Game 10 SL

Is it my imagination or does game 10 seem to have a lot more Sick List units than in previous games.? Are other players spending more time and money repairing Sick Lists than in previous games.?

My units are getting SL while drilling !! 5 months into an initial drill and some have a SL of 3. My military is very professional and capable

count-de-monet wrote:My units are getting SL while drilling !! 5 months into an initial drill and some have a SL of 3. My military is very professional and capable

Yes exactly. Mine are the same. In San Fran my units have been resting for a year and still have a SL of 6. The number only drops when the weather is fine.

I have never known such a problem in Agema games like this before. Does Richard realise its slowing the game down dreadfully and killing fun.? It must raise players costs as well. Constant orders repairing sick lists. Travel times are greater than I have ever known as well.

I have to say this is all very unenjoyable. The game is very enjoyable but the administration side is more restrictive than other games.

Some of my units in G7 have unexpectedly increased SL for various reasons, but after investigation the reasons were legitimate, so it is possible that this is becoming more a part of all games.

I can't comment on Japan, unless you are expecting too much of your Samurai or perhaps making them drill with western weapons or western tactics instead of the traditional Samurai weapons?

In the case of G10 Spain, the reasons should be so obvious that I need not repeat them.  Roderigo has been excommunicated and declared anathema, thus all Catholics are under a duty not to co-operate with him.  The simplest way they can do that is to render themselves increasingly unfit for service, or through other minor and otherwise undetectable acts of disobedience such as sailing slowly.  Since the forces of Spain were almost 100% Catholic, turning on the church and fraternising with protestant 'allies' are the quickest way to destroy the cohesion of the position.  What can Roderigo do about it?   He could start shooting all those whose SL fall to dangerous levels (before they desert), but that could encourage desertion?  He could disband units, retrain the recruits as vets and then hope that the trained vets do not cripple the health of his cattle?

It is possible things might improve if he stopped being influenced by extremist English protestants, for if I had to describe the current religious position of Roderigo it would be that of the Muggletonians - if you have not heard of them look them up.  They rejected all philosophy and reason and went around cursing all those who failed to acknowledge that the true way to Christ was through the great prophet Lodowick Muggleton - a London tailor (1609-1698).  It is more than likely that many Catholics in Spain believe that Roderigo is being influenced by his Muggletonian spiritual advisor, sent over from England to help him bring about a protestant utopia.  No doubt this will be denied, but perhaps in this case truth is stranger than fiction.

jamesbond007 wrote:

count-de-monet wrote:My units are getting SL while drilling !! 5 months into an initial drill and some have a SL of 3. My military is very professional and capable

Yes exactly. Mine are the same. In San Fran my units have been resting for a year and still have a SL of 6. The number only drops when the weather is fine.

I have never known such a problem in Agema games like this before. Does Richard realise its slowing the game down dreadfully and killing fun.? It must raise players costs as well. Constant orders repairing sick lists. Travel times are greater than I have ever known as well.

I have to say this is all very unenjoyable. The game is very enjoyable but the administration side is more restrictive than other games.

Must admit it's about what I was expecting in G10. I've done a spreadsheet based on the information Richard provides in the rulebooks/supplements, for the min max and average travel times for the different unit types and the Russian engineers arriving in Trieste this month arrived on time give or take a month. Travel for individuals does seem quicker than I expected though.

SL does seem to be more but mainly because it hits worse than I've previously encountered when the weather is wintery so understandable, and it affects individuals more.

I understand the ruleset purposely slows the game down so we don't unrealistically do things for the period. I was originally sending infantry to China with my ambassador which would have taken 3 years if China hadn't threatened to chop them up upon arrival. Might have to send the Streltsy there if they revolt again.

Have you tried phrasing 'rest and recuperate in 'town name'' as that seems to make a difference for my recovery rates, again better if the weather is better, and assuming the town is large enough (10,000+ population) as per the pg 35 of core rulebook.

Papa Clement wrote:
In the case of G10 Spain, the reasons should be so obvious that I need not repeat them.  Roderigo has been excommunicated and declared anathema, thus all Catholics are under a duty not to co-operate with him.  The simplest way they can do that is to render themselves increasingly unfit for service, or through other minor and otherwise undetectable acts of disobedience such as sailing slowly.  Since the forces of Spain were almost 100% Catholic, turning on the church and fraternising with protestant 'allies' are the quickest way to destroy the cohesion of the position.  What can Roderigo do about it?   He could start shooting all those whose SL fall to dangerous levels (before they desert), but that could encourage desertion?  He could disband units, retrain the recruits as vets and then hope that the trained vets do not cripple the health of his cattle?

Be interesting to see if that continues given paper arriving yesterday says that Spain is now paying tithes to Rome and not some new fangled church.

Marshal Bombast wrote:Be interesting to see if that continues given paper arriving yesterday says that Spain is now paying tithes to Rome and not some new fangled church.

While I'm sure that will be welcome, the historic charge sheet against Roderigo goes way beyond stealing from the church, not least the illegal occupation of Papal fiefs.  It is insulting that he thinks he borrow from protestants to fund his own 'church', ignore the millions he has stolen from the true church to pay for his armies that he ordered to seize Papal fiefs, then hand back a token sum which is probably less than the revenue he gains from illegal taxes on those fiefs.  To go further would be to stray from the subject of the topic and really belongs in game.

I do find it rather strange, though, that a player who at various times has posted that he considers:
1. only the large positions are important to the game (Spain naturally being the most important of them all);
2. he personally matters more than any other player because he pays a small fortune for each turn; and
3. he can disregard any aspect of the game he disagrees with

has put himself into the position where he is now obliged to spend even more money ordering units to rest before he can hope to continue to throw them against his enemies.  I'm not sure whether the practical effects of excommunication in game operate as treaties and the penalties become less after 3 years, but if we generously assume they do, this suggests that at the rate of £100/turn he once boasted he spends, that's £3,600 of real world money it will have cost him to be in a worse position (in terms of administering Spain) than he was before he went against the Church.  He may consider this to be money well spent, but others may disagree.

At least in G7 I have followed the history of the game and maintained continuity while also being true to my historic game character.  Yes, my decisions have caused me extra expense at times, but even my in-game enemies would acknowledge that England is now in a much stronger position than it was when I started, and if I choose to spend my time encouraging conversions then that is something I can proceed with at a pace which does not distract from my other priorities.  Who knows if I will be ultimately successful, but if I fail then at least I know I have used historically realistic methods and arguments to convince the GM.

my SL levels achieved during drill are linked to my naval units - the first naval units Japan has raised, so Im not surprised. Although an island nation, at this point in history, naval units should not be easy for Japan (I hope Richard doesnt read this board!)

I quite like the stricter campaign rules and SL levels. It makes taking out other nations harder, which I think should be the case. If you are attacked and want to take on a defensive stance there should be a benefit. It also discourages overly aggressive players.

I doubt they would be willing to share but would be really interested to know what the rules are doing to Austrian and Swedish units in France. Not necessarily revealing exact SL levels but maybe a general easy/normal/hard/very difficult statement with regard to campaigning.

count-de-monet wrote:my SL levels achieved during drill are linked to my naval units - the first naval units Japan has raised, so Im not surprised.  Although an island nation, at this point in history, naval units should not be easy for Japan (I hope Richard doesnt read this board!)

I quite like the stricter campaign rules and SL levels.  It makes taking out other nations harder, which I think should be the case.  If you are attacked and want to take on a defensive stance there should be a benefit.  It also discourages overly aggressive players.

I doubt they would be willing to share but would be really interested to know what the rules are doing to Austrian and Swedish units in France.  Not necessarily revealing exact SL levels but maybe a general easy/normal/hard/very difficult statement with regard to campaigning.

Perhaps the best parallel for naval units could be to compare to G7 Russia ... JFlower could no doubt tell us whether Russian naval units suffer from increases in SL levels.

It could make sense in Japan's case because they are the first naval units you have raised, that you have higher SL - getting used to how new naval technology works?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Swedish units probably find it easier to campaign in France (compared to on the Russian border) and would be naturally hardy, whereas for Austrian units in France they would probably notice no difference. All of this assumes, of course, a friendly local population (Austrian armies being welcomed as liberators who free French Catholics from protestant tyranny), and that they remain in supply.

What would be interesting is if attrition and SL levels were higher in European units sent to fight in Africa or the tropics. There are no doubt those who know more about this than I do, but I think that units normally spent a few months resting and acclimatizing before they went into combat in dramatically different climates. This was not just for the men's benefit, but also the horses. If the rules have been tweaked to reflect this then it will bring a very different feel to some campaigns and perhaps give the defenders a local advantage as you suggest.

Papa Clement wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:Be interesting to see if that continues given paper arriving yesterday says that Spain is now paying tithes to Rome and not some new fangled church.

While I'm sure that will be welcome, the historic charge sheet against Roderigo goes way beyond stealing from the church, not least the illegal occupation of Papal fiefs.  It is insulting that he thinks he borrow from protestants to fund his own 'church', ignore the millions he has stolen from the true church to pay for his armies that he ordered to seize Papal fiefs, then hand back a token sum which is probably less than the revenue he gains from illegal taxes on those fiefs.  To go further would be to stray from the subject of the topic and really belongs in game.

I do find it rather strange, though, that a player who at various times has posted that he considers:
1. only the large positions are important to the game (Spain naturally being the most important of them all);
2. he personally matters more than any other player because he pays a small fortune for each turn; and
3. he can disregard any aspect of the game he disagrees with

has put himself into the position where he is now obliged to spend even more money ordering units to rest before he can hope to continue to throw them against his enemies.  I'm not sure whether the practical effects of excommunication in game operate as treaties and the penalties become less after 3 years, but if we generously assume they do, this suggests that at the rate of £100/turn he once boasted he spends, that's £3,600 of real world money it will have cost him to be in a worse position (in terms of administering Spain) than he was before he went against the Church.  He may consider this to be money well spent, but others may disagree.

At least in G7 I have followed the history of the game and maintained continuity while also being true to my historic game character.  Yes, my decisions have caused me extra expense at times, but even my in-game enemies would acknowledge that England is now in a much stronger position than it was when I started, and if I choose to spend my time encouraging conversions then that is something I can proceed with at a pace which does not distract from my other priorities.  Who knows if I will be ultimately successful, but if I fail then at least I know I have used historically realistic methods and arguments to convince the GM.

Lol. Thanks for that post papa. You are always wrong of course, but always good for a laugh. Lol.

Compared to the days of G2 when various places were besieged or blockaded into surrender with the only cost being time. And the Rumelian Cavalry did a Western European tour on a par with the great campaigns of the Huns, Mongols and rather closer to our period Nadir Shah 3,700 campaign through India I think all games and not only G10 have higher Sickness levels and have become much more realistic for Western European forces of this period.

That fact that the game is now as much if not more about planning your logistics and getting forces rested or into cover for winter than it is about battle tactics and dashing moves on the map may not suit everyone and I would tend to agree with James Bond that in so far as fighting campaigns go a degree of playability has been sacrificed for greater realism (for Western European campaigns circa 1700). Think to help speed things up all positions should start with some grain stores and it should be easier to buy it on the open market from positions (which could be NPC or player) which get a harvest surplus on a standard harvest.

Standing around in siege trenches was very unhealthy esp if the siege dragged and the weather turned bad. Worst French losses of the whole WSC was actually not in Battle but at the siege of Turin and even John Churchill very well supplied Army suffered more losses many due to sickness in sieges than they suffered due to battles.

Players used to the old move to fortress A and either storm or besiege may not be very happy that they now have to have a siege force, a supply convoy and covering force but I like the new style esp as all the extra bits of a fortress like wet ditches, mine galleries, extended fortifications now have a real value in terms of extra time and sickness levels for any attacking force! Sorry I am a bit of a castle spotter but for players who do not like the though of having to spend a whole campaign season on a couple of formal sieges and do not want to worry about supply convoy showing up just as their besiege forces runs out of grain. Can I suggest you go the start they just ignore formal sieges and go in for the true swash buckler style of bribes, drunk garrisons, coup de mains and other deeds of daring do.

Suspect for things like this to work a high honour score may be handy but sometimes people did just get lucky.

I agree with Papa Clement that low in game honour may help cause high sickness levels - reflecting desertion of unhappy troops. The classic example being what happened to James II army in 1689 were roughly 1-3 officers were over to the foe or just went missing. Outside Western Europe it is hard to capture the desertion rates of mostly unpaid Ottoman, Polish, Persian and Indian and also Polish and Russian armies into a game design based round the WSS. All of these armies suffered very high desertion levels over a campaign mostly because troops showed up with campaign supplies and when then were gone or if people had grabbed enough plunder they buggered off home.

So its possible but not proven that some of these huge eastern armies have a built in disadvantage with sickness levels to reflect things like they move out of their home base and gain two sickness levels just due to the number suffering from home sickness for their favourite goat and running home to make sure it was all right. In G7 Jason an otherwise very popular Czar was convinced that his troops gained a sickness level just walking down the shops and two sickness levels if it was wet. Pointed out historic Russian Armies invading Crimea started 100,000 strong and finished 30,0000 strong and best way to view losses was "deserters" who rejoined the colours in next years "recruits" and even Frederick the Great Prussian Army suffered a huge desertion problem even though a first rate force by most standards. Jason complaint then was why did they all then flog their muskets and uniforms and forget their drill before they returned.

Feel that Papa Clement other point that troops outside of the home cliamatic regions should suffer much worse than normal would seem to be backed up by a lot of historic evidence but actually think Richard is pretty soft on say European forces in the West Indies, West Africa and India which historically could be totally wrecked by Yellow Fever and the like and do not see much evidence of worse sickness levels. Pity really as in G7 all Cinchona trees are the property of the crown of Spain which has planted tens of thousands extra and replaces each one cut down on a 5-1 basis and has banned the export of Quinine to protect its trees on pain of well lots of pain.

Do like the scrabble rule were troops can "Acclimatise" to conditions over five months. So the Foreign Legion based in North Africa can get used to the heat and desert conditions. But troops just of the boat from Europe and going to suffer.

What I

Stuart Bailey wrote: Feel that Papa Clement other point that troops outside of the home cliamatic regions should suffer much worse than normal would seem to be backed up by a lot of historic evidence but actually think Richard is pretty soft on say European forces in the West Indies, West Africa

Hmm, I'be been thinking all this time that the very high SLs my folk were suffering from (military and civilians alike) was just due to the climate in West Africa, but if my native/adapted folk are suffering thus, I hold out small hopes for the health of any European troops coming to "visit"...

The Revenant wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote: Feel that Papa Clement other point that troops outside of the home cliamatic regions should suffer much worse than normal would seem to be backed up by a lot of historic evidence but actually think Richard is pretty soft on say European forces in the West Indies, West Africa

Hmm, I'be been thinking all this time that the very high SLs my folk were suffering from (military and civilians alike) was just due to the climate in West Africa, but if my native/adapted folk are suffering thus, I hold out small hopes for the health of any European troops coming to "visit"...

In terms of the most unhealthy area's for European Troops and traders. The East India Company used to lose 1 in 3 and that was just normal trade and garrison duty in India. Mind you considering how much they drunk its a surprize even 2 in 3 made it back! Talk about live head, die young.

The West Indies were also infamous with yellow fever and other tropical diseases leading to many units suffering losses of 1 in 3 or even higher on a single tour of duty in peace time. As for conflict situations the 1741 attack on Cartagena de Indias was the greatest British military disaster of the whole C18 with 18,000 of Vernon men dead or very sick.

The attack on Cartagena was by a fleet and army sent from England. Havana was taken in the 1760's by the Army which had won the 7 years war in North America but it was said never to have been the same after Havana with many veteran units ruined by disease.

Unable to point to a West African equal to Cartagena but the fact that the coast was known as the "White mans grave" and ships tried to avoid landing as much as possible would tend to suggest that any player wanting to build up a military position in West Africa would be well advised to use local recruits rather than his own troops and not leave the beach.

But I do wonder if like in scabble it is worth spending time getting troops used to the conditions before trying to campaign. French privateers in West Indies and West Africa have been carefully sleeping under nets in hamocks, taking salt with its BBQ beef and drinking Rum and mango juice out of coconuts while they get used to the heat.....healthy living = SL0 !

But for European Regulars just sent to West Africa or West Indies think any time of the year should be at least as tough as trying to campaign in January or Feb in Europe when its snowing or raining! ie at least 2 sickness levels per month.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Unable to point to a West African equal to Cartagena but the fact that the coast was known as the "White mans grave" and ships tried to avoid landing as much as possible would tend to suggest that any player wanting to build up a military position in West Africa would be well advised to use local recruits rather than his own troops and not leave the beach.

But for European Regulars just sent to West Africa or West Indies think any time of the year should be at least as tough as trying to campaign in January or Feb in Europe when its snowing or raining! ie at least 2 sickness levels per month.

It is a long time since I played the Asante in a game, but I vaguely remember researching the wars in West Africa.  There was a series of conflicts (some more skirmishes than full blown wars) in the 1800s.  The basic problem was that the British wanted trade, but by trading with the Asante, they gained guns which they then used to increase their slave-raiding and build a bigger army.  Part of the problem with a bigger army is that it tends to want to fight someone.  So the Asante started to raid around the British coastal trading posts and when some local tribal chiefs (who had suffered from Asante slave raids) tried to help the British protect the local area, the British effectively became dragged in to a civil war.  One of the hardest things about fighting in West Africa is that thousands of Asante would hide in jungles and fire arrows - musket fire was ineffective and although the British cut back the jungle to give themselves a clear field of fire, it wasn't necessarily enough.  In the Battle of Nsamankow, the tribal allies ran away once the British ran out of ammunition, and the British were slaughtered.  In a later engagement the British were saved by an early use of Congreve rockets which scared the Asante and this time they ran away.  War in Africa was primarily about plunder and putting on a show rather than killing the enemy.  Indeed in some areas for each man killed, compensation had to be paid by the victor!  European intervention upset this, but the idea that 'war' was a kind of social event which allowed men to prove their bravery, may explain why these early skirmishes took place.  Africans fighting Africans was honourable in their eyes because they both shared the same understanding of its purpose, whereas war against Europeans was something very different.  It is possible that the early Asante skirmishes were an attempt by them to educate Europeans into their ways.

By the 1870s the main phase of the Asante wars began with engineers cutting wide roads through the jungle to link main settlements, with stockades every few miles to protect against attack.  Despite the daily use of quinine, losses among the engineers was very high.  When the Asante attacked, they were driven back, then routed from the field by a bayonet charge from the Black Watch.  Clearly they could not cope with mad Scots in kilts, although it is probable that superior technology and training also had something to do with it.  An unlikely star of that campaign was a converted steam engine which had been originally brought in to power a saw mill, used to unload supplies more quickly.  With the road to Kumasi open, the British now had control of the capital and blew up the palace.  This warning preserved an uneasy peace for the next 20 years until the British decided the best way to protect the territory from other European powers was to send the Asante leaders into exile on the Seychelles at the point of a machine gun and proclaim a British protectorate.  This next period of 'peace' allowed a railway to be constructed, and annexation was finally completed after the rather short-lived 'War of the Golden Stool' (the golden stool being the royal throne of the Asante and held sacred by them).  Probably more of a diplomatic blunder than a desire for war from either side, the golden stool ended up being hidden by the Asante and only turned up in the 1920s by accident while digging a new road.  So although Asante lands became part of the Gold Coast in 1902, it wasn't a total victory.  Despite using Nigerian troops to bolster British forces, most casualties were from sickness with a large number who were simply unable to be evacuated when their hospitals were overrun.

There is a research development called 'tropical uniforms' which might help reduce SL levels for European forces.  I haven't tried it, but it is possible that those so equipped will suffer less.  Alternatively officers could remove their wigs?

Papa Clement wrote:

There is a research development called 'tropical uniforms' which might help reduce SL levels for European forces.  I haven't tried it, but it is possible that those so equipped will suffer less.  Alternatively officers could remove their wigs?

Hi Papa,

a couple of things that i've not yet clear are the advancements regarding equipment & uniforms. Do you need a specific "infantry equipment academy" and "military uniform academy" to conduct research, or what?

As an example, to improve firearms i've created a firearms academy, but since infantry and horse have different equipment should i be creating two of them? How specific you need to go?

thanks

Nexus06 wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

There is a research development called 'tropical uniforms' which might help reduce SL levels for European forces.  I haven't tried it, but it is possible that those so equipped will suffer less.  Alternatively officers could remove their wigs?

Hi Papa,

a couple of things that i've not yet clear are the advancements regarding equipment & uniforms. Do you need a specific "infantry equipment academy" and "military uniform academy" to conduct research, or what?

As an example, to improve firearms i've created a firearms academy, but since infantry and horse have different equipment should i be creating two of them? How specific you need to go?

thanks

Not sure.  In G7 I have a more general military clothing academy which I am using to research various different clothing-related improvements.

Perhaps one to ask the GM or just order a suitable academy to be built which can research tropical uniforms?

It is odd that some uniform changes need academies to research them, but others (like cobbler-fitted shoes) do not.  My guess is that tropical uniforms must give a significant reduction in SL levels for European forces whereas simply ordering wigs to be removed (or loser fitting clothing?) might be a minor improvement.

Think I read somewhere that a general academy like say a general "military" or "naval" or "medical" academy can research anything in its field. But the more specific an academy is the greater the chance of getting a development.

Historically most major powers had a seperate Army Academy, Naval Academy and the Royal Arsenal which developed weapons and built them as well as training gunners. In game terms something like the English Tower of London set up probably needs to be split into an Arsenal, a Magazine and a specialist Artillery Academy and/or a specialist small arms Academy (move Artillery to Woolwich and the small arms to Enfield?).

Smaller positions can get by with only one academy for training officers and R & D but if your position is very large you may want to split the training of officers from the R & D and have seperate academies for Army & Naval officer training & R & D. Unless you are a huge land power and mad on artillery you probably do not need two artillery academies as 1000 trained gunners should last a long time.

Some states like Austria and Prussia had seperate Academies for the Cavalry, Infantry & Artillery/Engineers. This was often a social thing with only the Nobility allowed in the schools for the Cavalry and the Guards. While the Artillery/Engineers were more "Trade" and the Infantry somewhere inbetween.
However having seperate Academies for the three services does seem to work well with some military minded medium positions.

Have noticed that small positions with only a few Academies often so much better in terms of number of R & D developments per Academy than huge positions with lots so I suspect that a general academy for a small position may have just as good a chance if not better than a very specialist academy in a large position. Also wonder if some positions like Trade Companies have a built in advantage in field of R & D.

Finally players who want a particular development should consider alternative options such as a) Buy it from someone else b) Trade for it or c) Steal it with use of agents.......in Scrabble this normally means pinching the blue prints (or getting shot after being caught with said blue prints - you know who your are who tried to steal by machine gun blue prints !!!) but in the Glori period tended to involve the "recruiting" or skilled craftsmen for large sums on money.

Option b) may involve players going for a rare and fairly unusual development which they can then trade with lots of different positions for knowledge of more common development.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Think I read somewhere that a general academy like say a general "military" or "naval" or "medical" academy can research anything in its field.  But the more specific an academy is the greater the chance of getting a development.

I vaguely remember that as well, but the disadvantage is that if you build an academy so specialised that it succeeds within a reasonable timescale, what do you then do with the academy?  The advantage with a more general academy is that it can be assigned different objective (or even train recruits) once the original development has been achieved.  Since the whole point of an academy is to establish a centre of research excellence, you would expect that a successful team of researchers would have a greater chance of making multiple discoveries, which a specialist game academy would seem to preclude.

Thinking about England in G7 (rather than Papacy in G10), I found that I was struggling to develop some of the improvements I really wanted despite throwing lots of resources at it, but did manage to develop improvements I had no idea what to do with and hadn't actually asked for.  I've now adopted very strict criteria for academies and closed lots of them which really didn't have any obvious purpose.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Historically most major powers had a seperate Army Academy, Naval Academy and the Royal Arsenal which developed weapons and built them as well as training gunners.  In game terms something like the English Tower of London set up probably needs to be split into an Arsenal, a Magazine and a specialist Artillery Academy and/or a specialist small arms Academy (move Artillery to Woolwich and the small arms to Enfield?).

The Tower of London is one of those buildings which really is impossible to assign its historic use to within the game.  It served at various times as a prison, a zoo, place of execution, and of course home to the ravens, in addition to those Stuart mentions.  Personally I think giving Londoners access to firearms is a terribly bad idea - the London Trained Bands were almost a private army which switched sides to back various nobles for most of their early years; then in the Civil War they turned on the Crown.  The Tower was also the last place of refuge for King Richard II when he was facing more revolting Londoners in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Have noticed that small positions with only a few Academies often so much better in terms of number of R & D developments per Academy than huge positions with lots so I suspect that a general academy for a small position may have just as good a chance if not better than a very specialist academy in a large position.  Also wonder if some positions like Trade Companies have a built in advantage in field of R&D.

I haven't noticed any correlation between successful R&D and position size.  It would make sense, though if trading positions found it easier to research trade advances.  England does seem to be able to make more progress on naval advances than military ones, so by a similar logic it is possible that France can be more successful with military advances than naval ones?

One aspect which I find very odd is that in real history, nations that are at war tend to develop new weapons/techniques more quickly than others, so logically this should improve the chance of making such developments, yet despite England being at war for so long, I haven't noticed this ... unless this explains the naval improvement?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Finally players who want a particular development should consider alternative options such as a) Buy it from someone else b) Trade for it or c) Steal it with use of agents.......in Scrabble this normally means pinching the blue prints (or getting shot after being caught with said blue prints - you know who your are who tried to steal by machine gun blue prints !!!) but in the Glori period tended to involve the "recruiting" or skilled craftsmen for large sums on money.

Option b) may involve players going for a rare and fairly unusual development which they can then trade with lots of different positions for knowledge of more common development.  

All 3 options carry risks.  Few players will simply sell technology, especially military technology.  They may build specialist units for you or allow your ships to be upgraded in their yards, but selling technology would normally require a mission to be sent to another country to an appropriate academy, then for that mission to teach at that academy for a year, which makes it a slow process, especially if the country concerned is on the opposite side of the world.  

Stealing technology is also fraught with difficulty, not least there are few players who would simply do nothing if a spy was caught - I'm not even sure if it is possible in LGDR because even if an academy has invented (for example, tropical uniforms), how would a player know that a technology has been invented, then how would he place a spy in the academy which developed it to gain access to the research, then understand it, then escape with it back to another country and then presumably train an appropriate academy in that country for a year so that it is then known?  Seems like a minimum 6 months to raise spy, a year or more to find/learn the knowledge, then another year to teach that knowledge - so it is a very long term project.  I could make a guess that Spain has various items of naval technology from captured HWIC ships, but I still couldn't be sure whether such technology was researched by Spain, bought from a 3rd party, or the ships had been upgraded in a 3rd party's yards.  It sounds like an awful lot of effort to even establish where the technology could be obtained and each time questions are asked a spy would risk drawing attention to his activities making eventual infiltration much harder.  On the specific point about ship plans, this is mentioned on page 17 of the Miscellany: "Shipwrights find ship plans can be used at a shipwright academy to learn how to make a class of ship, which would take a year, but they find them of no use in constructing such vessels directly.  This also applies to specific plans for matters such as second powder rooms."  So clearly stealing technology is easier than doing something with it once you have stolen it!

Which just leaves trading technology.  Most players are willing to trade or swap technologies with friendly nations for mutual benefit, but the danger comes when the technology is then passed on again - even if it is explicitly stated that the technology is provided on condition it is not made available to any other nation, players are forgetful or seem to ignore it.  So there are risks that any technology traded will end up in the hands of an enemy.  Researching some rather esoteric piece of technology sounds like an interesting approach, but you then have the problem of finding someone who wants it.  HWIC, apparently, had developed Pappin's air rifles, but I suspect there are few nations who would be willing to swap LSOL for air rifles?

Papa Clement wrote:I vaguely remember that as well, but the disadvantage is that if you build an academy so specialised that it succeeds within a reasonable timescale, what do you then do with the academy?

 

Yes a specialised academy can speed up long term projects.  Also further use depends on how specialised the academy is and how it's set up, e.g. an Engineering tools academy can research both theodolites and improved gold working tools, so it can have a useful lifespan.

Papa Clement wrote:Which just leaves trading technology.  Most players are willing to trade or swap technologies with friendly nations for mutual benefit, but the danger comes when the technology is then passed on again - even if it is explicitly stated that the technology is provided on condition it is not made available to any other nation, players are forgetful or seem to ignore it.  So there are risks that any technology traded will end up in the hands of an enemy.  Researching some rather esoteric piece of technology sounds like an interesting approach, but you then have the problem of finding someone who wants it.  HWIC, apparently, had developed Pappin's air rifles, but I suspect there are few nations who would be willing to swap LSOL for air rifles?

Obviously depends on what a player values and their style of play as to what they'd swap for a technology, I'm not so sure about the value of LSOL in G10 given the mass units swarm rather than one piece set battles, but may change my mind depending how the French fleet around Naples continues. Has anyone tried what Peter the Great did historically in sending citizens to another country to learn a craft and then bring it back to Russia, as well as hiring foreign nationals to apply their tradecraft?

Back on topic, has anyone had experience of unfortified winter quarters, field hospitals and field dressings for managing SL or is it just something for after a battle rather than on campaign too?