BoP: Napoleonic Wars (Out-of-character Thread) [Live]

[Volk]

Thinking about the reward or bonus to you all, I've thought of 3 things:

-An extra week or so to plan.In honor of the Cubs winning & because election, working weekend, & birthday I can give you all an extra week.
-Choice between 2 Ships of the Line or Two-Three thousand infantry, spawned where you want or in an army away from immediate combat.
-Other
-Your suggestion here

You all have to agree.

[The Mighty McLovin]

Choice between 2 ships of the line or the infantry

[Ted]

Let's spawn to Ships of the Line at Munich       

[BabyJesus]

I want my army to spawn at the tsars house

[Raddeo]

None, and none! I don't think any of us really care about some team winning some game somewhere in the world. I can see no reason why our long planned actions should now go vain, just because someone would go full deus ex machina and magically create soldiers out of mud and dust. Either such spawns would make no difference (yay, add 3k men to army of 100k, such change) or would make terrible difference (double size of an army by adding 3k to almost destroyed ensembly and let it fight even if it should be destroyed in next battle). And concerning time for plans - either we claim that limits are there to make game enjoyable for all us and to avoid forcing us to wait too long, or we claim that they're here just because you want them here and we start manipulating it at every occasion. But if the latter is true, then I can see no reason for existance of such limits at all. So I vote against any proposition.

[Ted]

None, and none! I don't think any of us really care about some team winning some game somewhere in the world. I can see no reason why our long planned actions should now go vain, just because someone would go full deus ex machina and magically create soldiers out of mud and dust. Either such spawns would make no difference (yay, add 3k men to army of 100k, such change) or would make terrible difference (double size of an army by adding 3k to almost destroyed ensembly and let it fight even if it should be destroyed in next battle). And concerning time for plans - either we claim that limits are there to make game enjoyable for all us and to avoid forcing us to wait too long, or we claim that they're here just because you want them here and we start manipulating it at every occasion. But if the latter is true, then I can see no reason for existance of such limits at all. So I vote against any proposition.

+1

I would agree to an extra week of planning though

[BabyJesus]

I was bored so i added up all the casualties. The numbers are killed, wounded, and captured all added together. I think im starting to feel bad for Austria.

British: 17 SOL* | 14,250

Denmark:4 SOL | 900

French: 2 SOL | 52,522

Sweden: 10 SOL | 15,000

Prussia: 22,900

Austria: 111,884

Spanish: 11 SOL | 11,500

Russia: 8 SOL | 21,000

Bavaria: 11,172


*SOL=Ships of the Line

[Cazasar]

I think the math mistake raddeo pointet put at the beginning is hurting me the most.

[Ted]

I think the math mistake raddeo pointet put at the beginning is hurting me the most.

^

[BabyJesus]

I think the math mistake raddeo pointet put at the beginning is hurting me the most.

i think it's just your bad luck. You rolled the lowest possible roll while France rolled the highest possible roll. That one battle was like 40,000 casualties. You also loss every battle

[Raddeo]

BabyJesus, the fact that one is true, does not mean, that the other is not. Cazasar may indeed have terribly bad luck. But Volk's math may be as bad as Cazasar's luck.

I cannot think of any real battle during Napoleonic Wars, in which casualties of one side would be even remotely close to size of emeny's army. And in our game almost every battle ends with such results. In almost every battle in which size of one army is much bigger than size of the other, bigger army suffers irrational loses.
Battle of Emden, France had 6 500 men, Britain lost 4 350 men.
Battle of Torino, Russia had 20 000 men, Swedes lost 15 000 men.
Battle of Starnberg, France had 58 200, Austrians lost 53 750 men.
Battle of Viipuri, Denmark had 10 000, Russia lost 9 500 men.
Even in historical battle of Auestedt, casualties of Prussia were equal to only 55,5% of French army. Only event I can think of is pursuit after battle of Vauchamps, but if was a result of battle itself, in which loses of coallition were not even close to those which he have in our game.
Current mechanics and math used in this game make totally no sense. Neither historically nor tactically. It's impossible to predict results of any campaign, and even Montenegro could now rule the world after one battle with good rolls. I'm not starting this discussion again, I don't really care anymore, but as this topic was mentioned, I've felt obligated to show some things forth.

[Ted]

BabyJesus, the fact that one is true, does not mean, that the other is not. Cazasar may indeed have terribly bad luck. But Volk's math may be as bad as Cazasar's luck.

I cannot think of any real battle during Napoleonic Wars, in which casualties of one side would be even remotely close to size of emeny's army. And in our game almost every battle ends with such results. In almost every battle in which size of one army is much bigger than size of the other, bigger army suffers irrational loses.
Battle of Emden, France had 6 500 men, Britain lost 4 350 men.
Battle of Torino, Russia had 20 000 men, Swedes lost 15 000 men.
Battle of Starnberg, France had 58 200, Austrians lost 53 750 men.
Battle of Viipuri, Denmark had 10 000, Russia lost 9 500 men.
Even in historical battle of Auestedt, casualties of Prussia were equal to only 55,5% of French army. Only event I can think of is pursuit after battle of Vauchamps, but if was a result of battle itself, in which loses of coallition were not even close to those which he have in our game.
Current mechanics and math used in this game make totally no sense. Neither historically nor tactically. It's impossible to predict results of any campaign, and even Montenegro could now rule the world after one battle with good rolls. I'm not starting this discussion again, I don't really care anymore, but as this topic was mentioned, I've felt obligated to show some things forth.

I totally agree with this statement. Under the current ciecumstances it has proofen a MISTAKE to unite armies against your enemies because it does not give you an advantage, but insane losses due to the roll of a dice which is luck only.

[BabyJesus]

BabyJesus, the fact that one is true, does not mean, that the other is not. Cazasar may indeed have terribly bad luck. But Volk's math may be as bad as Cazasar's luck.

I cannot think of any real battle during Napoleonic Wars, in which casualties of one side would be even remotely close to size of emeny's army. And in our game almost every battle ends with such results. In almost every battle in which size of one army is much bigger than size of the other, bigger army suffers irrational loses.
Battle of Emden, France had 6 500 men, Britain lost 4 350 men.
Battle of Torino, Russia had 20 000 men, Swedes lost 15 000 men.
Battle of Starnberg, France had 58 200, Austrians lost 53 750 men.
Battle of Viipuri, Denmark had 10 000, Russia lost 9 500 men.
Even in historical battle of Auestedt, casualties of Prussia were equal to only 55,5% of French army. Only event I can think of is pursuit after battle of Vauchamps, but if was a result of battle itself, in which loses of coallition were not even close to those which he have in our game.
Current mechanics and math used in this game make totally no sense. Neither historically nor tactically. It's impossible to predict results of any campaign, and even Montenegro could now rule the world after one battle with good rolls. I'm not starting this discussion again, I don't really care anymore, but as this topic was mentioned, I've felt obligated to show some things forth.

I totally agree with this statement. Under the current ciecumstances it has proofen a MISTAKE to unite armies against your enemies because it does not give you an advantage, but insane losses due to the roll of a dice which is luck only.

Ted for the last fucking time proofen is not a word. It is proven. I swear this is like the 10th time I have told you. I'm triggered

I never actually noticed that raddeo. Although I also don't know the size of every army in the game. Like holy fuck how many spies do you have? No wonder why you were against volk limiting spies.

You should go back and see what the casualties would be with your formula

[Raddeo]

I know everything. You can call me Raddeo The All-Seeing. And I have never been against limiting spies. Last time we talked about it, I was against strict numerical limit, like 1 spy per turn, for I am aware that such limits never work correctly. That's another thing math teaches us. It's better to have some fluent limit, like making chance of espionage failure proportional to amount of used spies, which I proposed last time. I also supported applying Late Penaulty to those who edit their orders basing on espionage results. So get your facts straight.

With my formula casualties would never be bigger than 30% (or about 40% with nation and commander bonuses) of enemy army. I these specific battles Britain would loose 1 885 men, Sweden 5 000, Austria 25 026 (in fact this numer would be different, as size of French army was result of two previous battles) and finally Russia would loose 1 900. Also in many cases results of whole battles would be different, as bigger armies would deal much more damage to the enemy (as it should be).

[The Mighty McLovin]

Napoleon was Corsican, not Sicilian.

By the way, I won't be able to work my plans until Friday - I have a lot of exams in my school which are important.