Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Victory & Glory: Napoleon» Forums » General

Subject: About that map rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Lance Harrop
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It bothers me that Russia has larger regions than the rest of the map.

Russia had worse roads. In anything, it should have MORE regions because it would take longer to march through.

And Poland (Duchy of Warsaw) should be more regions as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Drover
United States
Plainfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Leifr wrote:
It bothers me that Russia has larger regions than the rest of the map.

Russia had worse roads. In anything, it should have MORE regions because it would take longer to march through.

And Poland (Duchy of Warsaw) should be more regions as well.


This is an excellent point. Russia should be more difficult to invade due to the conditions and distances.

The logic behind the scale of the regions is that Napoleon was able to launch his invasion from Poland on June 24 and reach Moscow on September 14. Our turns are 2 months, so that would be 2 turns. Already, the scale of our regions only allows it to occur in 3 turns.

The speed that the French advance occurred vs. movement on better roads in Germany can be party explained by the fact that Western Russia is pretty flat and open along the route from Poland to Moscow. Good quality roads are not really that necessary for armies to march as long as the weather is good. The real challenge is for wheeled vehicles and supply. The cost of a fast advance is disruption and attrition.

The way that we have handled that in the game is that there are a few cards that punish the French for invading Spain and Russia with extra attrition. So, if the allied player has one or two of those cards in their hand, they can really wear down the French invasion.

Also, Russia has two capitals: St. Petersburg and Moscow.
This makes Russia very hard to conquer, and the French will either have to split their forces, or take one and then the other, which will take time and leave them exposed to more attrition.

Ultimately this is a grand strategy game (as opposed to an operational game) and has some elements abstracted to allow for smooth gameplay. As long as the results feel realistic and the outcomes are appropriate, I believe that abstraction can be vastly superior to literalism when it comes to good game design.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hoss Cartwright
United States
California
flag msg tools
The logic to that answer is they used the map from another game and didn't want to make a new concept and instead tried to save money?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Drover
United States
Plainfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hoss Cartwright wrote:
The logic to that answer is they used the map from another game and didn't want to make a new concept and instead tried to save money?


Hoss Cartwright -
You made it clear that you don't like the artwork and have no interest in this game when you rated it (before ever playing it) a '1', and then went on a rant that included some personal attacks on me.
Why would you continue to visit the product page of a product that you have decided that you hate?

Your uninformed opinion of why we used the map is, unsurprisingly, wrong.
I decided to use the map from Napoleon in Europe for this new game because it is a perfect map for a non-grognard strategic level Napoleonic game. The artwork is, IMHO, beautiful and evocative of the period. It was hand-illustrated, and the talent and man-hours that went into it make it unique and hard to replicate in this age of electronic artwork. I couldn't imagine creating anything as good again.
Cost savings didn't enter into the equation, as you might be able to guess given the high-end quality of the rest of the assets in the game.




19 
 Thumb up
2.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Harrop
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Budley wrote:
Leifr wrote:
It bothers me that Russia has larger regions than the rest of the map.

Russia had worse roads. In anything, it should have MORE regions because it would take longer to march through.

And Poland (Duchy of Warsaw) should be more regions as well.


This is an excellent point. Russia should be more difficult to invade due to the conditions and distances.

The logic behind the scale of the regions is that Napoleon was able to launch his invasion from Poland on June 24 and reach Moscow on September 14. Our turns are 2 months, so that would be 2 turns. Already, the scale of our regions only allows it to occur in 3 turns.

The speed that the French advance occurred vs. movement on better roads in Germany can be party explained by the fact that Western Russia is pretty flat and open along the route from Poland to Moscow. Good quality roads are not really that necessary for armies to march as long as the weather is good. The real challenge is for wheeled vehicles and supply. The cost of a fast advance is disruption and attrition.

The way that we have handled that in the game is that there are a few cards that punish the French for invading Spain and Russia with extra attrition. So, if the allied player has one or two of those cards in their hand, they can really wear down the French invasion.

Also, Russia has two capitals: St. Petersburg and Moscow.
This makes Russia very hard to conquer, and the French will either have to split their forces, or take one and then the other, which will take time and leave them exposed to more attrition.

Ultimately this is a grand strategy game (as opposed to an operational game) and has some elements abstracted to allow for smooth gameplay. As long as the results feel realistic and the outcomes are appropriate, I believe that abstraction can be vastly superior to literalism when it comes to good game design.



Glenn, if you look at the time it took Napoleon to move his Old Guard from France to the Austrian border in 1809 by that logic you'd have to reduce the number of regions in Germany to one.

I think you need to look at a different mechanic.

Also, Russia was forced out of alliance three, four? times before the 1812 invasion. Clearly they don't need to simply lose their capitals to change.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitch Willis
United States
Kathleen
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Leifr wrote:
Also, Russia was forced out of alliance three, four? times before the 1812 invasion. Clearly they don't need to simply lose their capitals to change.

As this is, to a certain extent, a card driven game, there might be event cards that can also arise that might have the effect of forcing Russia out of the alliance. I recall reading somewhere that Glenn mentioned a card that had a similar sort of effect on the Ottoman Empire, if I understood it correctly...

Glenn mentioned above that conquering Russia required taking both capitals...having not read the rules, there might be a difference in conquering and being forced to leave an alliance...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Drover
United States
Plainfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

[/q]

Glenn, if you look at the time it took Napoleon to move his Old Guard from France to the Austrian border in 1809 by that logic you'd have to reduce the number of regions in Germany to one.

I think you need to look at a different mechanic.

Also, Russia was forced out of alliance three, four? times before the 1812 invasion. Clearly they don't need to simply lose their capitals to change.[/q]

I agree. There should be another way for the Russians to be forced to make peace...and there is. ;-)
There is also a 'Treaty of Tilsit' event card
May be played if Russia has lost a major battle within the last 3 turns where they had 7 or more units eliminated. Russia becomes a friendly neutral to France and has their diplomatic rating set to 8. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw becomes French owned if it wasn’t already. Any foreign troops in Russian territory are removed and placed in the closest region owned by that nation.

As far as regions go, you really need to play the game to see if the scale works in the context of distance vs. time as well as for each campaign as it fits into the entire war.
I've played the game dozens of times and it feels right to me.

Technically Russia was forced out of the alliance really only once: after Friedland in 1807. After Austerlitz, they never sued for peace as, to your point, they didn't have to. They just retreated back into Russia. And in 1800, they left the alliance because they were angry at Great Britain and frustrated with Austria after the bungling in Italy and Switzerland.

The game models the reality and feel of Russia at war pretty darn well.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Drover
United States
Plainfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
otha62 wrote:
Leifr wrote:
Also, Russia was forced out of alliance three, four? times before the 1812 invasion. Clearly they don't need to simply lose their capitals to change.

As this is, to a certain extent, a card driven game, there might be event cards that can also arise that might have the effect of forcing Russia out of the alliance. I recall reading somewhere that Glenn mentioned a card that had a similar sort of effect on the Ottoman Empire, if I understood it correctly...

Glenn mentioned above that conquering Russia required taking both capitals...having not read the rules, there might be a difference in conquering and being forced to leave an alliance...


As usual, Mitch is so on point it's scary. ;-)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
This is Kyoshi, our adopted Shiba Inu.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Russia only quit fighting France twice, and one of those was in 1799, i.e. before the actual "Napoleonic Wars", which were started by Britain in 1803. The other was in 1807 and was the result of the battlefield victory at Friedland.

Ha, Glenn beat me to it while I was typing.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Draker
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the map is beautiful and also loved all the other Eagle Games maps that came out around the same time. I own Napoleon in Europe and always felt it was a gorgeous game, but couldn't get into the game play.

I am on the fence about supporting this project. The changes outlined sound promising but there are just so many new great-looking games coming out and so little time to play Only a few more days to decide...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Drover
United States
Plainfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron D wrote:
I think the map is beautiful and also loved all the other Eagle Games maps that came out around the same time. I own Napoleon in Europe and always felt it was a gorgeous game, but couldn't get into the game play.

I am on the fence about supporting this project. The changes outlined sound promising but there are just so many new great-looking games coming out and so little time to play Only a few more days to decide...


Hi Ron -
The board game will certainly be a rare commodity based on the limited print run. But the good news is that if you miss out, you can always get the PC game. It will go on sale at Slitherine (the PC publisher) on January 28, and should be available for quite a long time.
It offers great solo gameplay and is essentially the same game experience as the board game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.