Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

This sequel to the award-winning Crown of Glory takes Napoleonic Grand Strategy to a whole new level. This represents a complete overhaul of the original release, including countless improvements and innovations ranging from detailed Naval combat and brigade-level Land combat to an improved AI, unit upgrades, a more detailed Strategic Map and a new simplified Economy option. More historical AND more fun than the original!

Moderator: MOD_WestCiv

Kingmaker
Posts: 1678
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:38 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Kingmaker »

HiHi

I think both Terje & Eric have the right of it. ie the defender is not the owner, but who controls the province as Eric suggests.

All the Best
Peter
User avatar
Marshal Villars
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:40 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Marshal Villars »

Who is Eric? Is Eric = Evwalt?
evwalt
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by evwalt »

Yes, evwalt=Eric
I tend to avoid using people's names (ie. Peter=Kingmaker) on the forums because people aren't sure who is who.  [:D]
 
Some more suggestions:
I believe earlier I suggested that all cossacks and irregular cavalry should be on 0.5 mobilization.  Thinking of it some more, I believe EXTRA militia (ie. militia above the 1 free militia for each province owned) should ALSO be 0.5 mob limit.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Gil R. »

At least no one in this thread is confusing Eric Babe (= WCS programmer) and Erik Rutins (Matrix high-ranking official). That happens far too often. (How hard is it to tell the name Eric from Erik, especially when the two play such different roles?!?)
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
montesaurus
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:33 pm

RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems...

Post by montesaurus »

Just thought I would toss in a few responses and ideas also.

I don't think foraging abitiltiy is out of line. If a player wants to expend points on this ability, then the counter is for his enemies to leave a reserve back home to counter these interlopers, plus buy an upgrade to improve their combat ability that gives an edge to them! I believe Kingmaker pointed out that foraging is so effective, because players tend to ingnore having a reserve to protect their homeland! That foraging unit if fighting out of supply vs an opponent in supply is going to lose!

In large battles: I fought a battle with an ally, involving about 300K+ troops on both sides. All I had was one corp. Yet due to my being on the losing side I lost the same amount of morale points(500) as did my ally? Was this the intention of the designer? Seems unequitable!

In regards to blockades, I think it works ok. There was no 100% chance that a blockade would prevent a fleet from escaping. Thus, a good reason to keep the intercept mode on your fleet also! Likewise a reserve in your home nation to prevent surprise invasions that sneak by!


I've seen before that when I establish depot agreements, sometimes they don't work. Then my allies have to establish another one to make it work. That seems to be a bug.

Empty containers can act as decoys, causing fleets to intercept them. Likewise it might be good to make the intercepting fleet attempt to automatically intercept the largest fleet, vs a container having just 1 ship in it. To further examine this issue, perhaps make troop transport fleets a priority in the "interception" category for who you try to intercept first!

I agree with Kingmaker that fog of war is not effective enough. I've seen a tactic where players don't move their forces out of a nation that has defeated them. Thus that gives them the capability to spy on their victors, to pass on info to their allies!
It is very easy to find out the exact strength, morale and advancements your opponent has in his individual divisions. This is probably too effective, and defeats the fog of war. Perhaps make it harder to discern strengths, than it is now. Maybe the advancment of "Scouting" could allow you to find out that information. Otherwise, I almost never see anyone purchase it as an advancment. If it would help with "spying" out your enemy forces, it would be worth purchasing!

The cost to remove leaders should be increased. I'm not sure it should be based on his stars. To me it's more important to base it on his capabilities. I'd rather have a crappy 4 start general removed than an outstanding 1 star General that I can eventually get promoted!

I want to know how the advancements will affect my forces, so I'm not wasting my points. Clarify and make sure the "colonial troops" advancement is working!


It does'nt bother me that Irregulars have high morale. If you purchase them at the barracks then you should get the benefits. Those irregulars with low morale are levies, and thus should be low. Remember, irregulars are'nt going to fight as effectively as regular cavalry.

Glory costs for breaking agreements/treaties/enforece peace agreements, etc should be higher. Likewise make the glory costs of sneak attacks higher! As a side note to this, by dow, and violating one's neutrality so as to move into your opponents territory: won't that allow the effect of a sneak attack without the glory point loss?


