Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition


Marshal Villars -> Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (7/9/2010 12:47:07 AM)

Hello all,

I am here to ask everyone what they perceive the top BUGS and RULES PROBLEMS of COGEE to be.

You can post about bugs in ANY situation you like. I am, however, very interested in inconsistencies in treaty issues.

Please know that this thread is being taken seriously by WCS, and will have a real impact on future work.

(Yes, I have been around, and working on some other projects as well)


Saucer23 -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/12/2010 10:48:49 PM)

1) Liberation by treaty.

2) It seems you can pledge colonies you don't have as part of a treaty. This seems to fool the AI.

3) Playing as one of the minor countries (Batavia) against the AI, you are always against the mobilization limit. This means you can't built militia when they get wiped out in a back and forth exchange, which means a lone cavalry division can take over provinces. Should you always be able to build militia if you have less than one per province? Should protectorates automatically build at least one militia? Should it take a minimum of 20k to take over a province, regardless of the garrison?


Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/13/2010 6:36:45 PM)


Firstly let me reiterate a personal, ‘Opinion’; as I know Bog all about Programming/Codes etc it’s based purely on intuition.

Having been involved in several PBEM games right from the off, it seems to me that while there are major Bugs/anomalies the bulk of what causes so much frustration amongst the dedicated players in the PBEM community is more than likely (Opinion) that the AI is trying to handle more than it can cope with and therefore throws Wobblies during our Games.

I have used this analogy before but as it seems to me (again Opinion) the simplest one I’ll do so again, I feel that the AI is suffering from a puter Hardware equivalent of Lack of ‘RAM’ & or ‘Disk space’; I’m sure most folk in there early days of computing bought Games/ Videos etc that their individual puter was not geared up to run and therefore experienced the frustrations of bits of said Game/Video not working etc. and that may well be what is happening with CoG EE i.e. the concept is all there but the hardware (in this case the AI) can’t cope with it.

Right, the stuff below relates to PBEM and is not all from me but from various contributors from the PBEM community, where I can remember names I’ll quote and I have numbered them (in no particular order) not coz I like lists but so as anyone who wants to comment on a particular feature can easily pick it out in the body of the Text, so here goes.

1. Empty containers being able to Blockade Ports.

2. In 4v4 (where there are 4 Human players & 4 AI players) while 2 of the AI nations will make limited move/alliances etc the other 2 do nothing whatsoever, likened to Zombies, Paul.

3. The upgrade ‘Naval Academies’ doesn’t work, Mus. ... Other folk have also complained of wasting valuable experience points to gain a high level upgrade only to get no benefit.

4. Naval Battles Win/loose appear to be resolved purely by which Navy gains the Weather gage, Mus.

5. Trade needs to be completely overhauled, one e.g. being whereby minor nations cease to produce trade items once their original stock has been traded.

6. A cosmetic one, the renaming of units just produces a hotpoch of jumbled letters and these change as the game goes on e.g. Earl of S} k<jko(, as the function works fine in FoF it would be nice to have it in CoG as well.

7. Regional/Protectorate levies cock up the Mobilisation allowance, Evwalt.

8. Conquered provinces not providing income, Daveconn.

9. Again a trade one, massive stockpiles of produce eg Horses (Spain) Spice (England) not released as Tradable items.

10. War Lapsing between nations that have, in the previous turn, just fought a massive battle, Andrew.

There are many, many more but I’ll stop at 10 in the vain hope that other members of the PBEM community will add their 2 pennysworth, either by expanding on the above or adding extra ones.

CoG EE is a truly great game in its conception and could well be the brand leader, it’s just so bloody frustrating that in application it falls so far short of what it’s advertised as being capable of doing; now, while the Devs are great guys and deserve great praise [&o] for their vision they are not psychic, so again I appeal to the PBEM community to let them know where CoG EE is failing/could be improved.

Edit, here's the link to Terje's orriginal thread on this topic.

All the Best

IronWarrior -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/13/2010 8:06:50 PM)

Yeah, that about covers the most glaring ones Peter, good post.

A couple more off the top of my head:

-Support orders not working in pbem

-No limit on stockpiling Labor as per the rules (also making Krumper System upgrade unnecessary)

-No explanation about what the various upgrades actually do (if anything)

These are possibly my opinion:

-It appears that terrain doesn't factor in battles as stated in the manual (hard to tell for sure, see below)

-Battles seem too random (like Field of Glory random [:D]), and often defy logic (would need to dig up prior posts for examples). A little bit of randomness is good, but not too much (IMO). Some sort of battle report/log would be a great help to clarify what happens.

steel god -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/14/2010 1:48:03 PM)

This is not in priority order, more like how they come to mind, and includes so "seconds".

I second the previous mentions of:

1) Liberation By Treaty Doesn't Work.
2) Empty Containers being used for Blockade and also Scouting Purposes. Empty Naval Containers are sea should disappear (like in FoF).
3) The zombie nation issue in 4v4 PBEM play. The AI doesn't process any nations which are AI controlled between Human run nations. (for example, in a game where Humans run England, France, Austria and Russia, the AI will process Spain and Turkey but not Prussia and Sweden).
4) Don't think trade needs to be completely overhauled, but a little more direct control would be nice. It would be nice to be able to put 200 horses on market at X price, or sell 10 textiles without opening textile sales to the world that could clean you out if word gets out you're selling textiles.
5) Amen on the renaming of units and the gibberish that results. I do not do a lot of it, but for organization purposes if helps manage large nations if I can rename a unit, and why the AI turns it all into nonsense I can not imagine. This should be an easy fix, as it is in place in FoF.
6) War lapsing between nations that have fought battles, especially naval battles.

Some of the other posts I have not "seconded" not so much because I don't agree with the notion, but because I have no direct experience with the problem.

Now some additional complaints of my own:

1) Feudal Reform should not be a allowable Treaty option. It's effects are way too powerful.
2) Insurrections and Coups are way too powerful. Would recommend that successful missions drive up unrest and when unrest reaches a set level, that PROVINCE (not country) revolts. If the level were set at a level like 10, it would also stop the double transfer of provinces which is gamey (I have a protectorate which I want to be home territory, so I cede it to my neighbor and he cedes it back next turn. You can still do it, but if it would revolt at unrest level of 10 it would slow the process down quite a bit).
3) When a "capital" of a minor is successfully turned via coup or insurrection, national command authority (navy and army) should go with it. When a nation switched sides in this era the navy didn't continue on fighting Free French style, they changed sides completely.
4) Colonial Regiments Upgrade doesn't work.
5) Protectorate's do not continue to provide levees once aligned to a major power. Spring levees in general don't work except for Cossacks in Russian and in the Kingdom of Naples.
6) Kingdom of Italy can not be created because Trieste can not be made into a protectorate.
7) Rhine Confederation can not be created.
8) A container with a couple of divisions set to avoid combat sitting in a capital province can wreck an economy. It should be impossible to "avoid combat" if a force is stationary on land.
9) Privateers seem to capture way too many goods, rules say up to 4 per turn, but I have captured scores of resources in a turn with a single Privateer.
10) I would love a rules clarification on how blockades are calculated. It seems that sometimes 1 frigate in a container is as effective as a full fleet of 32 ships of the line.

terje439 -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/15/2010 3:41:05 PM)


ORIGINAL: steel god
3) When a "capital" of a minor is successfully turned via coup or insurrection, national command authority (navy and army) should go with it. When a nation switched sides in this era the navy didn't continue on fighting Free French style, they changed sides completely.
9) Privateers seem to capture way too many goods, rules say up to 4 per turn, but I have captured scores of resources in a turn with a single Privateer.

@3: either that, or atleast be removed from the game and not sail around the world doing nothing
@9: also privateering against your own ally seems somewhat odd.

One thing I would like to see ADDED in Pbem is timed trade, as in I can set up a trade to run for a certain ammount of time and then it is cancelled without any glory/morale loss.

Would also like to add the #1 bug that is keeping me from playing the AI anymore;
-the reaction mode thingy, if activated, ends the current turn in detailed battle. I've seen this over and over, the AI has formed up and I move in, one of the AI units reacts to my movement and the turn ends. How am I sure? Well in one battle ALL the Austrians got to move, then I moved one CAV, the enemy reacted (by turning to face my unit), then ALL the Austrians got to move again, this I could repeat over and over, pinning all of my army but that lone CAV.


evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/22/2010 5:46:02 AM)

To throw some things out (some may be repeats)

In SOME 4v4 games, the computer DOES play all countries. In the first 4v4 game (with humans playing France, Britain, Russia and Austria), the computer has moved all countries.

For computer players, I think that the computer should always trace supply across land areas FIRST, irrespective of distance. THe computer seems to have problems with sea supply.

For the 'avoid combat' problem in the capitol, I would think the simple way to handle this would be to only suffer the consequence of capitol occupation (ie. NM loss and income loss), if the CITY itself is occupied (ie. captured and garrisoned by an enemy). Otherwise, I would say that any units set on 'avoid combat' can NOT cause capitol occupation consequences. I DO think 'avoid combat' should remain in the game.

I like someone's suggestion (can't remember who made it), of having the ability to chose feudal level adjustments in a peace treaty but a country could demand a change only towards its OWN level (ie. if France has a feudal level of '10' and Prussia a '30', France could only demand Prussia lower its level to either '20' or '10'. It could NOT demand Prussia raise its level). It only makes sense for the period (where lots of social changes took place) that feudal level could be adjusted. However, I can't imagine Revolutionary France (for example) telling Prussia to oppress its peasants more (ie. raise its feudal level). Irrespective, the surrender point COST should be very high.

Allow removed leaders to be returned for a glory cost (but not if you go over the leader country should have 2 '4 stars' running around). The COST of removing a leader in a treaty should be much higher (tied to the general's stars?)

A 1792 scenerio allowing play with ALL the leaders coming into the game. Probably need a mechanism where leaders can die from natural causes (ie. be removed outside of combat). From the modders guide, it looks like this might only consist of adding a "remove" turn (though I could be wrong).

Perhaps tied to/the same as the above, a 1792 French revolution scenerio where whenever the French lose a battle their is a certain % chance a leader is executed. This could come to an end when France gains a '4 star' general (ie. someone seizes control). I think their should also be a way to end the French revolution in much the same manner. I believe the SP game has such an ending to the revolution.

Successful coups should turn a country into a controlled PROTECTORATE not conquered country. However, coups and insurrections really need to be looked at (discussed plenty elsewhere).

I would like to see when a protectorate is conquered each LAND unit NOTcontainer have a certain % (maybe 5-10% per unit?) chance to remain in the game and still under the control of the owner. I believe the French had Polish and Egyptian "protectorate" units in their army long after these areas were conquered. Note this would be these units could NEVER be removed from play except by normal destruction (or capture as I believe protectorate units are destroyed in capture) or the country was turned into a protectorate by the owning player again.

I think uncontrolled minor's navies should not leave their country. If a minor is in conquered status, the navy should be 'in port' or RETURN to port (if elsewhere) but under no one's control. This means that if a country is conquered away from another power, it loses control of all the ships/containers and they return 'home.' THey should NOT be movable again until the country becomes a protectorate.

For playing as Bavaria, I believe the Bavarians glory locations are the same as the Swedes (should be changed).

06 Maestro -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/27/2010 12:59:34 AM)

There are many good observations in this thread. There no need to re-list everything.

There are a couple of items that I think should be addressed long before the patch is released. The issue of not having an accurate listing of how upgrading affects 'quick combat" for PBEM games is foremost on that list. Another little item is just what determines new unit starting moral? The rules as stated are not functioning.
I have seen (many times) that units built from provinces with 3 level barracks having higher moral than units coming from level 5 provinces. Further, I have seen units created from level 6 provinces deliver units with anything from 4.2 to 3.2 level moral. So, just what is going on? Is there any point to planning on building barracks in high population areas? Whatever the real rules are these need to made public. I would appreciate a small supplement to the instructions today covering military upgrades. I understand that a patch must wait until the company can afford it. It should be fairly easy to come up with the requested info regarding upgrades.

Regarding the "zombie" ai in 4 player games. I have only played one such game-and will never do another in its current state. The game happens to be the 1st 4x4 game. In the previous post it is stated that they all moved. Well, I spent considerable time and resources to get one of those zombies to do something-anything-and it did not (Sweden). Likewise, Prussia did virtually nothing after the first few turns. Turkey was very active-surprisingly so. To bad that was on the oppositions side. As 4x4 games are easier to set up and move faster, it is an excellent way to play the game. However, with the zombie ai's the enthusiasm will quickly wain-it has for me.

Demanding feudal changes as part of a peace treaty is game breaking-it should be eliminated. many PBEM games have made such house rules. I see no justification in such an ability. Just how would such a thing have worked in those days? If a given area is added to an empire, that is one thing. However, to make such demands on a defeated foe seems a bit gamy-even before considering that a feudal change is temporary. You can make it go up then make it go down-all as part of surrender terms. This can throw a nation into a terminal tailspin. If it cannot be totally eliminated in treaties, then it should be severely curtailed.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/28/2010 7:49:24 PM)

Being on the other side of the 4v4, I must disagree as to the movement of the minors. True, Sweden did not take any offensive action but they DID move defensively. I think their lack of offensive action was based upon their small army, nothing more. For Prussia, they were VERY active but for much of the game they had no money, thus could not make supplied advances. When they received an influx of funds from the players, they DID advance. That is one reason why France contantly provided Turkey with money.

Not trying to highjack the thread [:)]

Another request (and I think mentioned elsewhere):
Privateers. Privateers should require an active decision by the player to steal from other countries (the easiest would seem to be if the PBEM settings are set to aggressive, they steal---if not set to aggressive, they do NOT, even if you are not allied). That being said, if set to 'be aggressive' even against an ally, they WILL steal.

As far as privateers and frigates, I would recommend that if a frigate intercepts a privateer, it does NOT automatically destroy it. Have it fight a battle: roll of 1-2, the frigate takes 1-5 damage and privateer is unharmed. On a 3-10, the privateer takes 1-10 damage and the frigate is unharmed. Privateers are destroyed WAY to easily and this was make commerce raiding more of a gamelong struggle rather than one ended in a few turns.

Also, I don't believe 'blockade ports' are working properly. I believe that a fleet in a blockaded port can turn on 'avoid combat' and sail past the blockaders with the normal 50% chance to avoid combat. I think that you should NOT be able to avoid combat with the blockaders.

Also think that glory for port raids should be addressed. I believe that the player RAIDING the port ALWAYS wins, and thus gaining the Glory. For port raids, I think whoever takes the least damage should win the battle and gain the glory, otherwise (as has happened in one of my games), you could have a player constantly raid a port causing NO damage to the fleet within yet constantly win the battle and gain glory.

For Total War: victory does NOT eliminate the power defeated. It removes all its territory but it still has units on the map.

06 Maestro -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/29/2010 5:18:31 AM)

Regarding the zombie behavior; to equate a zombies intelligence to the half of the ai's in 4x ply is an insult to zombies. I am not sure what my opponent was looking at, but I just went back through the game at multiple critical points to double check-and took screenshots (which I decided against putting up-they all show the same thing).

I did trade with Sweden, gave money to Sweden and offered treaties several times-which it finally did accept. Sweden may have actually made a DoW, but it did nothing-absolutely nothing with it army-it sat in the capital until driven out by France. I would not even move back into its own territory when France had vacated the area. Long story short; in 160 turns the Swedish army moved twice (from what I recall and from what I just confirmed only looking 12 turns)-one move was because France kicked it out of its capital, the other was when it moved back in after I liberated it for Sweden. Maybe the Swedish navy did something I didn't notice, but there was zero effort by the army. There were several points where even the slightest effort would have been a big help, but nothing was forthcoming.I just look at 12 points in the game when Sweden was at peace and at war-nothing changes.

There is a very significant problem with the ai in 4x games. I had noticed it before it was mentioned by players in the other 4x games-just thinking it was a fluke of this particular game. It was not a fluke-it is a pervasive problem.

Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/29/2010 1:48:20 PM)


Yer, I have/had a similar situation in the 4v4 Minors, I'm Spain and have twice been attacked by france, the 2nd time I was allied with England but had to sit and watch as Englands fleets stayed put in harbour (1 loaded up with an army!) while french merchants were occupying the prime trading areas around Englands coast, apart for subsidising an already defeated Austria Englands AI did nothing, not even sending it's other army to confront it's Rebels in York, no subsidies or help in the field for Spain whatsoever from the English AI.

The overall picture from both the 4v4's seems to be 2 AI nations will do bits for a while, the other 2 (Zombies) do maybe 1 or 2 actions (normally prompted by a more active AI Nation setting up a mutual defence alliance) then bog all for the rest of the game.

All the Best

terje439 -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/29/2010 7:36:24 PM)

And another thing about the AI;
when an AI nation is completely anihilated (as in completely captured) it should not be targeted in treaties as it cannot reply.

I had a game vs the AI (me as France) where I annexed all of Austria, and then Spain and Britain wanted to form an alliance with Austria against me, which failed due to Austria not being an independent nation anymore.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/29/2010 8:25:32 PM)

In our 4v4 game, Sweden did move several times to launch counterattacks against the French occupying their capitol. Each failed and they retreated to their starting position. Might have been easier for me to notice as I was the one doing the fighting.

As far as lack of funding, I was referring to the Prussians who declared war on France towards the end of a French-Austrian War, only to not advance at all. I suspect that they reason why the did not advance was because they had no money (ie. treasury of $0). Once the French-Austrian War ended, I believe the British started to provide them subsidies. Shortly thereafter, with a positve treasury, the Prussians advanced against the French (and got hammered by the forces moving up from Austria).

Several times, the Spanish did advance against the French, both in counterattacking in their own territory and a few offensive advances into French territory. Each was defeated.

HOWEVER, saying all of the above, I am playing another 4v4 game where I have seen the "only 2 computer controlled powers" moving. I will be the first to admit it is very annoying. I think everyone in my game would agree that if the computer controlled countries were acting like the Turkey in our game (not the smartest play but certainly game affecting play) everything would be ok. The fact that at least in some instances they do not does kind of drag down 4v4 PBEM play.

As far as Kingmaker stated, I agree. The computer in PBEM appears to have problems with troops on ships, either moving them off the ships or sea transporting them elsewhere. The Spain in our game had such problems until I hit the province containing the loaded transports and defeated the army (which retreated to another province and then acted normally).

terje439 -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (7/30/2010 1:38:31 PM)

Minor details on the map;
-off Egypt there are some missing lines marking different sea areas
-the capitol province in Norway should be named Christiania not Christiana

Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/4/2010 6:26:22 PM)


Well despite what we have been told about upgrades having an effect in PBEM, here’s another major upgrade that seems to have bog all effect in PBEM, to wit ‘Improved Naval Signalling’ = “Ships always win the initiative against ships that don’t have this upgrade”.

It would appear that Mus’s assertion that naval combat is decided on who wins the ‘Weather Gage’ is roughly correct and I feel it may be a “Goodthing” if the whole Naval combat system is looked at for the next patch, while at it, the scoring system could be made more reflective of actual damage done/taken rather than just looser gets ½ the GP of the Battle, Oh and something that has been mentioned before, ‘Ship capture’ in PBEM.

An eg from earlier in the game that I find bit odd, ie that the Dutch fleet, that’s the one with loads of 4th Rates in can defeat an English Main Battle fleet made up of 32 units, Moral 6.8 with at least 5 1st Rates, 2 frigates and the rest 3rd Rates, the fleet also had 2 or 3 Quality Admirals and England had ‘Naval Guns’, Naval ‘Manoeuvres’, & ‘Naval repairs’ + a load of ships with ‘Reinforced Hulls’ & ‘Extra Guns’, the Dutch had none of those upgrades; it was after that debacle that I decided to go the long haul and get ‘Improved Naval Signalling’, I needn’t have bothered it’s made no difference Englands Main Battle fleets are still losing to vastly inferior fleets i.e. French & Spanish.

All the Best

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/4/2010 7:09:00 PM)

Some others:

US ships don't move out of the Atlantic after a DoW against a power.

In battles, both naval and land battles involving 2 or more allies, I believe only one country gains/loses the NM and glory for both winning/losing the battle and casualties lost. I think both the gains and losses should be split among those present; perhaps 50% of both NM & glory to the 'commander' of the forces with the other 50% being split by % size of the forces present. NM casualties losses should be based upon the losses off the owner, irrespective of the commander of the forces.

I think mentioned elsewhere (but didn't see in a quick review of the thread): after a war is over, have the option of surrendered cavalry to be "reconstituted" as cavalry instead of being forced to keep as infantry. Cost could be horses, or horses + $. I would leave the morale loss.

Also, investigate Irregular Cavalry. I SUSPECT that their morale is supposed to be limited to 1.5, as is all irregular cavalry that begins a scenerio. However, newly built or levied irregular cavalry have no 1.5 morale limit.

Don't know if there is any remote interest in adding either: Guard Cavalry or Guard Artillery (ie. high morale guard specialist units). You should raise the guard limit SLIGHTLY (maybe from 8 to 10 or 12) if you do so.

For using Textiles as "luxuries." I think this usage number should be increased, perhaps by 50% or so. This would allow a greater ability to build "high textiles" units with higher inflation.

On the subject of inflation, what about an "upgrade" that reduces the inflation rate (ie. for 100 experience points, the inflation "spent number" is reduced by 200 or some such). Give it either a few levels to be purchased or simply give it no limit at all and increase the cost in experience points for the same reduction. For example, the 1st time--100 experience points reduces "spent number by 200" (which is maybe 2-3% of the rate). The 2nd time--150 points reduces "spent number by 200." etc.

montesaurus -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/5/2010 11:51:30 AM)

One thing I've noticed also, is that at times Supply Depots don't appear to function. As though, after time they wear out. It sometimes appears it can be resolved by redoing a "depot treaty", but is annoying when your army takes losses due to no depot supply.

A player should not be allowed to declare war on a nation if you are in his territory. Theoretically, a player could drop off an army via the navy onto London, while at peace, and then declare war on Great Britain.

Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/5/2010 12:17:49 PM)


Good call Monte, SD's dropping out of service has happened in several games.

This is open for discusion and is merely my opinion but I find it odd that a Nation in a coalition fighting multiple enemies should have a 'Lapse war' applied against it while the war still rages.

It may well be that although no army action takes place between two of the Nations involved they can nevertheless be actively supporting the combatants in the area via Subsidies, Intel, Supply depots, Blockades ete etc while at the same time fighting another nation in the enemy coalition in another part of Europe, as has been noted elsewhere Naval actions/Blockades don't seem to count towards keeping a War going.


All the Best

Mus -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/5/2010 1:53:44 PM)

Most of the ones I would bring up are already posted so here are some random observations, some made recently, I also didn't read every post so if I repeat something apologies:

Forager ability is still god awful OP and unrealistic (zero forage loss) for very little cost in exp. Needs to be increased in cost and a limit placed on number of units in your army that can have this ability. You should not be able to march a 150k strong army through low forage value provinces out of supply and not take forage losses. PERIOD.

Disable hostile diplomatic missions on targets with which you have enforced peace by surrender or by voluntary treaty.

There are still extremely gamey situations that arise around enforced peace by surrender and interactions with minor powers... taking over as Prussia in an ongoing game over at IWGC I quick surrendered to France and then gobbled up all the Rhine indies. Later on during enforced peace by his quick surrender to a 4 nation coalition I insurrected his territory and then conquered the rebels.

Need a fix to quick surrender issue. Make a nation have to take above a certain threshold in casualties or fight for a certain number of months (6?) before surrender becomes possible.

Still doesn't cost enough Glory to violate treaty provisions.

Naval blockades do not seem to have the economic effect people think it should. Basically a naval blockade doesn't appear to damage the economy of the blockaded power at all. For this reason I don't believe blockading with an empty container is really that high priority a bug as a naval blockade only serves to trap in fleets and how hard is it to break a 0 ship blockade?

Naples, if a protectorate, is giving 4 free divisions per year to the owner that do not count towards mob limit. This comes from the bugged fact that only Naples is producing a regional bonus levy with the protectorate production and levy system being broken with the 109 patch.

Between normal powers Weather Gage decides who wins. Period. So it is like a coin toss to see who wins battles. Britain is the only nation good enough (between doctrines, admirals and higher overall morale) that it can sometimes win if it loses the Weather Gage, OTOH Britain almost never loses with the Gage.

In Quick/Instant battles if you have more units than can participate they will not participate in the battle, but can be captured in the pursuit phase, which doesn't seem to make sense. IF the province is too small to fit them, how are they there to pursue?

A treaty canceled by war with Royal marriage clauses impacts everyone involved in those clauses as if they had already signed the treaty before it was canceled. Since the Glory hit for violated royal marriages can be severe, this needs serious attention.

ZOMBIE AI ISSUES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO FIX IMO. Game is very enjoyable with smaller numbers of players, but any AI nation between human players will take no actions. AI Nations that go after the merging playing (say Turkey and Spain if Russia is turn merger) will behave normally. Anyone can test to see if an AI nation is zombified by sending a treaty. A normal nation will accept or reject, a zombie nation will do neither, and the treaty will stay open in the treaty screen reflecting that inaction.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/6/2010 3:21:58 PM)

I must agree with Mus that the 'forger' ability is overpowered. However, I disagree with his solution of limiting the number of units which can obtain it. What would be the historical reason for that (though obviously it has a 'game balance' reason).

My suggestion: reduce what 'forger' does. Instead of NO forging casualties, have 'forger' reduce casualties by 50% (or even just 25%). Have this reduction be in addition to any reduction by 'organizing forging' advance or the basic cossack bonus.

For example, a country has 'organzing forging' would have the forging casualties reduced by 50%. Any units with 'forger' (assuming we use the 50% rate) would have them reduced by an ADDITIONAL 50% (thus the unit would take 25% of normal casualties). If the unit happened to be a cossack unit, its casualties would be 12.5% of normal.

I don't think under any circumstances should a unit be exempt from forging casualties.

Having stated that, I do think that the power of 'forger' has been blown a little out of proportion. If playing with march attrition, units out of supply will get steadily weaker because they can't receive replacements. In addition, in combat, out of supply units suffer mightily.

Marshal Villars -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/6/2010 10:45:24 PM)

Great posts and tips guys. :) Thanks.

Each comment has been individually listed and categorized and supporting/refuting comments appended.

Any other thoughts? Please gather all of the most important issues in this thread.

I have also compiled a small list of my own perceived "bugs" which will be added for consideration.


1) Can anyone explain the "liberation by treaty" problem which Saucer 23 refers to? I want to make sure I understand it.

2) It is mentioned above that some of the "higher level" national upgrades do not appear to work. Does anyone else have experience with this and is it limited to just one item? Or several?

3) Please discuss the feudal levy issue/issues?

4) What do players think about the inflation mechanic?

5) Please discuss the creation of the confederation of the Rhine. I see here, some claim it cannot be created, but in discussions with Montesaurus, it appears that it is a matter of lack of clarity in the rules as written that this appears to be the case and that it CAN be created? Thoughts? Also. Discuss creation of the Kingdom of Italy please.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/10/2010 10:00:34 PM)

I will try with some of them

1) Liberation by treaty. There is a treaty clause allowing one country to force and/or agree to liberate a conquered province by selecting it. If it is selected now and a province chosen, nothing happens. Also, I believe only a province adjacent to your territory can be chosen. ANY conquered province should be allowed to be liberated.

That being said, I believe you should not be able to liberate a "province" but the country of which it is a part. Easy way (I would think--note I am not a programmer) is to only highlight the capitol province when it becomes time to chose. Chosing that province should liberate the entire country OWNED BY THE PLAYER IT IS DIRECTED AT (ie. no forcing Austria to liberate Poland and snatching up Polish provinces owned by Prussia and Russia as well) HOWEVER, you must adjust the surrender points required. It should cost a great deal more to liberate large Poland than tiny Genoa.

ADDED BY EDIT: IF a minor is liberated, the country doing the liberation should get a BIG addition to its political standing with that minor (and maybe a smaller one with all minors?). This would mean if a minor was liberated through a forced surrender, the country FORCING the liberation (ie. the victor) should get the political bonus. If done through the detailed diplomacy screen (ie. freed voluntarily by someone), the prior owner should get the bonus.

2) Outside of the fact that there appears to be no limit on labor (thus rendering the Upgrade that allows storage of Labor*3 to be unnecessary), I know "Colonial Regiments" don't work. ie. no regiments ever appear. Not sure about others.

3) First, minors NEVER do normal levy anymore (outside of the mentioned Kingdom of Naples, which appears to do its regional bonus levy properly). Major powers still do normal levy IF their available forces are a great deal lower than their mob limit. Obviously, some number got screwed up in the last patch and major powers should levy much more as usually you receive only a unit or two the first levy then nothing thereafter.

NOTE: COSSACK levy and I think the Turkish Nizmi (however you spell it) levy still work properly (note: this assumes there is a limit on the number of Turkish Nizmi allowed like there is a cossack limit).

4) I like the inflation mechanic alot. However, I think that either 1) there should be some way to Upgrade to bring it down (mentioned above) or 2) the maximum number of textiles allowed to be stored before consumption should be increased to the MINIMUM number needed to build the most expensive unit (accounting for inflation). This would prevent things like guards, lancers, diplomats and merchants from moving out of reach because inflation moves the number of textiles so high you can never store enough to purchase.

Thus, at 0% inflation, a guard cost 100 textiles (plus the other resources, of course), and textiles would not be consumed until you had more SAVED 100 textiles. At 10% inflation, a guard costs 110 textiles and textiles would not be consumed until 110 or more were saved.

NOTE: I don't have the game in front of me, but I actually think that DIPLOMATS cost the most in textiles. If correct, you would use Diplomats as the baseline of textiles saved.

Even better than the above, change the way textiles are "consumed." Give the PLAYER the OPTION to use textiles to improve NM by hitting a toggle. (I have done that on occasion on purpose) If the toggle is not activated, textiles are not consumed and can be stored normally (to some upper limit).

5) Only the Kingdom of Naples levies its "special regional levy" properly. None of the other countries work at all. My suggestion, check and make sure 1) all the provinces necessary to create the "regions" are listed properly somewhere (so players know what is needed) and 2) make sure these provinces can be ADDED to the "region." This requires all provinces to be conquered so they can be made a protectorate. I believe one of the provinces needed for the Kingdom of Italy is AUSTRIAN home territory, and thus can never be made a protectorate. Oh, and #3, make sure they actually will have a "special regional levy" which means they should have TWO levies, 1 normal levy and 1 special regional levy.

For the Confederation of the Rhine (and others), there is no "choice" for selecting it if it doesn't already exist. Simply add several "empty" countries (ie. Confederation of the Rhine, Kingdom of Italy, etc.) to which you may add provinces. (Note: when turning a province into a protectorate, you have the option of 1) making it its own little country (ie. whatever its flag says) OR 2) adding it to an existing protectorate (creating a larger, but not special, protectorate). Their should be a third option, adding it to one of the "special regions" (even if it currently has no provinces). NOTE: Even if you added provinces to one of these special regions, they would only get the normal levy UNLESS they held all the provinces needed to get the special regional bonus levy, then they would get 2.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/11/2010 5:12:38 AM)

Some more points:

On games with another country played besides Sweden (ie. Poland, Denmark, etc.), remove the Swedish diplomat and add a diplomat to the played country.

Also, I would think it would be nice to have minors have a chance to levy a 1 or 2 star leader (maybe a 10% chance per levy).  These leaders would be treated the same as other minor power leaders.  The could be named General1, General2, etc. if the ability to change names (and KEEP them changed) was ever fixed, thus allowing the players to rename them.  Maybe if adopted, give the "special regional levies" an additional chance to levy a leader.

One other thing I just thought of (and haven't really thought much about it), but what about reducing cossacks (for the Russians) and irregular cavalry (for everyones) mob limit cost to 0.5?

Also, I don't think that "out of supply" units should be able to capture other units.  I had a Russian infantry division captured by a raiding Turkish cavalry division several provinces from the nearest Turkish controlled territory.  How on earth did they get marched to their prison camps (though I guess, did they still use 'paroles' at this time?  If they did, such captures would be ok because they would simulate such actions.

Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/11/2010 9:45:53 AM)


I think this has been raised before but as it has just come up again in a current game I'll mention it again.

I have only used the ‘Pledge of defence’ Pact once as it's too dangerous i.e. you can get sucked into Wars you don't want/or can't afford to be in and IMO ‘Pledge of defence’ needs to be made so as it is not "All inclusive", i.e. there should either be an option for the signatory nations to state who they will defend against or at the very least an automatic exclusion of either nations already established allies.

Here’s an example from the current game of how it can go wrong; my oldest ally has just signed up to a ‘Pledge of Defence’ pact with a nation that has for sometime now been extremely provocative in its actions against me i.e. continually sending all his Diplomats to try and cause an ‘Insurrection’ in one of my Protectorates, should that come about I will obviously go to War over the issue which would trigger an automatic war between 2 old established allies.

I have shed a lot of Blood and incurred considerable expense to safeguard that ally against unprovoked aggression and now it risks being negated due to no opt out clause being available in his ‘Pledge of Defence’ or else he will incur GP losses due to none compliance with the Treaty.

All the Best

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/11/2010 8:04:13 PM)

Kingmaker brings up a good point.

Two options I can think of (dealing with PBEM):

* ONE--have no country able to declare war on another unless it has a PBEM setting of 'be aggressive'. If "forced" to DoW another country by a 'pledge of defense' and it fails to do so (ie. not set at 'be aggressive' against that country) then the country unable to fulfill its pledge automatically breaks the pledge of defense treaty and suffers the glory hit. NOTE: only the country that fails to honor the treaty (ie. was called upon to DoW and failed to do so) should suffer the glory hit.

* TWO-- have signing a pledge of defense give the countries the OPTION to send a treaty for those parties of a pledge of defense to declare war (like how you can fill in those countries "must accept as terms of surrender.") That way, the calling country has the option of inviting in their allies or not. NOTE: this would provide a one turn delay on DoWs done in this manner (but only 1 turn if done like surrenders because surrenders are automaticaly accepted when received). BTW--that option should have a set period of time it could be used. 3 months? 6 months? I would think no more than that.

Of the two options above, I like #2 the best as it gives flexibility to the players.

evwalt -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/12/2010 12:37:58 AM)

Another (admittedly very small) bug.  On the graphs, all of them I believe, one country (it appears to be at random) will have a single turn of a very high (ie. off the scale) reading.  It will return to normal the next turn.

Most of the time I just ignore (as it just tends to disappear off the top of the graph), but on occasion the game changes the graph scale to show the entire graph, shinking the normal (ie. actual) readings to unreadable levels.

Mus -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/12/2010 9:12:42 AM)


ORIGINAL: evwalt

Having stated that, I do think that the power of 'forger' has been blown a little out of proportion. If playing with march attrition, units out of supply will get steadily weaker because they can't receive replacements. In addition, in combat, out of supply units suffer mightily.

A stack of 150-200k can take more casualties from being out of supply in one turn than it would lose in a major battle, so I have to disagree with your assessment that OP claims have been blown out of proportion. For 7 experience per div it is very overpowered, particularly for barrack rich powers that plan to do lots of globe trotting. I have also seen campaigns where everyone is marching and countermarching big stacks avoiding general engagements while smaller detachments try to sever supply lines, so having your entire force with the phoney forager ability removes that nuance from an already limited model.

Mus -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/12/2010 9:59:07 AM)


ORIGINAL: evwalt

1) Liberation by treaty. There is a treaty clause allowing one country to force and/or agree to liberate a conquered province by selecting it. If it is selected now and a province chosen, nothing happens. Also, I believe only a province adjacent to your territory can be chosen. ANY conquered province should be allowed to be liberated.

For me the country selection doesn't work with the liberate clause at all. No country is highlighted as selectable and if I click on the map nothing happens.

Also there are still some issues with unconquerable minor countries. We have it popped up as an unconquerable Brunswick in one of the IWGC games right now. I can post screenshots or saved games if needed, but would be nice to get some "sanity checks" put in place for minors. It is a one province minor and I have been occupying it's one and only province for almost a year now.

I am trying to "fix" Brunswick by launching Diplomatic coup missions there.

Kingmaker -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/12/2010 12:23:34 PM)


This has been raised before, even before the last patch I think.

Fleets set to 'Blockade' should NOT be able to also guard the whole of a Sea-province; the very nature of a Blockade, ie disciplined opperations close inshore, would negate any other duties such as intercepting enemy Ships/Fleets elswhere in the Sea-province.

All the Best

Mus -> RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... (8/12/2010 12:30:52 PM)


ORIGINAL: Kingmaker


This has been raised before, even before the last patch I think.

Fleets set to 'Blockade' should NOT be able to also guard the whole of a Sea-province; the very nature of a Blockade, ie disciplined opperations close inshore, would negate any other duties such as intercepting enemy Ships/Fleets elswhere in the Sea-province.

All the Best

Not sure I agree with that assertion. What I have read about the British blockade for example is that smaller scouting units watched the ports close inshore and the ships of the line were kept in big groups much further out. Seems plausible they would be free to engage other ships entering the area provided a sally from one of the ports they were assigned to wasn't underway. I do like the idea of more random chances to miss interceptions particularly in these cases of "split attention" though, especially given the large areas a sea zone in the game involves.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI