Napoleonic Empires Free-For-All 5 Alliances
A 5 sides Cernel's mod of -
Napoleonic Empires Free-For-All 8 Players
by LSSAH and Veqryn
- set in June of 1794:
the French Revolutionary War against the First Coalition during the Reign of Terror
On 21 January 1793, the French Republic decapitated King Louis XVI on the Place de la Revolution. The levee en masse was ordered, and hundreds of thousands of citizens marched in defence of Liberty. After executing royalist and clerical traitors and brigands in the tens of thousands and watering the fields with the impure blood of hordes of ferocious soldiers, the day of glory has came, for the gallant warriors of France, to deliver the Patrie from its perfidious enemies and free Europe from the bloody banners of tyranny...
Victory is achieved by owning a set number of Capitals end turn, with Orleanais (Paris) counting as 2 Capitals: you achieve victory when your Alliance collectively owns the required number of Capitals at the end of any turn of yours (you are not required to own your original Capitals).
Projection of Power (default): +2 Capitals
Honorable Surrender: +3 Capitals
Total Victory: 6 Capitals
Capitals for the win:
Projection of Power: Western Powers=5, Northern Powers=4, Central Powers=4, OttomanEmpire=3, Russia=3.
It is time that equality bore its scythe above all heads. It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law shall hover over all the guilty. -Convention, 5 September 1793
The game follows v2 rules, with only the following exceptions / clarifications, aside from general rules shared amongst all TripleA games:
You can move your units during Combat Move even if you are not going to do battle or conquer zones. You can also move a same unit partly during Combat Move and partly during Non Combat Move (meaning that you are also allowed to anticipate Non Combat Move moves during Combat Move, even if you are not going in battle or conquests).
You can choose not to place units (all unplaced units are destroyed).
All units entering a hostile land territory always have to stop their Combat Move (even if the territory is defenceless) (no blitz). Yet, if they used only part of their movement and the hostile territory they entered was defenceless, they can move on, during Non Combat Move.
Battleship units repair only at the start of the owner's turn.
Ships that unloaded into a land territory can bombard (if they are able to) only the territory they unloaded to (ships that didn't unload can bombard whatever).
No more than one ship per unloaded unit, from the same sea zone, can bombard (it hasn't to be the one that unloaded the unit).
Bombard casualties are removed at the end of the first round of combat (so, casualties are always able to return fire).
Marines unloaded into combat have their attack value increased by 1 (to 3), for the whole battle.
Your Capital territory counts as having a factory in it, when owned by you (if destroyed, the original owner gets its Capital factory back, when the Capital territory is liberated).
Encampment and General, as well as your Capital, are factories. Having any number of factories in a land territory (or the territory being the Capital of the current owner) allows the placement, in that same land territory or from that same land territory to an adjacent sea zone, of a total number (accounting land and sea units together) of non factory units (Fortress and Tower are no exceptions) per turn equal to the production value of said territory (having more than one factory in the same territory does not increase placement capabilities).
The General unit is a factory that can move (2) and be loaded onto ships, but can't enter (currently) hostile land territories (so, it has no special restrictions during Non Combat Move) (whatever placement is always restricted to the land territories owned since start turn, anyway: if you move a General into a newly conquered land territory, it won't be able to produce units on that turn).
You can place 1 factory (Encampment or General) per land territory per turn, in any land territories you own since start turn (additionally to any non factory units you can eventually place). Yet, you cannot place an Encampment in territories with an Encampment already in them and you cannot place, nor have, an Encampment in your Capital (any Encampment in your owned Capital is removed).
When a land territory is captured, all factories (Encampment or General) in it are destroyed (the Capital is also destroyed upon capture).
When a Capital territory is captured, all owner's PUs are destroyed (not captured).
Convoy zones are sea zones that are owned (the start game owners are the original owners), and can be captured or liberated, like land territories, but with sea units, and are impassable to any hostile units during Non Combat Move. Sea units can enter (thus, eventually, capturing or liberating) hostile convoy zones, during Combat Move (capturing or liberating a convoy zone doesn't end the movement of any units).
Convoy zones have production values (no placement capabilities). Only the original owner collects income from the convoy zone, as long as it owns the convoy zone at the end of its turn.
You don't collect income from land territories you conquered, contested or that are contested, on the same turn; exception is that you always collect income from your Capital territory, as long as you own it the end of your turn.
War is merely the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means. -Carl von Clausewitz
There are 4 relationships: War, Ceasefire, Open Borders and Allied.
Each player starts the game sharing one relationship each with any other players. Players part of a same Alliance are Allied forever.
You have a Politics phase, at start turn, for making political actions. Each political action may change your relationship with one other player. When you go from left to right, in the aforementioned relationship list, you are upgrading; when you go from right to left, in the aforementioned relationship list, you are downgrading. You can always unilaterally downgrade, but you always need the immediate consent of the other side to upgrade. Political actions are validated (the relationship gets actually changed) only upon ending the Politics phase.
It is possible to perform whatever political actions, with only two exceptions:
1) you can only go to Ceasefire or War, if you start your turn at War or were at War at the end of your previous turn;
2) you can only go to Open Borders or Allied, if you start your turn Allied or were Allied at the end of your previous turn. When you upgrade your relationship, with another player, to Allied, all originally (start game) owned land territories and convoy zones, that are currently owned by the other side, in the relationship, immediately revert back to the original (start game) ownership, but only if the original owner currently owns its own Capital (as normal, when you get your Capital back, all your originally owned land territories and convoy zones currently owned by Allies revert back to you).
Open Borders is same as Allied, except that:
- you don't give back original territories (nor land territories, nor convoy zones);
- you can't load onto ships.
Ceasefire is same as Open Borders, except that you can't enter land territories (you can enter convoy zones).
You can load onto ships of other players (only if Allied) only with the immediate consent for the single loading move (no consent required for unloading).
You can't directly move from an enemy owned land territory into an enemy owned land territory (you can move into a hostile land territory, if not enemy owned) (multiple movement units may indirectly move from an enemy owned land territory into an enemy owned land territory, by stepping into a friendly land territory in between).
Abandoned contested land territories or sea zones are not taken over immediately (if you are in an enemy owned land territory or convoy zone with no hostile units in it, you can conquer it only during your turn).
What the above political actions limits mean is:
- When you start your Politics phase being at "War" with a player, you can only change it to "Ceasefire", and back to "War", any time during the Politics phase.
- When you start your Politics phase being "Allied" with a player, you can only change it to "Open Borders", and back to "Allied", any time during the Politics phase.
- After you upgraded to "Ceasefire" (from "War"), then the other side, during its immediate next turn, is limited having only the option to downgrade to "War", and back to "Ceasefire" (if he keeps Ceasefire, then, on your next turn, you will still be at "Ceasefire", and able to move to whatever other relationships (you can go directly from Ceasefire to Allied)).
- After you downgraded to "Open Borders" (from "Allied"), then the other side, during its immediate next turn, is limited having only the option to upgrade to "Allied", and back to "Open Borders" (if he keeps Open Borders, then, on your next turn, you will still be at "Open Borders", and able to move to whatever other relationships (you can go directly from Open Borders to War)).
Relationships are purely two sided. For example, being Allied with somebody just influences the dynamics between your units and territories and the other one's units and territories. This implies that, among other things, being Allied doesn't mean at all that you will be defending together your ally against a third side, which depends only upon the relationships each player is in with this last one; so, two players defend together only if they are both at "War" with the attacking one, no matter the relationship they have between each other. This also means that, if a player is at Open Borders or Ceasefire with two other players, since the end of its previous turn, he can downgrade to War with only one of them (so that they won't defend together), and attack only that one, no matter if the two players are Allied with each other! Multiple players need to be all at War with another one, in order to be sure to be always ready to defend together, anytime, against it! For example, if a player is Allied with two other players, it can downgrade, during its own turn, its relationships with both to Open Borders; then, on its own next turn, he can downgrade to War with only one, and attack that player, without having the other one defending together. In this case, there is nothing the other players can possibly do, during their turns in between, aside only from asking the other player to go back to Allied. The player that downgraded from Allied to Open Borders is always the first one having the ability to downgrade further down, to Ceasefire or War alike. Only being Allied or having been Allied at the end of its previous turn prevents another player from attacking you! Ceasefire and Open Borders don't give you any protections from future attacks! Also, being Allied with another power protects you from being attacked immediately, but if he decides to downgrade the relationship to Open Borders, he will be the first one able to go at War, the next round, taking the first shot, and picking its enemies at will! Aside from the aforementioned limits, you can go from whatever relationships to whatever relationships, with political actions; meaning that, for example, you can go from Ceasefire to Allied (or whatever) directly or from Open Borders to War (or whatever) directly, and even from War to whatever other relationships directly, comprising Allied, or from Allied to whatever other relationships directly, comprising War, as long as you weren't at War or Allied at start turn nor at the end of your previous turn.
You can do infinite political actions per turn, with all players not part of your fixed Alliance.
It is not possible to bundle agreements: each political action is independent from the others and they are made in the sequence chosen by the turn player.
Relationships are changed only upon ending the Politics phase (not upon making political actions); it is irrelevant what relationships you are currently in, during your Politics phase; instead, only the relationships you were in at the start of the same and beforehand matter.
Since relationships are defined only upon ending the Politics phase, the turn player can downgrade back at will whatever relationships he previously upgraded, during the same phase; then, he can even ask for upgrading it back, or even keeping asking again and again for the same thing.
To have good soldiers, a nation must always be at war. -Napoleone Bonaparte
It is possible to surrender the game, by publicly declaring this intention: if all players but one surrender, the remaining player wins immediately (and the game is over); if more than one player refuse to surrender or if everyone surrenders, surrendering is inconsequential (and the game goes on normally, like noone surrendered (you can still try to surrender, at any point in the future)) (it is not possible to end the game with more than 1 winner, nor to end it without a winner).
Anyone can abort (quit) his game at any moment (the game doesn't necessarily end when one (or more) of the players aborts). Aborted players count as surrendered. Abort is irreversible (unless everyone else, noone excluded, agrees on the coming back or on a substitution). The units and territories of players of anyone aborting the game are neutralized: the players must be given to 'Does Nothing (AI)' (unless differently agreed), and the game goes on. Neutralized players are like Neutral (they don't move, don't attack and don't place new units), except that you keep your relationships with them, you are still able to make political actions with them and they accept whatever political actions, as well as whatever proposals requiring consent (casualties selection in multi-players defense or inter-players loading moves). Even after aborting, you are still able to win the game (but very unlikely).
To revert an aborted player, substitute a player with another, substitute a player with an active AI (other than "Does Nothing") or vice versa, everyone's consent is needed (in particular, this game is meant never to be played with AI; so, the players of quitters are meant to be neutralized, not given to AI).
Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the latter than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never. -Napoleone Bonaparte
Karelia - Ingria (between SZ2 and SZ3) and Constantinople - Kiutayeh (between SZ84 and SZ92) are canals (and land connected).
All land territories bordering SZ5 are land connected (bridges: Finland - Lappland and Finland - Svealand).
There should be a sea borderline, from Ingria to Karelia, separating SZ2 and SZ3; meaning that Ingria and Karelia are both connected to two different sea zones, SZ2 and SZ3, which are reciprocally connected; SZ2 also connects to Novgorod and SZ3 also connects to Esthonia, Finland and SZ4.
Sjaelland - Skane, Mordvins - SZ101 are connected;
Sjaelland - Holstein, Sicily - Calabria, Odessa - Astrakahn, Crimea - Astrakahn, Andalusia - Tangiers, Barca - SZ81 are not connected.
It should not be believed that a march of three or four days in the wrong direction can be corrected by a countermarch. As a rule, this is to make two mistakes instead of one. -Napoleone Bonaparte
This mod is not meant to be highly balanced (it is a compromise between balance, historical consistency and playability, under the constraint of being a 5 players game), but it is meant to be balanced enough to grant anyone, at least, a 10% probability to win, at start game (the game is meant to be relatively balanced for a Projection of Power Victory). It is supposed to be modestly unbalanced in favour of Western Powers; so, the other players should recognize the threat from France and Spain, and play accordingly, to avoid Western Powers easily winning the game: France will reach a very high production level soon, if not adequately checked! So, it is for friendly games or bidding.
The following bidding system is suggested: You bid, by calling lower and lower numbers, in this order: Russia, OttomanEmpire, Central Powers, Northern Powers. The player left takes Western Powers with no bid. In case of negative bidding, everyone (Western Powers too) receives a bonus bid equal to the additive inverse of the lowest bid (which gets zeroed).
You should bid after having already set all game's options (you should not change any game's options after having started bidding).
Players declare how they distribute their bids, amongst the players of their own Alliances (if more than 1), in this order: Western Powers, Northern Powers, Central Powers.
With bid, you should place (by the turn order) no more than 1 unit per land territory or sea zone, and you should place only in land territories owned by you or in sea zones with ships of yours already in them.
For not live games only (play by mail and play by forum), I suggest to change the way Politics actions are handled in this manner (not supported by the engine: you have to respect it yourselves):
- The turn player, before starting his own turn, openly declares at once all the political actions requiring consent he intends to do (not the ones not requiring consent);
- then, the other players, by the order the turn player posted the political actions or at any moment, have to answer (Yes or No);
(the above rule just means that everyone can answer political actions any time, but if two or more players want to wait other responses before giving theirs, the one that got asked first by the turn player has to answer first)
- then, the turn player makes the agreed political actions;
- then, the turn player makes whatever political actions not requiring consent he wants to, comprising actions annulling political actions requiring consent just made.
(please, avoid making pointless political actions)
For not live games only (play by mail and play by forum), I suggest (not supported by the engine: you have to respect it yourselves) to choose casualties by the autoselect, unless the defender (or all of them, noone excluded, if more players are defending together), before the end of the previous turn or inside a set maximum time limit after the end of the previous turn, gives an unmistakably clear description about how casualties are to be selected (if the description is not unmistakably clear, the turn player is not supposed to ask clarifications, but just ignore it). The only exception to following the autoselect is that, unless the defender defined otherwise, the turn player is allowed to choose, amongst different defending players in a same battle, which one will lose first a same type of unit, making this decision singularly for each casualty.
(please, describe casualties selections very clearly)
You can modify or define time limits for the above rules. Normally, exceeding a time limit for answering a political action, or anything else requiring consent (casualties selection in multi-players defense or inter-players loading moves), is counted as an Yes.
When the enemy is making a bad move we must take good care not to interrupt him. -Napoleone Bonaparte
WARNING 1!!!: UnitedKingdom is supposed to aggressively focus against France since start game! Northern Powers and Central Powers are supposed to coalite against France! The major part of the work against France and Spain has to be done by UnitedKingdom alone! Northern Powers and Central Powers should defend together against France! If Western Powers decide to focus on conquering UnitedKingdom, Central Powers should help against France (unless UnitedKingdom appears able to manage on its own, or Central Powers have some serious reasons for not helping)! Normally, Central Powers are meant to use a sizeable (albeit probably minor) part of their power to avoid France and Spain killing UnitedKingdom (exceptions are always possible; for example, if OttomanEmpire and Russia are both highly committed against Central Powers, it is unlikely that Central Powers will be able to commit resources in the west)! If Western Powers manage to get Essex, the game will be almost surely lost for Central Powers, as well, regardless of how well they feared in the east! Central Powers can't normally just leave UnitedKingdom alone and ignore France forever! If France decides to focus against UnitedKingdom, while Central Powers do nothing, Essex will probably fall and Austria or Prussia will probably follow! If France decides to focus on land expansion eastward, while UnitedKingdom does nothing, Austria or Prussia will probably fall and everybody else will probably follow! It is very hard for Northern Powers alone to stop France! It is almost impossible for Central Powers alone to stop France! I want to make it unmistakably clear that here, normally, the Central Powers player is supposed to attack France early in the game (meaning usually not later than round 5), unless France plays very cautiously, badly, or it is very unlucky. If the Central Powers player just leaves France loose and, then, France kills UnitedKingdom, it is most likely the Central Powers player (or an alliance between OttomanEmpire and Russia) that played badly, not UnitedKingdom (of course, there may be exceptions; like, if some other players played badly or were unlucky and, so, Central Powers manage to have a good chance at winning against France, thereafter). As a side note, if the Western Powers and Central Powers players totally ignore each other, the game is going to be unbalanced against Northern Powers, OttomanEmpire and Russia. In particular, if Central Powers totally ignore the west and massively attack Russia, aiming at killing it as fast as possible, Russia is going to die quite soon, but Central Powers are likely just making Western Powers or OttomanEmpire win the game (this can happen only if the Central Powers player is playing wrongly (and will be probably ultimately defeated) or he is exploiting either bad play or bad luck on the side of Western Powers or on the side of at least one of Russia or OttomanEmpire). If Western Powers aren't put under serious pressure, they will reach a ridiculous production soon, and become almost unstoppable!!!
WARNING 2!!!: In any case, the very first rule of this and any FFA is that you can play however you want to. Noone is entitled to denigrate anyone else's for his gameplay! You are totally free (and, to some extent, encouraged) not following (or simply not knowing) the common gameplay or whatever! The only consequence of playing badly is having a greater probability to be amongst the losers. Getting denigrated by other losers (because they think they lost because of you) should not be a consequence!
WARNING 3!!!: The only gameplay rule is that you should play to win. Anyone can follow this rule his own way. Feel free to suicide (actually, with dice nothing is suicidal), give away capitals, or whatever, as long as you think this maximizes your probability to win!
WARNING 4!!!: Only 1 person can win; so, conduct your diplomacy accordingly. If you do get backstabbed, try to be a good sport, and do not take it personally; everyone can backstab and be backstabbed, no matter what was said or done! If you get ganged up, take it graciously; somebody has to be ganged up, eventually!
While, unless differently agreed, you can talk and coordinate (for example, two players can decide to be allied the whole game, till everyone else is dead; then turning the game into an 1v1), remember that whatever you say has no value, because there is nothing obliging you to respect your promises (so, whatever anyone else said has no value, because there is nothing obliging him to respect his promises; nor he is doing anything wrong, gamewise, by dishonouring his own word); you can't really promise anything, because the rules do not require you to uphold your words (honouring your agreements against your own current interest is playing wrongly (for example, saying things like "give me this territory and I promise I will not attack you for the next 10 rounds" doesn't make any sense (you can do it, but it doesn't make sense)) (on the other hand, giving away territories may make sense, if the new geography can put you at advantage, usually by gaining one more enemy for your enemy)). In particular, don't menace to do suicidal, vindictive or anyway absurd moves if somebody else doesn't do exactly what you want. Even if it is a bluff, try always to keep things sensible; bluffing is fine, but try doing it in a reasonable manner (bluffing is likely to upset people). You should always play to maximize your probability to win the current game, not based on what you said or happened in the past. You should play the game at any moment like the game just started at that moment; what was said or happened previously shouldn't matter in your strategic decisions (otherwise, you are behaving irrationally; and likely making winning moves for someone else). So, you are meant to talk to coordinate with the other players, owing to the present situation, not to make promises or menaces for the future. If you make an alliance, a non aggression agreement, or whatever, with somebody, you are supposed to respect it only till you think it is advantageous for you, not because you are gay with the other player (for example, if you agree, with some other player, not to attack each other, you are supposed to, then, coordinate and move your units in a way to try reciprocally minimizing the level of tension between each other; not simply promise not to attack each other, basing the agreement merely on your words, which is dumb (you can do it, but it is dumb)). Saying something like "I will kill (or suicide on) whoever attacks me first!" is stupid, because you can't oblige yourself in advance to do anything; and, then, keeping blindly playing against a specific player contradicts the basic principle that you should, at any moment, play to win, as your only aim (you can do it, but it is bad play). I want to clarify that if you say something on the line of "I will only attack whoever attacks me first!", and you actually react as such, it is not the one that attacked you that it is responsible for your moves, and their effects on the game (usually, making someone else winning), but it is you!
Even more so, you are supposed to never care about any other games but the one you are playing. Playing biased by what happened in other games or with the purpose to advantage yourself, or whatever, in other games is a very bad attitude, that should not be tolerated (I suggest not playing with such people). Of course, playing biased by personal, political, or whatever, issues is just as bad!
In whatever case, don't insult or denigrate people! If not everyone is able to be a rational, decent and stable person, it is suggested to play with no public talking allowed. Aside from this, I think that few players are actually able to decently play in a talking game. A lot, instead, tend to honour their words anytime, upholding alliances for almost the whole game, independently from their contingent worthiness, on a long term perspective of individual victory, making the game silly.
By common agreement, you can play with no public talking allowed, to improve the quality of the gameplay, overall, when playing with not good enough players (mostly by not giving anyone the chance to swear stupid promises or menaces around) (this refers only to public talking, not secret talking, which is always allowed, by definition).
WARNING 5!!!: Although you can quit your game at any moment (being neutralized (put on Does Nothing AI)), dropping before, at least, all of your capitals get conquered is always a bad behaviour. You are never excused for dropping (for example, dropping because someone promised you something and, then, betrayed you, is almost as much stupid of you as having believed in the other one's promise, in the first place) or menacing to do so (threatening to leave the game, unless some other players stop attacking you, is one of the worst behaviours). Also, please, avoid accusing someone else to have ruined the game, while dropping, because, right or wrong, this won't make you into a better dropper, but only into a sour loser. Even if someone else badly damaged you, making you lose almost for sure (or even making someone else win almost for sure), this is not an excuse for dropping (ruining the game for everybody). The main problem of dropping is balance, because, of course, the game is meant to be balanced assuming everyone playing till the end. Also, remember that you can always win, by definition, because you are playing a dice based game (so, for example, you will surely win, no matter what, as long as everyone else rolls only 6).
