Are there any reviews available for CoG:EE

[jscott991]

I have been watching this game for a while now and have noticed that only one real review is up (that I could find) and its decidedly negative, though the author admits a bias against it from the start. Wargamer, Armchair general, and Out of 8 don't seem to have reviews yet.

I'm a touch wary of the game because the simplified economy seems too simple (you really should be able to improve your economy outside of conquest and I've read on here that you can't) and the complex economy seems a bit too complicated, plus I've seen some outlandish maps (Turkey owning everything), but that happens in EU3 too if a player is "irresponsible" so its not as big a deal.

Anyway, any insights on the state of reviews would be helpful.

[barbarossa2]

Haha... JScott991.

You are right.  The maps which some of the testers have put up showing Turkey owning everything are a bit of a turn off for me too.  I like to play "realistic games", and I think everyone knows that Turkey shouldn't own half of Europe by 1808 (or ANYTIME in the 19th century).  In fact, no power would have. However, there are some players who get a kick out of placing all of Europe under their heel, and I see why WCS has to cater to them too.

However, remember that in western Europe, other than the partition of Poland, for 150 years before the French Revolution, the LARGEST single land transfer that I can think of ("annexation"--not handing minor nations back and forth) was the annexation of Silesia by Prussia from Austria. If anyone knows better, please tell me, because things like this are very interesting to me. Eastern Europe may be different with the Austrian reconquest of Hungary from the Ottomans. I am getting a book on this war (series of wars) next week, when I will be curious to see how fast this occurred.

If a "historically sensitive" player is playing solo and wants more historical results, you can have your own house rule to not use "total war" unless playing as France, and then only once perhaps (I think that the total war concept was developed to facilitate what happened historically in Spain after the French invasion, but think it falls a little from the mark).

I prefer playing PBEM, and in a PBEM, one could (IMHO-should) use the house rule that total war cannot be declared.  OR, that most players cannot declare it, except for France (using it once).

In my opinion, if you like "realistic" historical gaming, liked AH's "War and Peace", "Empires in Arms", or are just plain into pre-20th century gaming, you will like this game.  But I suggest you wait for some other people to post here to see what they say.

In my opinion, the two strongest points of the game are: 1) its treaty system (which will have the few problems with it ironed out by patch 1--hopefully due out soon), and 2) its political system which differentiates between conquered, annexed, and protectorate status.  Great stuff.  Yes, there are some things which I would have done differently, and you can find a list in my 8/10 review elsewhere.  But, on the whole, it is my favorite strategy game in years.

B2

[Gil R.]

jscott991,
There are definitely reviews being prepared at sites that are generally interested in games like COG:EE. I don't know when those would appear, but they're in the works. (I'd note that there are links to reviews of the original COG in the COG forum. Since the game has only been improved since then, those would give you at least some idea.)

[jscott991]

Well, Guns of August was a huge letdown for me, so I'm in the market for a strategy game to replace EU3 (I'm just burned out on it).  Though I'm really in the mood for 18th century warfare featuring Frederick, Daun, and Maria Theresia, such a game doesn't exist (yet), so this seemed a nice substitute to play out Wars of Austrian Revenge.

I guess I'll wait for some more reviews.  I have serious concerns about the economy and the ease of conquest, just based on perusing the forum.

[barbarossa2]

jscott,
 
What kinds of concerns about the economy?
 
If you are worried about ease of conquest, you should really, really get into a PBEM.  I play games against the computer merely as practice, because there is no way that a computer opponent which doesn't have a $50,000,000 AI, supported by MIT will offer a human a serious challenge without cheating.  PBEM is a blast.  The diplomatic options in this game are amazing.
 
-B2

[jscott991]

Well, that adds another concern then, because I don't PBEM.  I only play solo games.  So if the AI is no challenge without cheating, then that's a major issue. 
 
I've read all I can about the simple economy and found that it's probably too simplistic for my tastes.  There is a whole thread on the front page about how you can't do anything to improve your simplified economy except conquer territory.  That's too "Risk" for me.  However, micromanaging a ton of goods to make money also might have limited appeal.  Victoria from Paradox did itself in by focusing too much on abstract economic micromanagement.  Frankly, if a game is going to have lots of micro-details, they had better be somewhat historical in feel, because otherwise what's the point?

[Moltke71]

My review will be up at Wargamer in two or three weeks.

