I have played Mote through solo 3 times now, not counting various shorter dead-end side trips. I have a few comments about this great game.
1. The feel of the game is more like the Seven Years War than the Napoleonic era. While epic sieges ( Danzig, Badajoz, Cuidad Rodrigo, Acre, etc. ) took place from 1789-1815, not every city was besieged, nor should have been. The customary rules of war allowed cities to yield in order to spare the people and property. I suggest the addition of a Demand Terms button. When an army moves into a city province, it could demand terms, resulting in immediate capitulation based on relative strengths of the garrison and the opposing army. This feature could be further modified by War Score, attacking leader's offensive ability, and defending leader's (if any) defensive ability, like LaSalle at Stettin. These additional features would permit open cities to surrender logically per honors of war. Their garrison could then be released and added to the national manpower pool of the defending country. The Demand Terms offer would not apply to fortresses usually.
2. It is my personal opinion that every city and fortress in the game is grossly over-manned. This results in far too many sieges. In reality, most cities had a few companies of militia, say 200-300 troops, and most fortresses were manned by invalided companies. One option would be to permit up to 200 "free" troops for a garrison, and require the Player to pay for any additional troops from the national manpower pool. If the Player chooses not to reinforce garrisons, many sieges would be mercifully short. And yes I know about the Paris Municipal Guard being a full brigade in strength. That is why they wound up in Spain.
3. War Score should be strongly weighted to Field Army survival. A crushing defeat of the main army should be enough for major concessions by the defeated nation. I think 50% or more War Score for the destruction of the main army would not be out of line. Destroying the army and seizing a large chunk of territory should result in a score above 99%. The Player should not have to completely defeat the enemy five or six time in order to convert that enemy to a client state; three should be enough. For Great Britain and other naval powers, defeat of the main fleet would also result in a weighted War Score.
4. Navies need to be much more manpower intensive to build and maintain. A first-rate squadron should cost the same manpower as a guard brigade, and this includes repairs after battle needing manpower to complete. I have not witnessed attrition and the need to refit ships that have been at sea for extended periods, since I have played as Russia mostly. If attrition is turned off for ships in this game, it needs to be turned back on. Ships wear out and have to be refitted.
5. Minor state army builds need to be tweaked. I have seen a huge Polish army of 16 Cuirassiers, and 12 assorted foot and horse artillery units with one transport. The Poles created one heavy cavalry Regiment historically. I am familiar with the Hearts of Iron games, and they handle builds pretty well. Minors also need to create fewer, but stronger armies.
6. One of the ironies of Napoleon's wars in Germany was the beginning of German unification. It doesn't seem to work as well in Mote. I miss the HOI diplomacy options. I know this is a different game engine, but it would be great if there was a way to give provinces to allies or satellites. The creation of French client states in Germany has never happened to any great degree in the three games I've played. If there is a way to do this, please let me know.
7. Would it be possible for a great victory, in itself, to decrease the Player's War Score? This would better reflect the historical reality that Austerlitz, Trafalgar, etc., increased domestic support for the war.
I will be playing this game to the exclusion of sleep and exercise for the foreseeable future. Thanks for a great game, Paradox!
1. The feel of the game is more like the Seven Years War than the Napoleonic era. While epic sieges ( Danzig, Badajoz, Cuidad Rodrigo, Acre, etc. ) took place from 1789-1815, not every city was besieged, nor should have been. The customary rules of war allowed cities to yield in order to spare the people and property. I suggest the addition of a Demand Terms button. When an army moves into a city province, it could demand terms, resulting in immediate capitulation based on relative strengths of the garrison and the opposing army. This feature could be further modified by War Score, attacking leader's offensive ability, and defending leader's (if any) defensive ability, like LaSalle at Stettin. These additional features would permit open cities to surrender logically per honors of war. Their garrison could then be released and added to the national manpower pool of the defending country. The Demand Terms offer would not apply to fortresses usually.
2. It is my personal opinion that every city and fortress in the game is grossly over-manned. This results in far too many sieges. In reality, most cities had a few companies of militia, say 200-300 troops, and most fortresses were manned by invalided companies. One option would be to permit up to 200 "free" troops for a garrison, and require the Player to pay for any additional troops from the national manpower pool. If the Player chooses not to reinforce garrisons, many sieges would be mercifully short. And yes I know about the Paris Municipal Guard being a full brigade in strength. That is why they wound up in Spain.
3. War Score should be strongly weighted to Field Army survival. A crushing defeat of the main army should be enough for major concessions by the defeated nation. I think 50% or more War Score for the destruction of the main army would not be out of line. Destroying the army and seizing a large chunk of territory should result in a score above 99%. The Player should not have to completely defeat the enemy five or six time in order to convert that enemy to a client state; three should be enough. For Great Britain and other naval powers, defeat of the main fleet would also result in a weighted War Score.
4. Navies need to be much more manpower intensive to build and maintain. A first-rate squadron should cost the same manpower as a guard brigade, and this includes repairs after battle needing manpower to complete. I have not witnessed attrition and the need to refit ships that have been at sea for extended periods, since I have played as Russia mostly. If attrition is turned off for ships in this game, it needs to be turned back on. Ships wear out and have to be refitted.
5. Minor state army builds need to be tweaked. I have seen a huge Polish army of 16 Cuirassiers, and 12 assorted foot and horse artillery units with one transport. The Poles created one heavy cavalry Regiment historically. I am familiar with the Hearts of Iron games, and they handle builds pretty well. Minors also need to create fewer, but stronger armies.
6. One of the ironies of Napoleon's wars in Germany was the beginning of German unification. It doesn't seem to work as well in Mote. I miss the HOI diplomacy options. I know this is a different game engine, but it would be great if there was a way to give provinces to allies or satellites. The creation of French client states in Germany has never happened to any great degree in the three games I've played. If there is a way to do this, please let me know.
7. Would it be possible for a great victory, in itself, to decrease the Player's War Score? This would better reflect the historical reality that Austerlitz, Trafalgar, etc., increased domestic support for the war.
I will be playing this game to the exclusion of sleep and exercise for the foreseeable future. Thanks for a great game, Paradox!