If, anyway, you really think that somebody has already won the game, instead of dropping, you should check if everyone else is of the same opinion as you, and, if this is not the case, you should keep playing. You can surrender the game to a player only if all other players unanimously agree upon it.
Exception is if you are playing low luck (I suggest not to, because playing a FFA with low luck is bad by definition). In this case, you can actually reach a point in which you may surmise not really having any sensible ways to win the game anymore, and it may be actually better to have you being neutralized, than keeping playing aimlessly or with a wrong aim (usually, suicidal revenge).
Since only 1 can win, a few people are needed to lose graciously. Playing badly, because you are sure to have lost, anyway, is not much better than dropping, and violates the principle that you should always play to win, even if you think you can't.
Also, if dice treat you bad, foiling your plans, take it in stride and keep giving it your best; don't quit the game or, anyway, stop caring about it, but lay down new plans and keep playing coherently, for ultimate victory, even in the face of misfortune: no victory is sweeter than the one obtained against all odds!
Obviously, disappearing or refusing to continue an interrupted game is just as bad as dropping. As a side note, since FFA are hard to continue, you are suppose to actively try to make yourself as much available as possible to continue, otherwise it's bullshit. If you are the one hosting / proposing the game, you are supposed to be the main person caring for it being continued till finishing it (the only way you can finish it is by a player achieving victory or everyone but one surrendering); just hosting / proposing a FFA, with not enough time to actually finish it, and, then, just forgetting about it is lame (just don't propose or join FFA, if you haven't the commitment required for this kind of gaming)!
WARNING 6!!!: Because there are lots of players, there is a chance someone will disconnect. Meet back in the lobby and start your game up again with the latest connection lost save. Be patient; wait at least 15 minutes, for the person to come back. Don't you just assume that he quit, if he didn't say so! You are not entitled to leave the game just because someone else disconnected, no matter how frequently it happened (if you think that disconnections are too frequent, everyone should agree on this issue, to interrupt the game or substitute a player with another)!
WARNING 7!!!: Try to limit yourself to 5 minutes turns. Calculate, negotiate, and generally make up your mind already on what you intend to do on your next turn, on other people's turns, not just yours. Try to play quickly! Exception is for noobs. A game played by all experienced players should last about 40 minutes per round (so, you should be able to play 8~10 rounds in 6 hours)! If you have a timer (discounting the time taken by anyone other than the turn player), it should be set at 5 minutes / turn.
WARNING 8!!!: Although a French Revolutionary War consistent and sensible wargame can't really be highly dynamic, this game is meant to have some dynamicity, plus some degree of strategic freedom (which also means good replayability). This implies that you may get crushed in a few rounds, notwithstanding a brilliant gameplay (but you are never hopeless, thanks to the dice). Yet, as long as the conditions making a player lose almost for sure happen in no more than 80% of the games (played by all good players), this doesn't necessarily mean that the game is unbalanced. I want to remember that a 5 players FFA game is perfectly balanced when everybody has, at start game, a 20% probability of winning (but, here, I'm personally cool with everyone having at least 10%, since balance is not the main aim of this game). For a FFA to be balanced, it is not needed everyone being able to survive forever and ever, or even for a long time. If it is easy for an Alliance to kill another, this doesn't mean that the game is unbalanced against the second one, unless going for the kill is clearly the best thing to do.
I want to point out that the way this game is balanced is likely to be unintuitive to most people; meaning that most people will likely play it wrongly (be patient!), at least in their first games. With not enough experienced players, it commonly happens that Central Powers do little or nothing against France (due to undervaluating Werstern Powers), and Western Powers get out of control and win the game, via reducing UnitedKingdom to Great Britain only, or even conquering it. This may not necessarily be the direct fault of Central Powers, though, but an indirect consequence of OttomanEmpire and Russia overreacting to the threat from Central Powers (thus hindering the Central Powers player at the Western Powers' advantage). The two most common misunderstandings are to undervaluate the threat from Western Powers and overvaluate the threat from Central Powers.
In a FFA unbalances are more in people's minds, than on the actual board, since everyone is meant to play the game based on its balance (this is particularly true for FFA having a good diplomacy element); thus, victories and defeats derive mostly not from unbalanced situations, but from people's faults in understanding and adjusting to the contingent balance, or even playing biased by past events; thus making winning moves for others.
Also, I want to underline that balance in a FFA means equal winning probabilities, not equal short term survivability probabilities. For example, it is indeed much easier to survive longer as OttomanEmpire than as Russia (meaning that OttomanEmpire is less likely being summarily killed early in the game than Russia), and OttomanEmpire is also probably going to expand more, and more easily (other than the good starting production of 45, OttomanEmpire has another 10 production worth of territories easy to be taken without probably upsetting other players), than Russia; yet, this doesn't mean that it is much easier to win as OttomanEmpire than as Russia. What matters is only being the winner, not having an easy time or avoiding being the first loser!
I want to point out that, while the game is meant to be reasonably balanced, in term of fair winning possibilities at start game, it is also meant to unbalance itself relatively fast (anyway, since the scenario is so dumb and clustered, there won't possibly be much dynamism).
WARNING 9!!!: This is not the Napoleonic Empires: FFA 5 Player, nor a variation of it, nor inspired by it, nor following the same concepts as it. So, you really need to forget how you play that one, or any other NE FFA mods. You should not import your traditional gameplay, you follow inside other apparently similar maps, into this one; nor you should expect this map being balanced or unbalanced in a similar way as those ones. In particular, this mod requires an averagely more dynamic gameplay, than the 5 Player, and, mainly in the west side of the map, may escalate quickly, especially as a consequence of bad play or bad luck (commonly, the game will be already clearly unbalanced against somebody after only 5 rounds).
As long as Politics is enabled, the game will probably play out closely to a two sided game, with two opposite alliances getting shaped and perdure, with some exceptional relationships hither and thither, till the balance gets seriously upset. The hinge of the evolution of the game, around which alliances will be made and unmade, is likely to be the war between France and UnitedKingdom. For Western Powers most of the game plays out as a fight to the death against UnitedKingdom.
WARNING 10!!!: The units stats table in the map is not anymore representative! The actual units stats is at the end of Notes.
When you have resolved to fight a battle, collect your whole force. Dispense with nothing. A single battalion sometimes decides the day. -Napoleone Bonaparte
True 8 Players Mode:
You can play this game as a (highly unbalanced) FFA 8 Player (1 player each), by unchecking all "Relationship Fixed" options and unchecking "Projection of Power", before starting the game. You need to look out for reaching the victory conditions yourselves (France at 4 and anyone else at 3, with Projection of Power).
When the relative "Relationship Fixed" options are deselected, since start game, the starting relationships (historically correct) are as follow (if All War, they are all War):
France - Spain : War
UnitedKingdom - Sweden : Ceasefire
KingdomOfPrussia - AustrianEmpire : Allied
You can play this game with no Politics (it should be reasonably balanced, anyway), by unchecking "Use Politics", before starting the game (all relationships, except only the "Relationship Fixed" ones, are set to War before the first turn of France).
When "Use Politics" is deselected, since start game, everyone is permanently at War with everyone else, except only for the players (of the same Alliance) sharing a "Relationship Fixed" (which are permanently Allied).
Destroy Unit Objectives: You receive additional 4 PUs end your turn if you destroy any enemy, not neutral, units, on the same turn. Units belonging to aborted players will give the bonus from destroyed TUV, as well.
Purchase Marshal: You can purchase Marshal (since start game).
Marshal: 4 Att / 2 Def / 3 Mov / 9 Cost . Supportable, 3 TC
Third, cavalry is the arm for movement and great decisions; its increase beyond the ordinary proportions is therefore important if the war extends over a great space, if expeditions are to be made in various directions, and great and decisive blows are intended. Buonaparte is an example of this. -Carl von Clausewitz
Units Composition Examples And Hints:
Against 40 Fusiliers (160 TUV), the best 180 TUV attack force is: 12 Fusiliers, 11 Howitzer, 7 Grenadiers, 6 artillery and 2 Mortars (the best movement 2 and 200 TUV attack force is 20 Hussars, 10 Horse_Artillery and 10 Cuirassiers);
but, in order to better your defense, you want to have a higher share of Fusiliers, instead of Howitzer, and also to add Chasseurs and more Artillery, instead of Grenadiers, Howitzer and Mortars, than those ratios (beside, of course, swapping with other units, like exchanging Grenadiers for Cuirassiers, Dragoons or Chasseurs, for better speed or defense). To maximize your attack power only, Fusiliers and Howitzer should be in a 1:1 ratio, while Grenadiers should be present in a number equal to the total number of Artillery plus Mortars; the number of Mortars being about equal to modestly less than half the average number of attacking surviving units in the battle; the share of Fusiliers and Grenadiers, with respect to their total, should be about 60% Fusiliers and 40% Grenadiers, for close battles, increasing the share of Grenadiers the more the attacker overpowers the defender. Starting from an optimized attack composition, the first step to better your defense, while minimizing the loss of attack power, is to substitute Mortars with Artillery, up until having no Mortars at all (using the saved TUV for buying more of other units). Moreover, by substituting 1 Howitzer with 1 Fusiliers, you will increase your defense power slightly more than you reduce of your attack power (as long as there are no more supporting than supportable units, the actual starting attack strength of a number of Howitzer is the same as the starting defense strength of a same number of Fusiliers, but liable to decrease faster upon losing units); anyway, if attack is even only modestly more important for you (as it usually is), you want to have the maximum useful number of Howitzer; meaning as many Howitzer as to assure all of your supportable units being supported. Starting from an optimized attack force, by substituting one Fusiliers, two Grenadiers and one Howitzer with three Chasseurs and one Artillery (TUV unchanged), you will reduce your attack power very slightly (the actual starting attack strength is the same, but liable to decrease faster upon losing units), while increasing of 2 full points your defense power. So, you usually want to have many more Artillery than Mortars, or easily even no Mortars at all (you want to have any Mortars only if you don't care at all to better your defense), and also less Grenadiers than the total number of Artillery plus Mortars, the difference being filled up by Chasseurs (the more you are attack oriented, the less Chasseurs you want, and the closer the number of Grenadiers is to the total sum of Artillery and Mortars). As a side note, a force of only Grenadiers and Mortars, in a 1:1 ratio, is the best for extreme sacrificial attacks, in which you are almost sure to lose your whole attacking force in the first round of combat, anyway.
Against the previous attack force, the best 160 TUV defending force is 20 Tower and 20 Fortress; the best 160 TUV mobile defending force is 25 Fusiliers and 12 Chasseurs.
On average, when just accumulating units, with no major pressure nor immediate targets, I would suggest ratios of infantry units of about 50% Fusiliers, 25% Chasseurs and 25% Grenadiers, with movement 1 supporting units of 50~100% the quantity of movement 1 supportable units (it is usually about the same quantity of Artillery as Howitzer). While a few Mortars would be part of an optimized attack force (the more the attacker overpowers the defender, the more the Mortars, assuming the attacking stack won't be counterattacked), Mortars are normally bought only under severe placement or shipment constraints (normally, you don't want to buy any Mortars at all, or almost so, while just accumulating units, with no major pressure nor immediate targets); of course, Marines are better than Mortars for sea borne attacks, anyway. For the cavalry, it is usually advisable having, units numbers wise, about 60% Hussars, 20% Horse_Artillery and 20% Dragoons and Cuirassiers; usually mostly or only Cuirassiers.
Anyway, aside for units meant primarily for being shipped, you usually want to buy mostly (60~80%) movement 2 units and only a minor quantity (20~40%) of movement 1 units. Despite the battle superiority of slow units (battle-wise, in attack, movement 2 units require about +25% TUV to achieve about the same results as movement 1 units; in defense, it is needed about +50% TUV to have about the same TUV swing), having a major quantity of fast units is usually a must for forcing your way to victory.
Against 20 Brigantine (160 TUV), the best 160 TUV attack force is: 12 Cutter, 4 Corvette, 1 Frigate and 2 Battleship;
but, in order to better your defense, you want to have a higher share of Battleship (instead of Corvette and Frigate), than those ratios; moreover, due to the value of repair, you want to have an even higher share of Battleship. Commonly, Battleship will end up being more than half the total TUV of your naval force, excluding Barque.
Also, it is usually better substituting Corvette with Frigate, having a better bombard, at the expense of a little loss of attack efficiency.
On the other hand, it may be good to substitute a few Cutter with Corvette, losing some battle efficiency, in exchange for a few more transport capability, plus bombard.
Against the previous attack force, the best 160 TUV defending force is 8 Cutter, 9 Brigantine and 2 Battleship.
If attack and defense are both about equally important for you, having a force of mostly Battleship and Cutter (either the same TUV of both, or more TUV in Battleship, depending on how much their added features and easier mass-placement is worth for you), plus a few Brigantine, is probably the best. Buying Corvette or Frigate greatly decreases your defense capabilities; those units are to be avoided altogether (and, for sure, never to be bought in conjunction with Brigantine), unless you think that defense and repair are both really of close to no value to you, and you have no placement constraints. For example, 12 Cutter, 2 Brigantine and 4 Battleship are about as good in attack as the previous optimized attack composition, while costing a meagre 8 PUs (5%) more; on the other hand, they are much better on defense, have a better quality of bombard and can transport almost the same quantity of Marines, plus having 4 repairable damages, instead of only 2.
Note: These hints are for noobs (all obvious things) and, anyway, noone of them is mandatory or even necessarily correct. The main suggestion is always to do your game however you prefer. They are not rules; so, you are not entitled to criticize anyone not following them, or assuming he is playing wrongly because of this.
Western Powers: France and Spain should mostly gang up on UnitedKingdom, but modifying their strategy accordingly to what Central Powers do (if Central Powers do nothing, killing UnitedKingdom is probably the best). Depending on others' moves, investing heavily in ships may be viable, as well as adopting a land focused strategy. In whatever case, the safekeeping of the two convoys in south Atlantic is almost vital; normally, France should not let all of its and Spain convoys being definitively lost, although it might be acceptable, in peculiar situations. It is usually good to steadily put up a massive pressure on Hanovre, but actually taking it early in the game is usually a bad idea, unless done on highly favourable terms, because it is likely going to greatly increase the Central Powers involvement in the west. Yet, if it is possible to take Hanovre with acceptable losses and, then, hold it with sufficient forces, in the face of Central Powers, going for it may be good, both for the income and, even more, for gaining a high degree of strategic freedom in the north; especially so to be able to massively push east, without the menace of an UnitedKingdom Hanovre stack of doom marching on Orleanais; this, in turn, much helps reducing the Central Powers freedom of action in Italy, with the menace of France retaliating on Austria, north of the Alps (especially if France has many movement 2 units). Instead, accepting a moderately bad TUV swing on sea may be not bad, as long as both fleets get about decimated in the battle (a reciprocal total destruction of the France and UnitedKingdom fleets may easily favour France, especially when the Hanovre escalation is going on), because sea units tend to be worth more for UnitedKingdom than France and a reciprocal fleet destruction between UnitedKingdom and France is likely to much ease the normal subsequent Spain takeover of most of the sea warfare. In implementing an UnitedKingdom centred offensive-defensive strategy, it is to be taken good care, on the sea, to launch a barely adequate number of ships from the north-west coast, with the aim of protecting the north-Atlantic convoy (and, as a consequence, also the two south Atlantic ones) and possibly conquering and securing Ireland, while, on the land, putting a high effort into massively and steadily increasing the threat on Hanovre. The general objective of such a coordinated sea-land strategy is to defensively keep the control of the sea west of the Manche (and, possibly, of Ireland), while offensively inducing UnitedKingdom to partially divert its income away from shipbuilding, into a land escalation around Hanovre. To this aim, it is advisable hurrying up at having more than thirty units pointed at Hanovre by the end of the second round (ready to attack on the third). The main advantage of forcing UnitedKingdom into a land escalation near Hanovre, beside the sea escalation in Atlantic (which will go on anyway, but at a slower pace), is that the France land forces are normally worth more than the UnitedKingdom land forces, due to the multiplying effect of both menacing the UnitedKingdom possessions and keeping in check the Central Powers forces in the east (differently, a mainly sea based escalation, with UnitedKingdom, would leave France flimsy in the face of Central Powers). Whether to actually attack Hanovre (or other UnitedKingdom possessions) or not rests upon the UnitedKingdom's and other players' gameplay (this is mostly a reference to Hanovre defense being reinforced with KindgomOfPrussia units). The Italian and Mediterranean theatre is a secondary, albeit fairly important, one for France; the decision about building ships in Mediterranean or conquering Italy, and when and to what extent to pursue these aims, rests upon the evolution of the game. Going for northern Italy and Rome is a possible strategy, that should be very cautiously taken into account, especially in the face of an AustrianEmpire counter, on a long term perspective (of course, if UnitedKingdom has taken Rome, going for it is almost a must). What to do with Spain, and especially whether to send the big fleet west of Gibraltar to the north Atlantic or to the Mediterranean or both, is a big question you have to give yourself an answer (mostly based on the first UnitedKingdom's turn). Generally speaking, it is usually better hurrying up supporting France with Spain, and focusing mostly on shipbuilding, in one direction or the other or both (aiding France in its fight in Atlantic or putting pressure on UnitedKingdom in the Mediterranean or both), and not to tarry too much conquering neutrals. It is important taking into account that whatever gain in Atlantic, against UnitedKingdom, is almost a net gain; instead, even a total annihilation of the UnitedKingdom presence in the Mediterranean is likely to greatly increase the tension with whatever other powers in that theatre. So, if it is not possible to achieve both, securing the north Atlantic convoy and holding Ireland is usually preferable over eradicating UnitedKingdom from the Mediterranean and conquering its convoy there. Consequently, it is usually convenient having Spain merely containing UnitedKingdom in the Mediterranean, while striving to support the primary confront in the Atlantic. Obviously, Spain has to be played mainly from a France perspective, not as a stand-alone player (for Spain, aiding France is more important than helping itself). For Western Powers, the normal short term strategy is to initially invest heavily in ships with France, against UnitedKingdom (but trying to much divert to Hanovre escalation, as said), with the main aim to contain and, then, reduce UnitedKingdom. Then, after a few rounds, France should concentrate on land (France will probably have to stop the sea escalation with UnitedKingdom, and purchase mostly land units, instead, to face Central Powers), leaving Spain as the main player facing UnitedKingdom on the sea (as long as the relative strength of Spain and UnitedKingdom, at this point, allows it). Normally, assuming the escalation around Hanovre is still going on, UnitedKingdom will, then, have to partly use its production to keep on with the land escalation with France and partly to keep on with the sea escalation with Spain, while France, on the other hand, will have to worry more and more about Central Powers. Of course, in case Central Powers or other reasons allow it, France should keep focusing on the sea, instead, reducing UnitedKingdom to the Great Britain only, or even outright conquering it. In such a scenario, Spain should probably go for an Italy centred Mediterranean domination.
Northern Powers: UnitedKingdom should aggressively (not defensively) focus against France since start game, but usually with a kill Spain first long term strategy (but only after France has been put down, which is the priority). Sweden should serve as backup for UnitedKingdom (for example, sending Sweden units in Hanovre), if feasible; meaning that you have to balance the usefulness of Sweden with the risk of having it conquered by Russia. Northern Powers means UnitedKingdom: Sweden moves should follow an UnitedKingdom centred perspective; playing Sweden like a standalone power is wrong (for Sweden, aiding UnitedKingdom is more important than helping itself). Although a France - UnitedKingdom escalation near Hanovre usually goes on for many rounds, till both sides have enormously big stacks facing each other, getting involved in such an escalation may be a poor choice for UnitedKingdom; in particular, having many attack oriented units in Hanovre will likely protect France from Central Powers, and vice versa, much decreasing the hostility between them. So, it may be a good idea to base the defense of Hanovre on a good quantity of Fortress or Tower; be wary not buying too many immobile units, though, or you will likely see France in Essex or Austria. On the other hand, a big UnitedKingdom stack in Hanovre should indirectly protect Central Powers from a France trust on Austria, allowing Central Powers to massively penetrate France south of the Alps, without really exposing the AustrianEmpire capital to a France retaliation (with a very big mobile stack in Hanovre, France will be very wary of going anywhere east of the line Cologne - Rhine - Helvetica, basically protecting Central Powers from France, with the menace of UnitedKingdom taking Orleanais). Sometimes, it may be a good idea letting France take Hanovre (even with an Encampment in it), thus opening a full frontier with Central Powers. Still, normally, getting involved in the Hanovre escalation is the only sensible choice for UnitedKingdom; just letting France owning all or most of the territories from the line Cologne - Rhine - Helvetica westward, eradicating UnitedKingdom from there, is likely just ending in a slow death for UnitedKingdom, with France keeping its expansive frontier mostly stalemated, while the whole Western Powers throwing all the weight of this superior production power to smash UnitedKingdom. Just going fully sea, or almost so, with UnitedKingdom, abandoning the continent, or almost so, is most likely a losing strategy, albeit probably a slowly losing one (it will take some time, for Western Powers, to counter UnitedKingdom on the sea; or they may just decide to contain it, leaving UnitedKingdom the full control of the sea, while pushing eastward on land). The UnitedKingdom player should wisely balance the sea and land expenditures; just investing in sea units only, or almost so, is normally a bad strategy, in the face of a good Western Powers gameplay (not really an achievement to temporarily or definitively own the sea, if the result is just letting Western Power having a great production superiority over UnitedKingdom). Usually, you don't really need to highly defend Hanovre; assuring that France will have to sustain a high level of TUV destruction (something like 80% of the TUV destruction UnitedKingdom suffers) is probably good enough for UnitedKingdom, and a bad deal for France to take (in particular, in the case in which the game ends up in a three-way stalemate amongst Northern, Western and Central Powers in Hanovre). Anyway, if you decide to let France loose on Central Powers (or you are forced to), you likely need to find other ways to slow Western Powers down, either directly, or indirectly (like pressuring Russia with Sweden; so to better the situation of Central Powers, if France seems to be going for Austria). The Mediterranean play is highly dependent on the extent of the involvement of Central Powers in the struggle against France: if Western Powers are well played and Central Powers put up no serious pressure, the UnitedKingdom position in the Mediterranean may easily become untenable. Otherwise, it would be advisable placing a factory in a well positioned conquered territory, so to defend the Mediterranean convoy, while adding some more territories to the UnitedKingdom production. Being able to build and hold a Mediterranean dominion is normally important, if not vital, but it is hardly ever easy or even possible (again, it mostly indirectly depends on Central Powers). As the player of UnitedKingdom, you have a very big and challenging responsibility on yourself, on the short term, in term of securing the game's balance (almost impossible for UnitedKingdom to win the game, if some other player is going to dominate the continent). On the long term, of course, the aim is to alter the game's balance in your own favour. Almost inevitably, for UnitedKingdom, the only acceptable outcome is the fall of France (an alternative unlikely victory possibility would be UnitedKingdom taking New Castille and Sweden taking Moscovia or Prussia).
Central Powers: KingdomOfPrussia and AustrianEmpire can't seriously crack the game early on: they can't crush Russia fast and easily enough (normally, they can crush Russia, but the most likely outcome will be to weaken themselves so much to be crushed by others, in return), a total fall of OttomanEmpire (normally implying a very great AustrianEmpire TUV destruction in Constantinople) would likely benefit more Russia than AustrianEmpire, and going full force on France would be most probably just a win for UnitedKingdom or Russia. So, KingdomOfPrussia and AustrianEmpire should aim at maintaining the balance amongst the other players, while trying progressively becoming bigger and bigger themselves. In particular, for Central Powers, it is imperative to conserve the TUV, avoiding depleting it in great battles, unless on very favourable terms. At start game it is probably good for AustrianEmpire to focus aggressively on OttomanEmpire, but normally only to tone it down, rather than outright killing it (without interferences from other players, it should be possible to probably safely stack Bulgaria on round 3, but only with a very high AustrianEmpire commitment against OttomanEmpire); but AustrianEmpire may be better retreating, and let OttomanEmpire survive, if Russia attacks it too and the situation in the west appears troublesome. Unless the Northern Powers player is significantly more skilled or lucky than the Western Powers player, some early anti France commitment from Central Powers is needed, to avoid France going out of control. On the long term, the main aim of Central Powers, in the western theatre, is to keep the balance between Western Powers and Northern Powers; so, pressuring in time whoever seems to be gaining the upperhand (at start game, Western Powers have the upperhand over Northern Powers, mostly due to the fact that France plus Spain alone should win against UnitedKingdom alone, while Sweden can give little aid). An unorthodox, but not unlikely (especially when Western Powers or Central Powers are handled by inexperienced players), possibility is Central Powers and Western Powers being almost peaceful between each other, for many rounds since start game (an extreme scenario would be France not even attacking Flanders on round 1); Western Powers focusing on UnitedKingdom, while Central Powers focusing on OttomanEmpire or Russia. Normally, this is a bad deal for Central Powers (unless the Northern Powers player is significantly better or luckier than the Western Powers one), since Western Powers should be able to kill UnitedKingdom, while Central Powers should not be able to kill both Russia and OttomanEmpire, unless one of these last ones unwittingly let the other one getting owned too easily (of course, anyone can fall because of bad play or bad luck, anyway). In general, Central Powers should expect to have to deal in time with Russia, because of the Russia's closeness to Prussia and Svealand, while OttomanEmpire has other directions of expansion (mostly the Mediterranean). So, it is likely that, for OttomanEmpire, the involvement against Central Powers (or, alternatively, against Russia) will be more of an obligation (and a delay) than a necessity. As a consequence, Central Powers should be able to invest a quantity of forces good enough to keep the eastern theatre (which means mostly Russia) in a favourable stalemated position (for example, by using most of the KingdomOfPrussia units plus a few of the AustrianEmpire ones to keep Russia honest); so to likely gain a relative neutrality from OttomanEmpire (which will be probably busy swallowing neutrals), while sending most the remaining forces to the west, to deal in about time with the present or future threat from France. Sending some units helping defending the UnitedKingdom possessions in the continent, which typically means Hanovre, is usually good; giving UnitedKingdom a greater ability to focus aggressively against Western Powers on the sea, thus likely reducing or delaying the threat from the west, and cementing the alliance with Northern Powers. Italy, and especially Rome, is a nice, but hard winning, prize the Central Powers player should usually look at with calculated interest. While it may be bad going for Italy first, AustrianEmpire should be eager to invade the Italian peninsula as a counter to France. While in the east Central Powers can alternate pressure between Russia and OttomanEmpire readily enough, in the west they should mostly or only attack France (or, eventually, later in the game, Spain). The Central Powers warring on France is a matter of precise timing: after a time of more or less modest involvement, Central Powers should try to go hard on France, after UnitedKingdom has been reduced enough, so to avoid just making winning moves for UnitedKingdom, but without tarring too much, because France and Spain can get out of control relatively fast, once they manage to get the upper hand. Normally, France and Spain will win against UnitedKingdom (Sweden can give very little help), with no major interferences from other players. If Central Powers just totally ignore the west, they might succeed in killing either Russia or OttomanEmpire; but, then, they will most probably get owned by France, just like everyone else (the better or luckier the Northern Powers player is, with respect to the Western Powers player, the less the needed help from Central Powers; if the Northern Powers player is much better or luckier than the Western Powers player, UnitedKingdom alone can even get the upperhand over France and Spain). On the other hand, if Northern Powers manage to get the upper hand over Western Powers, and Central Powers is not in a good enough position to be the main beneficiary of the fall of France, Central Powers should not delay too much siding with France, against UnitedKingdom. Again, although (mostly due to the characteristics of the starting setup, with a whole bunch of neutral territories, plus the well defended Hanovre, setting apart the west from the central-east side of the map) it might seem rewarding for Central Powers to be fully peaceful towards France, and just build up units strength, long delaying the confront, or fully concentrate on expansion east or southward, such a strategy (mostly due to the fact that the west is relatively richer, especially summing up the Italian peninsula) is normally a short sighted and wrong way of playing. In particular, attacking full force Russia since start game, with the aims to obliterate all or most of its land forces and take Moscovia as fast as possible, is usually not a sound strategy (it will be likely successful in wiping Russia out of the map; but, then, you will lose horribly, unless you are so much of a lucky bugger or really everyone is even noober than you). Central Powers, due mostly to the combining factors of having the highest TUV / Production ratio (although you should not sum up the production and TUV in Flanders, obviously) and being at the centre of the mainland, has time itself amongst its many enemies; meaning that waiting is normally not good for them: the Central Powers player needs to try to pick up convenient fights early on, likely keeping moving units around a lot and switching targets with haste, hoping and trying getting the other players (especially Western and Northern) reciprocally stalemated, while alternating its support or hostility towards one or the other (but not as much as to induce them to coalite). Normally, the longer the game goes on, the worse Central Powers' position gets. On the other hand, AustrianEmpire can't really afford (very bad play or very bad luck aside) to eliminate one other player in the first 10 rounds. So, Central Powers should keep changing targets and focusing on different players, with haste; being not daring enough will most likely result in ending up stalemated everywhere, and losing any decent chance at winning the game (shrinking slowly but surely, till annihilation). On the long term (meaning after round 10), normally, Central Powers can, either, win by taking Orleanais, but only if UnitedKingdom has been greatly reduced by Western Powers, previously (if UnitedKingdom is in good condition, it will probably get Orleanais first), or, more likely, win by taking Moscovia plus one of Svealand or Constantinople. The victory in the west is very difficult to achieve and rests mostly in a close to perfectly timed play (assuming everyone else plays well too), coupled with high levels of TUV destruction between Western and Northern Powers (typically, a very costly France taking of Hanovre or a massive naval escalation). In particular, if Northern Powers are still in a good condition, taking Orleanais is close to impossible, because, either, Northern Powers will take it first, or they will side with Western Powers, blocking any Central Powers attempts at winning in the west. On the other hand, a victory in the east is the most likely way for Central Powers to actually get the game done, although it normally has to spring from a short term aggressive play in the west, aimed at rapidly containing France, stalemating the Western and Northern Powers conflict for the time being, coupled with a favourable evolution of the situation in the eastern theatre, and especially a high enough level of inconclusive enmity between OttomanEmpire and Russia.
OttomanEmpire: OttomanEmpire should try to be peaceful with everyone and convince everyone to be peaceful with it for many rounds, while annexing neutrals and accumulating units. Always keep an eye on the possibility of Russia attacking through Astrakhan (but it shouldn't normally happen), in case Russia has many cavalry forces and weak or busy opponents on its other frontiers (not needed to worry too much about it, anyway, as long as you have a factory in the east and Russia hasn't conquered Svealand or Prussia yet). On the short term, OttomanEmpire main aim is to build up TUV and expand its production by taking neutrals, with a Mediterranean centred direction of expansion, but avoiding expanding too much there; not getting out of position. On the Mediterranean it should try to insert itself in the likely struggle between France, Spain and UnitedKingdom, to expand its own influence and maintain the balance between the opposite factions (normally, OttomanEmpire doesn't want to take the UnitedKingdom convoy, even if left unguarded, at least early in the game). Its AustrianEmpire border offers more troubles and delays then opportunities; there, it should eventually struggle to keep the balance between Central Powers (mostly AustrianEmpire) and Russia; if one of these two factions gets to dominate over central-eastern Europe, OttomanEmpire is most likely to be doomed as well (this mostly depends on how much pressure Central Powers receive from the west; if Central Powers receive no pressure at all from the west, or almost so, and are committing fully against Russia, a sizeable commitment of OttomanEmpire against AustrianEmpire is likely needed; what Sweden is or may be doing is also a factor to take into account). Of course, on the short term, you want to attack Russia through Astrakhan only if it is gaining a significant upperhand over Central Powers and you can't see any other ways to deal with this (otherwise, going north of Astrakhan early in the game is almost always a very bad idea). It is mostly up to you to try to moderate the three-way conflict between Central Powers, OttomanEmpire and Russia in the east (by talking), using your influence, if you see that France (or whoever in the west) is getting out of control, so that a commitment from Central Powers is needed (you can't expect Central Powers to sacrifice themselves for the game's balance in the west, if Russia and OttomanEmpire are both going hard on them). As a matter of winning the game, the Mediterranean is a secondary theatre. Thus, on the long term, OttomanEmpire should normally take care not to produce too many ships, but making up a massive land army, instead, with which to push north against Russia, conquering and securing the territories south of Kazan, and positioning the main stack somewhere west or south of Kazan, so to keep in check both Central Powers and Russia, while becoming stronger and stronger. On the long term (meaning after round 10), normally, OttomanEmpire needs to kill Russia first, and own most of the east side of the map, to ultimately win.
Russia: It mostly depends on the others. Play cautiously, trying to hold your ground, but without pushing too much too early, accumulating units and waiting for opportunities. In particular, try avoiding Central Powers focusing against you; attacking full force Central Powers since start game is an unlikely way for victory, normally. The usual outcome of a war between Russia and Central Powers is Russia getting wrecked, while Central Powers getting so much weakened, in the process, to lose any decent chance at winning the game, even if they manage to annex all or most of the Russia territories. Usually, Russia should try to play the role of the insidious ally of Central Powers, trying to induce them to attack other players, by taking care of appearing lowly threatening (typically, by configuring a defense oriented army and keeping a sizeable stack of movement 1 units far away from the Central Powers frontline), yet always presenting itself as a strong and ready defender (having a great quantity of cheap movement 2 units is probably good). Eventually, appeasing Central Powers by aiding them in some minor ways, like by sending a small force in the west against France, may be a good way to cement the alliance, while waiting for the almost inevitable future betrayal. Yet, be always shifty and ready to decisively take whatever opportunities to expand or, anyway, better your position. Going massively for Svealand early in the game is an interesting option, but usually a hazard (it is usually better to delay this move up until Central Powers appear to be seriously engaged with some other players). Attacking OttomanEmpire in Asia, through Astrakahn, is a very great hazard. Normally, Russia doesn't want to attack OttomanEmpire at all (and vice versa), for many rounds. If Central Powers seem to be going too hard on OttomanEmpire, and having too much of an easy time in doing so, this may be a good reason for waging war, or anyway putting pressure, on them (but it is usually best to delay such a move for as long as possible). Also, you need to be able to understand whether your moves will advantage you or just make somebody else (usually, France) winning the game; in case, reducing your pressure accordingly, playing on a long term perspective. In most games, for the first five rounds, the best course of action for Russia is to just turtle, trying to be left alone, and keep building up units, preferably cheap and fast ones, becoming stronger and stronger, and hoping for the other players to get engaged in fights and waste their TUV away, in the meantime. On the long term (meaning after round 10), normally, Russia needs, either, to reduce OttomanEmpire first, taking its territories east of Constantinople, while letting a big stack north of Constantinople, to menace it and keep in check Central Powers, at the same time, and own most of the east side of the map, or take and hold Svealand (as well as conquering all of Sweden Scandinavia) and, then, rush for taking a second Capital, to ultimately win.
In my opinion, some alliances are harder to play, in this order, from the hardest to the easiest: Central Powers, Western Powers, Northern Powers, Russia, OttomanEmpire.
Inexperienced players, cowards (meaning people that shy away from picking enemies fast enough, when the game itself doesn't simply tell you who the enemy is; and, then, they usually think that the enemy is just whoever attacked them) and dummies are better playing as OttomanEmpire (OttomanEmpire is the only really easy player in the game; Russia is already quite difficult to play well). In particular, cowards should not play as Central Powers. Yet, warmongers (people playing FFA like they are playing 1v1) should not play as Central Powers, either.
Now on this point it is sufficient for our purpose to assume that, in general, a squadron of 150 horsemen, a battalion of infantry 800 strong, a battery of artillery consisting of 8 six-pounders, cost nearly the same, both as respects the expense of formation and of maintenance. -Carl von Clausewitz
Balance had to come before realism, because a 1794 highly consistent scenario would be ridiculously unbalanced in favour of France and Russia.
The alliance between France and Spain and the partition of Poland have been anticipated; so, the starting setup actually somehow spans from 1794 to 1796 (not a big deal, anyway, because the war between France and Spain was already cooling down, and Poland was already a state in name only) (most of the Spain fleet being in SZ53 is also to delay the impact of Spain in the game; though Cadiz was actually an important port).
Most of the mobile units in Hollande should actually be in Flanders, but I preferred not having units belonging to other players than the territory owner, in the starting setup (and, anyway, after the Austrians crumbled, the English historically didn't stand in Flanders, but retreated all the way to Hanovre and, then, fled to Great Britain, for the most part).
For some reasons, the sizeable fleet of the Republic of the United Netherlands is absent (differently from the Dutch land forces, UnitedKingdom hasn't it, nor the France Hussars will jump on it).
One round is meant to represent averagely 3 months (one season) of historical time (somewhat variable between 1 month and 6 months). One infantry unit is loosely representing 10,000 infantrymen, one cavalry unit is loosely representing 2,000 cavalrymen, one artillery unit is loosely representing 100 guns (for the Artillery, 100 heavy six-pounders, or less bigger cannons, or more smaller cannons) and 1,000 artillerymen, except for the Horse_Artillery, that would loosely be about 100 light guns (typically, 100 light six-pounders), 1,000 men and 2,000 horses, and one Marines unit is loosely representing 5,000 marines and 100 light guns. One Battleship unit is very loosely representing about 10 first rate (three-decker, with about 100 guns each) ships of the line, or anyway ships of the line for total 1,000 guns. Again, these are only very loose values, both because there are no maintenance costs (thus, there is the absurdity of infinite stacking of units) and because this game is by no means a serious historical simulation nor the starting setup is a picture of the actual situation at the time (for example, due to balance reasons, the France and Russia armies and productions are relatively underrepresented (for Russia's units, only the Cossacks and the artillery are really underrepresented), comparing to Central Powers, and UnitedKingdom should only have about half the production of France, realistically). In particular, the naval forces are much underpriced and underrepresented (especially the starting fleets of France, UnitedKingdom and Spain), as a matter of what you have, with respect to what you can produce, plus the silliness of being able to produce Battleship everywhere in about the time needed to march for some hundreds miles (but this is to counterbalance not having ports, in which to keep your ships safe). Generally speaking, aside from fleets, the starting forces are either about historically consistent or modestly underrepresented (mostly for relative balance, since I preferred to take out over adding), except only that France is lacking tens Fusiliers more and Russia is lacking about a dozen Hussars and half a dozen Artillery units more, while the productive abilities are overrepresented (so, for example, France would be able to mobilize additional 120,000 infantrymen every three months, by doing nothing else but mobilizing fusiliers companies), as similarly wrong in almost all TripleA games, to keep some consistency with the original game, and because games with very high (over 12) TUV / production ratios are very uncommon and unpopular (usually, people like making big purchases, while disliking having too much stuff around, already).
The Cuirassiers unit is not representing only cavalry equipped with cuirasses, but also all sort of heavy cavalry, no matter if totally unarmoured; usually either called just cavalerie, cuirassiers, guards, gendarmes, carabiniers a cheval or grenadiers a cheval. Dragoons is representing the not light version of the speciality. Hussars is representing hussars, chasseurs a cheval, chevaulegers, light dragoons, lancers, cossacks, landwehr cavalry, and all sort of light, fast and cheap cavalry. Of course, Grenadiers don't use grenades.
In 1803 the French had 89 line infantry (fusiliers and grenadiers) regiments and 26 light infantry (chasseurs and carabiniers) regiments (104 and 12, respectively, in 1791), of 2~6 bataillons each (usually, 3), with 1 grenadier / carabinier and 8 fusilier / chasseur companies per bataillon (about 1,000 fighting men per bataillon, at full strength); assuming the same number of bataillons per regiment, and taking into account that the grenadier / carabinier company was 75% the strength of the others, it would be 71% fusiliers, 21% chasseurs and 8% grenadiers / carabiniers. Napoleone highly esteemed the importance of the grenadiers on the battlefield and, from 1808 onwards, the battailon was made up of 6 companies (instead of 9), all of equal and greater strength, one of them being grenadiers; thus, the share of grenadiers per battalion was increased from 8% to 17%.
I guess that the average time for finishing the game (with Projection of Power), with all good players, should almost always be in between of 15 and 30 Rounds (10 to 20 hours of real time play). For real time (lobby) games, the game should be normally playable, till victory, in about 2 to 4 sessions of 6 hours each. If some players are very bad or quit their games, the game can last much shorter. Of course, dice catastrophes can end the game shortly or renew a long played one.
If the Emperor Alexander agreed to a peace which was disadvantageous to him, the campaign of 1812 would have ranked with those of Austerlitz, Friedland, and Wagram. But these campaigns also, if they had not led to peace, would in all probability have ended in similar catastrophes. -Carl von Clausewitz
Playing With AI Suggestions (as per TripleA 126.96.36.199):
Do not play with AI. This game is meant to be played with (talking) people, not with AI.
If any, the recommended AI is "Hard AI".
When playing with AI, you should always deselect "Use Politics" (playing All War), before starting the game.
If you want to play solo with AI, I suggest you take Russia, leaving all other players to AI (remember to deselect "Use Politics").
If you want to give one side to AI (playing with 4 players plus 1 AI), I suggest it being OttomanEmpire, with "AI Bonus Income Flat Rate" = 8 (remember to deselect "Use Politics").
If you want to give two sides to AI (playing with 3 players plus 2 AI), I suggest them being OttomanEmpire and Russia, with "AI Bonus Income Flat Rate" = 8 (remember to deselect "Use Politics").
If you really want to play with "Use Politics" with AI, you should limit yourself proffering no more than 1 upgrading (requiring consent) political action per turn (no matter whether you do it with the AI or with somebody else) (you can do infinite downgrading political actions).
Version 5.x.x changes made by Cernel
5 Fixed Alliances (3) or Single Powers (2):
Western Powers: France + Spain
Northern Powers: UnitedKingdom + Sweden
Central Powers: KingdomOfPrussia + AustrianEmpire
Only Capitals are Victory Cities, with Orleanais (Paris) counting as 2 Victory Cities.
Victory is achieved by the Alliance at the end of any turn of its players (game over) (you haven't to wait till end round to win).
The default victory condition is Projection Of Power.
Projection of Power: Western Powers=5, Northern Powers=4, Central Powers=4, OttomanEmpire=3, Russia=3. Honorable Surrender: Western Powers=6, Northern Powers=5, Central Powers=5, OttomanEmpire=4, Russia=4.
Total Victory: Western Powers=6, Northern Powers=6, Central Powers=6, OttomanEmpire=6, Russia=6.
Default Options Changes:
Low Luck: False (dice!).
Naval Bombard Casualties Return Fire Restricted: True (meaning False) (meaning Bombard is v3 Rules).
Battleships repair at beginning of round: True.
Units Can Be Destroyed Instead Of Captured: True.
Hard Rules Changes:
Chasseurs attack increased to 2.
Grenadiers defense increased to 3.
Artillery defense increased to 2.
Mortars attack decreased to 4.
Tower defense and attack decreased to 1.
Battleship, Frigate, Corvette and Brigantine can all bombard, at their attack values.
Battleship cannot be supported.
Battleship cost decreased to 20.
Corvette can be supported.
Corvette is not a 'sub' (no special rules) (it was a v1 rules sub, but with sneak attack on defense too).
Barque attack increased to 1 (is a Combat Transport).
Barque controls sea zones (able to capture or liberate convoy zones, like all other ships).
General movement increased to 2.
General can move during Combat Move, but not into hostile territories.
General cost increased to 20.
1 Factory (Encampment or General) per territory per turn can be placed in any land territories owned since start turn, except only that you can't place an Encampment in your Capital or in territories with an Encampment already in them.
All units, except only the Marshals, at disposal since start game (enabled the purchase of Mortars, Tower and Fortress before the 2nd round).
Marshals are nomore (disabled the purchase of Marshals from the 2nd round) (Marshal Defense decreased to 2 and Transporting Cost increased to 3).
No discount prices (UnitedKingdom Encampment cost increased from 8 to 10 and General cost increased from 11 to 20).
No income from land territories that have been conquered or contested on the same turn, except originally owned Capitals.
No income maluses (removed the permanent -6 PUs modifier for France and the permanent -4 PUs modifier for UnitedKingdom).
No destroyed TUV bonus (removed the 4 PUs bonus per turn for destroying enemy units in battle). But added a "Destroy Unit Objectives" (default False) option for having it back.
The politics phase is at the start of the player's turn (not at start round, nor round based).
It is possible to perform whatever political actions, with no limits or delays, except only that:
1) you can upgrade only to Ceasefire, if you start your turn at War or were at War at the end of your previous turn;
2) you can downgrade only to Open Borders, if you start your turn Allied or were Allied at the end of your previous turn.
When loading onto somebody else's ships, you must have the immediate agreement of the ship's owner, for each single move, moving units either one at a time or a bunch of them, as long as they are loading in the same SZ and all onto ships of a same other player.
The turn of Sweden is before KingdomOfPrussia.
Note: The political actions limits (you can go to Open Borders or Allied only if you are and were not at War and you can go to Ceasefire or War only if you are and were not Allied) are not given by the current relationship you are in (that it is merely temporary, till you end your Politics phase), but only by what relationship you had at the start of the Politics phase you are in and what relationship you had had at the end of your previous turn (both must be relationships from which you can go to the new one you want to target). The contingent relationships you are into, during the Politics phase, aren't limiting; so, you can even keep changing back and forth relationships, undoing treaties or reproffering them, as much as you want to; your politic becomes definitive only upon ending the Politics phase.
A simple example, about what this whole thing means, is that, if France upgrades its relationship with UnitedKingdom to Ceasefire on round 1, during its turn, then, in the following UnitedKingdom turn (right after France) it won't be possible to upgrade it to Allied or anything (but it will be possible to downgrade it back to War). It will be possible to move further upwards in relationship only starting from the next turn of France, as long as UnitedKingdom didn't downgrade it again, during its own turn in between.
Basically, you need the forbidding relationship not being anymore in place for a sequence of 8 turns, starting from the turn in which the relationship was firstly changed (which, differently from a round based politics, it is not necessarily the turn of France).
Validation end phase (and not upon doing the political action) means that, for example, you can go directly from War to Allied (after having downgraded to War on the same phase), if at the start of the phase you were able to go to Allied.
Note: The limit about loading onto ships of other players isn't enforced by the engine, but you have to respect it yourselves: you must inform the other player exactly about where (detailing exactly what units are loading onto which ships of the other player (you must not detail the units loading onto ships of yours)) and what you intend to load, for the single move (not for the whole turn); then, he can only choose to accept or reject the single move. Independently from his decision, you can still do or try doing whatever loading moves, eventually asking consent, individually for each one. The consent can only be given for the single move (of a single unit or a bunch of them, moved together (so, to a same sea zone, but possibly to different ships)) and must be given immediately before doing said move; it can't be given in advance, for multiple moves, nor subjected to undoing other moves already done or doing other future moves.
All land territories bordering SZ5 are land connected (Finland - Lappland and Finland - Svealand).
The only canals, both land connected, are Constantinople - Kiutayeh and Karelia - Ingria. Arabia is impassable (production set to 0 and removed the 5 Hussars in it).
Production values in Capitals divided by 2, rounded up (Orleanais: 10 to 5; Essex: 8 to 4; New Castille: 5 to 3; Svealand: 5 to 3; Prussia: 7 to 4; Austria: 8 to 4; Constantinople: 7 to 4; Moscovia: 5 to 3).
Reduced production of Auvergne, Finland, Anatolia and Tripoli to 2.
Reduced production of Andalusia, Old Castille, Ostra Gotaland, Skane, Bulgaria, Syria, Esthonia, Bavaria and Norvege to 1.
Increased production of Provence, Bohemia and Sussex to 3.
Increased production of Hollande, Transylvania, Ingria, Liguria and Sjaelland to 2.
Increased production of Northumberland, La Mancha and Navarre to 1.
Increased production of SZ73 (UnitedKingdom convoy) from 6 to 8.
(if not differently specified, the previous changes are 1 point only, from original)
Territories switched over; the units in them either switched the same way or removed: Territory/From/To/GiveUnits?(Y/N): Valais/France/Neutral/N; Majorca/UnitedKingdom/Spain/N; Candia/UnitedKingdom/OttomanEmpire/N; Munster/Neutral/UnitedKingdom/N; Connaught/Neutral/UnitedKingdom/N; Leinster/Neutral/UnitedKingdom/N; Hollande/AustrianEmpire/UnitedKingdom/Y; Holstein/Sweden/Neutral/Y; Jutland/Sweden/Neutral/Y; Sjaelland/Sweden/Neutral/N; Bohus/Sweden/Neutral/Y; Karelia/Sweden/Russia/Y; Mecklenburg/Neutral/Sweden/Y; Saxony/KingdomOfPrussia/Neutral/N; Krakow/KingdomOfPrussia/AustrianEmpire/Y; Galicia/KingdomOfPrussia/AustrianEmpire/Y; Lithuania/KingdomOfPrussia/Russia/Y; Cologne/Neutral/KingdomOfPrussia/N; Lombardi/Neutral/AustrianEmpire/N; Venetia/Neutral/AustrianEmpire/Y; Edessa/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Armenia/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Mosul/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Lebanon/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Palestine/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Midian/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Jordan/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Syria/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Mesopotamia/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Baghdad/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/Y; Basrah/Neutral/OttomanEmpire/N; Odessa/Neutral/Russia/N; Mordvins/Neutral/Russia/N; Tsaritsyn/Neutral/Russia/N; Crimea/Neutral/Russia/Y.
Moved France 1 Barque, 1 Brigantine, 1 Cutter, 1 Battleship from SZ35 to SZ36; moved France 1 Barque, 1 Brigantine from SZ64 to SZ63; moved UnitedKingdom 1 Corvette from SZ 22 to SZ35; moved UnitedKingdom 1 Battleship from SZ25 to SZ35; moved UnitedKingdom 1 Frigate from SZ 29 to SZ 35; Moved UnitedKingdom 1 Barque, 1 Frigate from SZ 58 to SZ 64; Moved UnitedKingdom 1 Battleship, 1 Marines from SZ73 to SZ64; Moved UnitedKingdom 1 Brigantine, 1 Marines from SZ73 to SZ72; moved Spain 1 Barque, 1 Brigantine, 1 Corvette from SZ47 to SZ 53; moved Spain 1 Frigate, 1 Cutter from SZ49 to SZ53; moved Spain 2 Barque, 1 Brigantine from SZ57 to SZ56; moved Sweden 1 Battleship from SZ6 to SZ10; moved OttomanEmpire 1 Barque, 1 Brigantine from SZ93 to SZ92; moved Russia 1 Barque, 2 Cutter from SZ2 to SZ3; moved Russia 1 Battleship from SZ101 to SZ3; moved Russia 1 Barque from SZ101 to SZ95.
-1 Grenadiers from France in SZ64; -1 Brigantine, -1 Marines from France in SZ81; -1 Barque, -1 Marines, -1 Marshal from France in SZ86 (also illegal, with the increased TC of Marshal); -1 Chasseurs, -1 Hussars, -1 Dragoons in Normandy; -2 Fusiliers, -2 Dragoons in Anjou; -2 Fusiliers, -1 Artillery in Auvergne; -1 Hussars in Poitou; -1 Hussars, -1 Horse_Artillery in Gascony; -1 Marines in Corsica; -1 Brigantine from UnitedKingdom in SZ29; -1 Frigate from UnitedKingdom in SZ58; -1 Cuirassiers in New Castille; -1 Fusiliers, -1 Artillery in Leon; -1 Brigantine, -1 Frigate from Sweden in SZ11; -1 Barque from Sweden in SZ20; -1 Marines in Lappland; -2 Chasseurs, -1 Grenadiers, -1 Dragoons in Finland (removed half of the units in Finland); -1 Brigantine, -1 Frigate from KingdomOfPrussia in SZ7; -1 Brigantine from KingdomOfPrussia in SZ9; -1 Chasseurs in Prussia; -1 Chasseurs in Brandenburg; -1 Chasseurs in Pomerania; -1 Chasseurs in Silesia; -1 Fusiliers in Posen; -1 Brigantine from AustrianEmpire in SZ77; -2 Chasseurs in Bohemia; -1 Chasseurs in Salzburg; -1 Grenadiers, -1 Artillery in Tyrol; -1 Marines in Slovenia; -1 Chasseurs in Moravia; -1 Chasseurs in Krakow; -1 Dragoons in Transylvania; -1 Frigate from OttomanEmpire in SZ89; -1 Horse_Artillery in Moldavia; -1 Horse_Artillery in Bessarabia; -1 Artillery, -2 Marines in Kiutayeh; -1 Artillery in Tarsus; -1 Horse_Artillery in Antioch; -2 Barque from Russia in SZ2; -1 Brigantine from Russia in SZ4; -3 Fusiliers in Moscovia; -2 Fusiliers, -1 Grenadiers, -1 Marines in Latvia; -2 Fusiliers, -1 Tower in Esthonia; -1 Fusiliers in Severia; -2 Fusiliers, -1 Artillery, -1 Horse_Artillery in Kazan; removed all naval units from Neutral; -2 Fusiliers in Naples; -2 Fusiliers in Apulia; -2 Fusiliers in Calabria; -2 Fusiliers in Sinai; -1 Chasseurs in Cyrenacia.
+1 Corvette, +1 Frigate, +1 Battleship to France in SZ36; +2 Fusiliers, +1 Grenadiers in Orleanais; +1 Tower in Burgundy; +3 Fusiliers, +1 Grenadiers, +2 Artillery, +2 Hussars, +2 Cuirassiers in Champagne; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Howitzer, +1 Hussars, +1 Cuirassiers, +1 Horse_Artillery in Picardy; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Tower in Provence; +1 Chasseurs, +1 Hussars in Languedoc; +1 Fusiliers in Gascony; +1 Fusiliers in Poitou; +1 Tower in Brittany; +1 Tower in Corsica; +1 Cutter to UnitedKingdom in SZ30; +1 Barque, +1 Cutter, +1 Battleship to UnitedKingdom in SZ35; +1 Barque, +1 Chasseurs, +1 Artillery, +3 Marines to UnitedKingdom in SZ64; +1 Barque, +1 Chasseurs, +1 Marines to UnitedKingdom in SZ72; +1 Howitzer, +2 Hussars, +1 Dragoons, +1 Cuirassiers in Essex; +1 Chasseurs, +1 Horse_Artillery, +1 Fortress in Sussex; +1 Fortress in Wessex; +1 Tower in Edinburgh; +1 Dragoons in Ulster; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Howitzer, +1 Artillery, +1 Hussars, +1 Dragoons in Hollande; +1 Horse_Artillery in Hanovre; +3 Tower in Andalusia; +1 Battleship to Spain in SZ53; +1 Hussars in New Castille; +1 Tower in Galacia; +1 Fusiliers in Navarre; +1 Artillery in Catalonia; +1 Chasseurs in Majorca; +1 Corvette, +1 Cutter to Sweden in SZ6; +1 Artillery, +1 Marines in Svealand; +1 Tower in Finland; +2 Fortress in Mecklenburg; +1 Barque to KingdomOfPrussia in SZ9; +1 Artillery, +2 Hussars, +1 Dragoons, +2 Cuirassiers in Prussia; +1 Grenadiers, +1 Howitzer, +1 Artillery, +2 Hussars, +1 Dragoons, +2 Cuirassiers, +1 Horse_Artillery in Brandenburg; +1 Artillery, +1 Hussars, +1 Cuirassiers in Silesia; +1 Artillery, +1 Hussars, +1 Dragoons in Warszowa; +3 Fusiliers, +1 Artillery, +2 Hussars, +1 Dragoons, +1 Cuirassiers, +2 Tower in Cologne; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Hussars, +2 Cuirassiers in Austria; +1 Grenadiers, +3 Hussars, +1 Tower in Hungary; +2 Fusiliers, +1 Grenadiers, +1 Artillery, +2 Hussars, +1 Dragoons, +3 Cuirassiers in Bohemia; +1 Chasseurs in Tyrol; +1 Fusiliers in Slovenia; +1 Artillery, +1 Hussars in Moravia; +1 Hussars in Transylvania; +1 Hussars in Galicia; +1 Hussars in Krakow; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Tower in Lombardi; +3 Fusiliers, +2 Hussars, +1 Cuirassiers in Flanders; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Howitzer, +1 Dragoons in Constantinople; +1 Hussars in Bosnia; +1 Hussars in Albania; +1 Hussars in Moldavia; +1 Hussars in Bessarabia; +1 Hussars in Armenia; +1 Fortress in Antioch; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Fortress in Palestine; +1 Chasseurs in Candia; +1 Frigate, +1 Cutter to Russia in SZ95; +1 Grenadiers, +1 Dragoons in Moscovia; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Grenadiers, +1 Marines, +1 Cuirassiers, +1 Fortress in Ingria; +2 Hussars in Kazan; +1 Hussars in Odessa; +1 Hussars in Mordvins; +1 Hussars in Tsaritsyn; +1 Tower in Crimea; +2 Tower in Rome; +1 Dragoons, +1 Fortress in Egypt; +1 Howitzer in Alemtejo; +1 Hussars in West Sahara; +2 Chasseurs in Oporto; +2 Fusiliers in Valais; +1 Grenadiers in Liguria; +3 Fusiliers in Saxony; +3 Fusiliers in Bohus; +3 Chasseurs, +3 Fortress in Sjaelland; +1 Fusiliers, +1 Hussars in Tripoli; +1 Fusiliers in Turkmen; +1 Fusiliers in UstUrt; +4 Fusiliers in Persia; +8 Fusiliers in Zagros.
Starting PUs set equal to starting total production (after all territory and setup changes been made) (France: 46 to 48; UnitedKingdom: 46 to 50; Spain: 30 to 24; Sweden: 27 to 15; KingdomOfPrussia: 27 to 20; AustrianEmpire: 30 to 30; OttomanEmpire: 28 to 45; Russia: 28 to 36).
Reduced the value of Capital (the Encampment like factory you have in your Capital, since start game) to 0.
Changed the name of Mortella_Tower to Tower.
The Marshals are called: France: Ney; UnitedKingdom: Wellington; Spain: Marshal; KingdomOfPrussia: Blucher; Sweden: Marshal; AustrianEmpire: Charles; OttomanEmpire: Mahmud; Russia: Kutusov.
Changed the naming of "National Objectives" to "Destroy Unit Objectives".
Lowered "AI Bonus Income Flat Rate" to 0.
Changed the min and max of "AI Bonus Income Flat Rate" from -30 and 30 to -67 and 134.
Changed the min and max of "AI Bonus Income Percentage" from -60 and 120 to -100 and 200.
Players of a same Fixed Alliance are permanently Allied.
|United Kingdom...............||Swe Pru Aus Rus|
|Kingdom of Prussia..........||Uni Aus Rus|
|Austrian Empire...............||Uni Pru Rus|
|Russia.............................||Uni Aus Pru|
|United Kingdom...............||Spa Ott|
|Spain..............................||Uni Swe Pru Aus Ott Rus|
|Sweden...........................||Fra Spa Pru Aus Ott Rus|
|Kingdom of Prussia..........||Spa Swe Ott|
|Austrian Empire...............||Spa Swe Ott|
|Ottoman Empire...............||Fra Uni Spa Swe Pru Aus Rus|
|Russia.............................||Spa Swe Ott|
|France............................||Uni Pru Aus Rus|
|Kingdom of Prussia..........||Fra|
Version 2.0 - 4.0.9 changes made by Veqryn.
You may or may not notice that France collects 6 less income, and the UK 4 less.
This is because in order keep the game balanced, I was forced to create negative modifiers for their income. These 2 nations will receive these negative modifiers every single turn, no matter what happens.
Changes for FFA version only:
Lots more neutral units in southern Italy, Africa, and the Middle East.
Different Victory Conditions for each player, check above or in game options screen
Small changes to unit placement.
Nations now destroy their PUs instead of letting them be captured (FFA only).
Decreased value of Spainish convoy zone and some territories, but also removed the negative objective for Spain.
Version 4.0 - 4.0.x changes:
Tweaking of Political rules.
Increasing Mortar defense by 1, and increasing cost by 1.
Decreased Fortress cost by 1.
Increasing Marshal movement by 1 (to 3) so that they match the other special cavalry.
Decreasing cost of Generals and Encampments by 1.
Version 3.9.x - 4.0 changes:
Added politics, allowing dynamic changing of relationships during the game.
Game now starts according to historical alliances, but using Ceasefire instead of Allied so that people can switch to war if they want to.
Version 3.8 - 3.9 changes:
Removed connection between Bohus and sz21.
Added two fortresses to Majorca.
Changed a single tower and fortress on Candia into three Chasseurs.
Removed a Tower from Catalonia.
Updated to new engine:
Barques (the transports) no longer capture convoy zones, while all other boats still can.
Now uses Triggers to prevent purchases of Marshals, Mortars, Towers and Fortresses before the 2nd turn.
Added ability to have generals, encampments, and capitals destroyed with a game option.
Version 3.7 - 3.8 changes:
Changed Default Victory Condition to be honorable surrender (13 vc), instead of total victory (14).
Removed 1 defense from the Mortar unit, so now it is zero defense (5/0/1 with artillery gives support ability).
Removed Austrian Cutter.
Removed Tower from Constantinople.
Changed Madrid Fortress to a Tower.
Added a Tower to Catalonia.
Gave Spain back 2 pu.
Changed Spain's convoy from 16 to 14 (negative NO is now -10, to keep the original income of 4 from the convoy the same).
To see previous changes from 2.0 - 3.7, see the comments at the end of the xml file.
Original Map and Game, complete to Version 2.0 by LSSAH.
Changes 2.0-4.0.9 by Veqryn, Last Edited June, 2012.
Changes 4.0.9-5.x by Cernel, Last Edited August, 2015.
All action in War, as we have already said, is directed on probable, not on certain, results. Whatever is wanting in certainty must always be left to fate, or chance, call it which you will. We may demand that what is so left should be as little as possible, but only in relation to the particular case -that is, as little as is possible in this one case, but not that the case in which the least is left to chance is always to be preferred. That would be an enormous error, as follows from all our theoretical views. There are cases in which the greatest daring is the greatest wisdom. -Carl von Clausewitz
|Fusiliers||4 PUs||Land unit, 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supportable, 2 Transporting Cost
|Chasseurs||5 PUs||Land unit, 2 Attack, 3 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supportable, 2 Transporting Cost
|Grenadiers||6 PUs||Land unit, 3 Attack, 3 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supportable, 2 Transporting Cost
|Howitzer||4 PUs||Land unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supporting, 2 Transporting Cost
|Artillery||5 PUs||Land unit, 2 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supporting, 2 Transporting Cost
|Mortars||8 PUs||Land unit, 4 Attack, 1 Defense, 1 Movement,|
Supporting, 2 Transporting Cost
|Marines||6 PUs||Land unit, 2 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Movement,|
+1 Amphibious Attack Modifier, 1 Transporting Cost
|Hussars||4 PUs||Land unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Movement,|
3 Transporting Cost
|Dragoons||6 PUs||Land unit, 2 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supportable, 3 Transporting Cost
|Cuirassiers||7 PUs||Land unit, 3 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supportable, 3 Transporting Cost
|Horse Artillery||5 PUs||Land unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supporting, 3 Transporting Cost
|Tower||3 PUs||Land unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense|
|Fortress||5 PUs||Land unit, 4 Attack, 4 Defense|
|Barque||8 PUs||Sea unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Movement,|
3 Transporting Capacity
|Brigantine||8 PUs||Sea unit, 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supportable, 1 Bombard, 1 Transporting Capacity
|Corvette||9 PUs||Sea unit, 2 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supportable, 2 Bombard, 1 Transporting Capacity
|Frigate||12 PUs||Sea unit, 3 Attack, 2 Defense, 2 Movement,|
Supportable, 3 Bombard, 1 Transporting Capacity
|Cutter||6 PUs||Sea unit, 1 Attack, 1 Defense, 2 Movement,|
|Battleship||20 PUs||Sea unit, 4 Attack, 4 Defense, 2 Movement, 2 Hitpoints,|
4 Bombard, 1 Transporting Capacity
|Encampment||10 PUs||Land unit, 0 Hitpoints, can Produce Units Up To Territory Value,|
can be Destroyed, can be Placed Without Factory
|General||20 PUs||Land unit, 2 Movement, 0 Hitpoints, can Produce Units Up To Territory Value,|
can be Destroyed, can be Placed Without Factory, 3 Transporting Cost,
no Attacking Territory