[barbarossa2]

Well, I don't know what kind of economy you like to play.  So I don't know if you would like it or not.  That's something I can't help you with.  I do know that after a few days I got the hang of it and enjoyed the advanced economy.  I wouldn't play the simple economy, though some people probably like it.  To get into the game, I basically turned on all of the economy/trade advisors and forced myself to learn the combat side of things, then, as I got more and more comfortable with that, I started dabbling in the full economy, which is a bit complex, but that's why I like it. 

Concerning the AI, it seems more competent than anything that has come my way in Total War: Medieval/Medieval2/Empire.  The AI is not a complaint of mine here.  I simply play very little against a computer once I have a "feel" for the game.  It's just a preference.  You would have to ask others on their AI experience too.  But I am a TOUGH/forgiving AI customer.  I KNOW we can't program machines to outthink humans on less than $50,000,000, so I forgive the computer game companies and find human opponents whenever possible.  Of course, DECENT AI helps.  And I feel that CoG:EE has that.

[Hard Sarge]

The maps which some of the testers have put up showing Turkey owning everything are a bit of a turn off for me too.  I like to play "realistic games", and I think everyone knows that Turkey shouldn't own half of Europe by 1808 (or ANYTIME in the 19th century)

boy, you guys are Ruff

my game was in response to the complaints that you can't play Turkey and have any chance of winning

[barbarossa2]

Cool Sarge

Don't worry about me.  I am a bit odd.  Don't consider me to be your normal gamer.  I like hard, hard, hard gaming.

Sarge, you're doin' your job right.  Most people wanna conquer Europe. I didn't complain about Turkey being impossible to play. But you know, it had been in constant decline in Europe since the siege of Vienna in 1683.

How does one cater to both markets (people who want to conquer all of Europe AND people who want to struggle 20 years for a few provences)??? By having a lot of optional rules on scenario start up. Kind of like check boxes. I think AGEOD does a good job with this.

-B2

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

The maps which some of the testers have put up showing Turkey owning everything are a bit of a turn off for me too.  I like to play "realistic games", and I think everyone knows that Turkey shouldn't own half of Europe by 1808 (or ANYTIME in the 19th century)

boy, you guys are Ruff

my game was in response to the complaints that you can't play Turkey and have any chance of winning

The fact that it's possible isn't a major plus for someone who is more interested in historical accuracy than playability.

What it did suggest to me though is that regaining Silesia from Prussia might be too easy (ala EU3, where Prussia can be kicked around by Austria without much trouble) since if the AI can't beat Turkey as Austria and Prussia, can it really defeat a human Austria?

The primary reason for me to buy the game would be to play Austria (maybe a little France), but that would only be fun if it is was sort of difficult.

I'm on the fence. It might not be fair, but Guns of August has made me both hesitant and eager to try Matrix-published games. Still, either this or Forge of Freedom or both is probably inevitable. I just wish I had more information, which is why I started the thread.

[Gil R.]

jscott991,
Remember that there are different scenarios, some of which certainly are tougher on Austria than others. And as for Hard Sarge's accomplishment of taking over as the Ottomans, he has an amazing ability to take over anything he wants. In FOF, for example, he would play as the Confederates and capture most of the Union just to see if he could, and I don't believe anyone else has done that. So you can't judge either game based solely on what he's able to accomplish.

[jscott991]

Well, I bought it; partly because of barbarossa's case for it and partly because I needed something to do.

However, I can't figure out how to change the default resolution, which leads me to believe you can't.  And it is quite ugly at whatever the default resolution is (it almost looks like 800x600, which is quite out of date). 

Edit: Its 1024x768, fixed. So that answers that. I'll get used to it. Now to just learn how to play.