Make insurrections much less effective, or better yet just eliminate them. Even if you make them less effective, by several nations ganging up on one guy, if you're able to get 10 diplomats in the minor you want to effect, eventually it will happen!

So, perhaps lower the effectiveness of insurrection/coup, PLUS only allow 1 attempt per turn by all attempting nations! After, all how could there be more than 1 attempted coup at a time, and if there is who is that nation going to go with!

In regards to Patriotism advancment? I presume it works even when someone else controls the province, right?

Also, in regards to UCI! The manual states the uci will go down every turn by 1. This is'nt how it works. It goes down by 1 every other turn. This makes it very hard to get your uci under control, especially those nations who have a high uci to start with! In one game that I'm playing France, I've been at war for a long time, and had to build many units. Now the uci is so high, it's unrealistice to think I'll be able to build more Guard or Diplomats. I think this could be corrected by making the uci work as the manual states! To go down by one every turn. That should also be going down by one, even if you build a unit also!

You should be allowed to "disband" diplomats as you can other divisions/armies/corps/fleets etc. Some diplomats are so crappy thats it's real annoying to have to spend $35 to maintain them. Esecially for poor nations like Prussia and Sweden!

Thats all I can think of right now, but will add more to this message as I think of them!









montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792
evwalt
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems...

Post by evwalt »

Some things I must disagree with Monte on....forging IS overpowered (though I agree about people failing to leave reserves at home). Simply put, if you have forger under current rules and are sitting in a desert/swamp/whatever with no supply lines, you take NO losses! What do they do, grow their own food? Again, my recommendation is that forger reduce forging losses by 50% (ie. equal to cossacks). Have 'organized forging' reduce forging losses by 50% also. Have these be cumlative with one antoerh (and cossack natural ability). Also, you might consider giving everyone's irregular cavalry the cossack natural ability of 50% reduction.

Good point about the morale loss. I thought currently only the "army commander" (which appears to be randomly chosen from the involved powers) took the NM morale losses. I think the country with the most soldiers should be the "army commander" and gain (or lose) the full amount of NM and glory. Have any allied powers gain/lose NM and morale based upon the % the made up the forces.

I don't think I have EVER seen a fleet intercepted by a blockading fleet but I may be wrong. I believe that during this period, a method to blockade WAS worked out to prevent fleets from escaping (year round blockades). However, I do think it was DEVELOPED during this period. Perhaps a 50/50 chance to avoid combat when running a blockade? A naval upgrade to increase that to 90%? If you do attempt to 'run the blockade' and are intercepted AND defeated, perhaps a 50% chance of returning to port and a 50% chance of fleeing to sea?

I assume that Monte is talking about learning the specifics about enemy forces from allies not involved in the war. I think this is fairly realistic. I don't think during this period forces would be preventing neutral parties from entering their camps.

I have to disagree on the removing of leaders. A '4 star' represents a leader of a nation. It should cost a great deal more to remove him than a '1 star' division commander, even if that '1 star' is Napoleon. As I think I have mentioned earlier, there should be a way to return removed leaders (after a year?) for the cost of glory.

I disagree on the 'irregular cavalry.' I believe these represent semi-regular groups of horsemen (like Finns, Mamelukes, and most all cavalry from North Africa) not any kind of regular army units. Thus, I don't think they should get any increase of morale.

Monte brings up an EXCELLENT point about Patriotism and the defender in a province. If the game is changed so that the defender is who CONTROLS a province; Patriotism should be based upon who OWNS the province, independent of control (ie. always of benefit in home country even if the attacker).

UCI is reduced by a set amount each turn and divided by a number to give the inflation. I think I already mentioned my recommendations for 'fixing' UCI re: textiles.

Agree about dispanding diplomats. Maybe with a small glory hit to represent canning some government officials?

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
MorningDew
Posts: 1144
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems...

Post by MorningDew »

I'd really like to see a significant Glory penalty for DoW on someone with whom you have good relations. This would make diplomatic efforts etc when not in war time much more valuable. Right now in PBEM, who care is my diplomat is building a good relationship with France if the French player can turn around and DoW on me.
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by morganbj »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

At least no one in this thread is confusing Eric Babe (= WCS programmer) and Erik Rutins (Matrix high-ranking official). That happens far too often. (How hard is it to tell the name Eric from Erik, especially when the two play such different roles?!?)
I've heard that Eric Rutins is a babe, hence the confusion.
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Anthropoid »

Good to know that CoGEE is eventually going to get another comprehensive patch, and that so many great minds are contributing to it.

So are we talking about a patch? A DLC? What sort of end product is this work that Marshal is proxying on going to result in? Just curious?

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

One other thing I'd like to suggest, and I know it is a dreadful one to contemplate: the rules book(s). It would be nice if the portions of the manual or whatever it is that deals with game mechanics could be updated to reflect the changes in the next patch/upgrade. As it is, it seems to me there are so many ambiguities if not incongruities b/w rulebook and game play that reading the rulebook just seems like a waste of time. Is that an unfair conclusion?

I see CoGEE as a legacy to computer strategy gaming in general, and assuming the next patch/upgrade is penultimate if not ultimate, it would be a good thing in the short- and long-term if there was a thorough, accurate, clear and detailed version of the rules that addressed all changes, as well as incongruities and open questions.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
evwalt
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by evwalt »

Another recommendation:
 
For mob limits: I think I might have mentioned earlier but would like mob limits to be in either 0.0 or 0.00 instead of whole numbers, as some units cost less mob limits than 1.
 
Also, it would be nice to have someplace where you could tell how militia was affecting mob limits.  Perhaps a militia mob limit?  This could show the "number of militia/number of provinces" so that a player could easily tell how many more militia he could build "for free" (ie. not affecting mob limits) or how many extra militia he had (and thus how many mob points it was costing him).
 
As a more simple alternative, break Militia out of Infantry on the Maintenance report and give them their own line.  At least that way, a player could look at the numberof militia in play and compare to provinces controlled.
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Good to know that CoGEE is eventually going to get another comprehensive patch, and that so many great minds are contributing to it.

So are we talking about a patch? A DLC? What sort of end product is this work that Marshal is proxying on going to result in? Just curious?

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

One other thing I'd like to suggest, and I know it is a dreadful one to contemplate: the rules book(s). It would be nice if the portions of the manual or whatever it is that deals with game mechanics could be updated to reflect the changes in the next patch/upgrade. As it is, it seems to me there are so many ambiguities if not incongruities b/w rulebook and game play that reading the rulebook just seems like a waste of time. Is that an unfair conclusion?

I see CoGEE as a legacy to computer strategy gaming in general, and assuming the next patch/upgrade is penultimate if not ultimate, it would be a good thing in the short- and long-term if there was a thorough, accurate, clear and detailed version of the rules that addressed all changes, as well as incongruities and open questions.

I'll ignore bjmorgan's post so that I don't risk getting banned from the forum, and answer this one instead...

Yes, a patch. Marshal at this point has a much better grasp than I do of the key issues, as I've been too busy with "Brother against Brother" to focus on COG:EE as well, so he's been acting in the way I traditionally do in terms of gathering input and presenting it to Eric. No prediction of when the patch will be out.

Redoing the manual isn't an option, because an enormous amount of work goes into formatting, graphics, etc., and much of that is done by Matrix's Marc von Martial, who must work on manuals for new games. So the readme file will have to remain the source of info on changes to the game.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Kingmaker
Posts: 1678
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:38 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Kingmaker »

HiHi

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

Gil, IMO A Post Xmas date for the Patch would be exteemly silly; there is enough bad News on the Forums re stuff that doesn't work/Bugs etc to put anybody of buying the game, whats really needed is a comprehensive Patch out before the end of October because Sods Law says not every thing will be fixed and that would give time for minor errors to be sorted via a mini Patch so as the game is a Marketable commodity that lives up to it's advertising campaign prior to the Xmas period.

CoG EE is potentially a World beater if the probs are sorted, never mind extra "Whiz, Bang Pops" (Nice but ...), get the basic game up to scratch and it will do fine, not only selling as a now reliable product but also entice all the folk that have gone off to other more reliable games back into the PBEM fold, folk that have played this game really really want it to do well, please put that extra bit of "time & effort" in to get it sorted and it will pay dividends further down the road.

All the Best
Peter
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Anthropoid »

Agree the influence of militia on MOB limits should be easier to tell.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
terje439
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by terje439 »

Sorry to add to this now, but the situation just occured in the pbem109 game.
No matter the settings, even if I check a button labelled "check this if you are so stupid that you do not know what you just checked", should the AI accept a partial surrender in a pbem game, THAT is a choice that should be made by the player only.

Terje
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")
User avatar
Marshal Villars
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:40 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by Marshal Villars »

Terje, can you elaborate? I don't understand.
User avatar
terje439
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by terje439 »

If you have the pbem settings placed to "Recieve Alliance", the AI will accept an offer made to you of a partial surrender without you getiing to say anything.

In Pbem109 I had my settings to "recieve alliance" with everybody (you never know who your new friend might be after all), and was in a war (me as France), together with Russia and the Ottoman Empire against Austria.

Austria then sends France an offer of a Partial Surrender which the AI then decides that I want.
Ofc I did not want that, and that is my point, all offers of Partial surrender is a somewhat game changing event, and is NOT something the AI should be allowed to accept. Only the player should be allowed to accept such offers.

Hope this makes it clearer
Terje
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")
User avatar
06 Maestro
Posts: 3989
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Nevada, USA

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by 06 Maestro »

There is an additional issue with the limited surrender. In the situation mentioned by Terje France now has an enforced peace with Austria for 18 months. According to the rules a limited surrender is supposed to have a 9 month peace-not 18.

It is possible that the other victory points were not halved as those should have been. I'm just speculating on that, but if one didn't reduce by 50% maybe there was more not functioning correctly.

It is m understanding that if there is an alliance that the surrender cannot be a limited surrender at all.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
terje439
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by terje439 »

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
It is possible that the other victory points were not halved as those should have been. I'm just speculating on that, but if one didn't reduce by 50% maybe there was more not functioning correctly.

Yup, 8075 VP sounds a tad steep for a limited surrender.

Terje
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")
evwalt
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by evwalt »

As far as the accepting a partial surrender and the PBEM settings, I do think that it is mentioned in the PBEM rules.  I never leave any of those boxes checked unless I have a specific reason to do so.
 
As far as limited surrenders and alliances, I always thought that if you limited surrender to one member of an alliance, you limited surrendered to them all.  HOWEVER, limited surrenders to do need to be accepted if, as previously mentioned, the proper box is not checked.  Did any other members of your alliance have the "receive alliance" box checked with Austria?  If not, Austria would have properly surrendered to France only.
 
Also, I do agree is doesn't sound like the limited surrender is working correctly as far as points and enforced peace times.  Did you gain and Austria lose the proper amount of glory?
Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"
User avatar
terje439
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

Post by terje439 »

ORIGINAL: evwalt

As far as the accepting a partial surrender and the PBEM settings, I do think that it is mentioned in the PBEM rules.  I never leave any of those boxes checked unless I have a specific reason to do so.

As mentioned, it was on because I thought it was needed for trading, and the fact that all nations might send some agreement that you would like to agree to.
As far as limited surrenders and alliances, I always thought that if you limited surrender to one member of an alliance, you limited surrendered to them all.  HOWEVER, limited surrenders to do need to be accepted if, as previously mentioned, the proper box is not checked.  Did any other members of your alliance have the "receive alliance" box checked with Austria?  If not, Austria would have properly surrendered to France only.

Austria ONLY offered it to France (with the #¤" AI accepting), from my understanding, neither Russia nor the OE had the option to accept/refuse, but 06 Maestro and Anthropoid have to confirm this.
Also, I do agree is doesn't sound like the limited surrender is working correctly as far as points and enforced peace times.  Did you gain and Austria lose the proper amount of glory?

I will have to check the values here.

Terje
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")
Post Reply

Return to “Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition”