my territory . These were the 7/7 units. I did lose one city, but got it back the next turn. The British actually took Venice from me one turn as well- again I got it back. But they are "good" at spotting weakly defended cities.