[Hard Sarge]

Good, I glad you got it, and I hope you enjoy it (FoF is great too

what I was trying to say is, there were complaints about being able to play Turkey, so in my game, I went out of my way, to bash and trash whom ever I could, and to take everything I could, to show, that even Turkey can put up a fight if played with (it is a lot of work, believe me)

for playing vs a AI Turkey, if you got your hands full, or are busy elsewhere, Turkey can still put a hurting on you, as France, one of my first moves is to get Turkey into the war, I have seen them goble up a good chunk of the Ossites (but to be honest, Russian tends to forget about me, and turn on the Turks, and screw things up)

everything being prefect, the game is very easy to play, but, most times, the different AI players, don't like to play as you would hope, that Nation you got such good relations with, maybe the one trying to form a group, to declare war on you (it pays to check the treaties every once in a while, you may be surprised at what is going on behind your back)

plus, we are working on what the players on the forum, see as mistakes or things being wrong, so don't worry about speaking up, or asking questions

[jscott991]

Well, two to three hours in, one of my concerns seems justified; the simple economy is too simple.  As Austria, I built a few depots to prevent my units from foraging and one infantry and was already running a deficit.  So then I'm left wondering, what now?  If you can't build up your economy and you can't build more units because you are running a deficit already, suddenly a very complicated and full game seems a little empty.
 
The advanced economy, though, was way over my head for the first evening, so I'll have to start completely over later today.

[morganbj]

There's an advanced economy guide in the making that will help you out.  Stay tuned.
 
But, I've never had serious cash problems with the simple economy (in fact, my personal opinion is that there's too much of it) , so I wonder what the problem is for you.  Too many depots?  I'm curious.

[barbarossa2]

Seriously, stick with the advanced economy.  Use everything else as a learning tool to get to that point. At first I thought I was going to play ONLY the simple economy when I got the game, because I had heard from a friend it was too complex. Well, when I acutally bought the game, I took a breath and decided that I would not play the simple economy at all--because I didn't want to get used to it and then think the advanced economy was insurmountable. Instead I went for the slow immersion, knowing it would take me 3-4 evenings or even 5 to get the general hang of it. I started my first advanced economy games with Sweden, so I wouldn't have to keep track of as much.

Interestingly, the friend who thought the advanced economy was too complex in CoG came over for a hotseat evening after I had learned it. After just a few turns of him watching me do my turns with the advanced economy, he decided he loved it and that it was easy. He is now a proud owner of CoG:EE and is spreading the word himself.

Ease yourself into the advanced economy and don't expect to be able to master it in the first 3-4 evenings of play.  I would just leave on your trade advisor.  Deal with learning trade last IMHO.

It is now actually, my favorite economy system in a strategic level game.  I prefer it over the "building based" approach of the Total War series.  And there is just enough mystery in the declining returns system of the advanced economy that I really, really enjoy it.  I much prefer it over a system where you know exactly what you are going to get out of it. 

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[jscott991]

In the 1803 scenario (I was trying to find a scenario where Austria starts at peace) I built a depot in Venetia because of the huge foraging casualties expected and another depot in Moravia to allow me to mass troops for an invasion of Silesia.  I also built one infantry.  I believe these moves pushed Austria's small gold surplus into a small deficit.
 
I didn't want to use the simple economy either for the very reason that it can't be improved outside of conquest, but I also don't have a hard copy of the manual or a guide on the advanced economy, so I thought it might be wise to try it as I learned the map, how to just click on units (I still can't figure out to merge two armies), etc.  However, as I said, I ran out of stuff to do on the second turn, unless I wanted to go to war.

[Gil R.]

jscott991,
It's good to see that you took the plunge.

I can vouch for bjmorgan's guide to the Advanced Economy, which is very readable and gives the advice one needs to get going with that. So I'm sure you'll find that a big help.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I didn't complain about Turkey being impossible to play.

I dont think anyone did.

My complaint about Turkey was the severity of the economic gimping (massive extra money and development time for Turks) and the effect that would have on Turkey being able to compete in a game versus HUMAN opponents who will intelligently develop their countries over time and exploit Turkeys inability to develop in kind.

As an example in our 1804 game as Turkey (in fact this is what brought up the complaint about the new Turkish economic development rules) I had to spend 100+ money and wait nearly 2 years (thats with Development slider almost maxed) to develop factories in Bursa sufficient to build artillery units, only to find out there are unwritten requirements of having 2 barracks levels in a province to build artillery. So thats another 200+ money and another over 2 years before I will be able to build artillery.

Add on the fact that human opponents can plunder Turkish territory causing damage Turkey can never recover from and the economic rule is a little too exploitable by intelligent opponents.

My complaint was never about Turkey versus the AI and I repeatedly stated that in the original thread.

I think a better way to retard Turkish growth is give them a sliding amount of permanent waste to represent the corruption in their system that can be reduced over time but probably never eliminated.