jimwinsors loose reference in the wishlist thread about COG2 got me thinking... what would it take to justify a rerelease? Would adding the economic enhancements from FoF plud detailed naval combat justify a new release? What would it take?
After giving the matter a little thought, I would pay for a new product. It would definitely need to have the economic improvements and remove having to deal with waste. I love the diplomatic engine as is, so no changes needed there. I'd want the AI improvements from FoF and a few UI upgrades. Naval detailed combat would be a nice to have, but I could live without it. And support for higher resolutions would be a big big plus that would definitely seal the deal for me.
I wouldn't pay the new product $50 price for that content, but I'd gladly shell out another $30 - $35 that seem to be common with repackaged releases.
So I wanted to run the question by the broader group. What would a COG2 need to include for you to buy it?
COG2?
RE: COG2?
Detailed naval battles would be enough for me. That would be the big change IMO. And actually, I prefer the COG economic/trade system to the FoF one, so I'd hope that stay basically the same, with maybe only some minor tweaks.
Other minor enhancement ideas would be better strategic naval rules (more realistic blockades, fleet movements influenced by prevailing winds, etc...), streamlining the mysterious protectorate rules (let any region be made into a protectorate, for golly's sake!), maybe some enhanced diplomacy/peace treaty options (ie, something to discourage/prevent countries from being ceded to pieces), and most important of all...let us rename units to names longer than 8 characters! [:'(]
Also, avoid the temptation of going to brigade scale on land, as in FoF. I think division scale is perfect for this period. Navies however should go down to 1 unit = 1 ship, to faciliate the new naval battles that will take place. And then, you can expand the various ship types (ie, 64 SOLs, 74 SOLs, 44 Frigates, etc...) giving the naval units more variety.
Other minor enhancement ideas would be better strategic naval rules (more realistic blockades, fleet movements influenced by prevailing winds, etc...), streamlining the mysterious protectorate rules (let any region be made into a protectorate, for golly's sake!), maybe some enhanced diplomacy/peace treaty options (ie, something to discourage/prevent countries from being ceded to pieces), and most important of all...let us rename units to names longer than 8 characters! [:'(]
Also, avoid the temptation of going to brigade scale on land, as in FoF. I think division scale is perfect for this period. Navies however should go down to 1 unit = 1 ship, to faciliate the new naval battles that will take place. And then, you can expand the various ship types (ie, 64 SOLs, 74 SOLs, 44 Frigates, etc...) giving the naval units more variety.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
RE: COG2?
I'm not sure which is less encouraging... the fact that only the two of us took an interest or the fact that we disagreed about what we'd want so that they would only be able to appeal to one or the other of us. [:D]
RE: COG2?
I think interest in COG 2 will pick up once FoF gets finalized. [:)]
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:40 am
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: COG2?
As am I.
The Protectorates issue is a needling one, for sure.
I do hope they implement the detailed battle (hex war) improvements from FoF to CoG, namely, more set-up options based upon opposing commander die rolls and possibly the superior graphics (unit sprites) as well.
I agree with another who said "leave the unit scale at Division" and I doubt that's an issue anyway since to change to Brigade scale would require massive changes, methinks.
RE: COG2?
Yeah, we wouldn't go to brigade level. That would be a whole new game in many respects.
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.
RE: COG2?
I'd like to see a country's economy suffer much more significantly once a threshold of percentage of population in the army is reached. The biggest issue I had with CoG, aside from how prisoners were handled, is the massive armies a player could get. Once the threshold is reached (say 8-10%) the output for each resource should start to fall. As more troops are brought into the army out of the population, the resource shortfall should increase.
Upgrades to a nation could even play a part in this calculation so as to increase the threshold percentage slightly.
Another thing I'd like to see is the ability to order a general to train his troops, instead of leaving it to random chance (I may be mixing CoG and FoF here...see below). The Grand Armee of 1805 was the result of the camps of Boulogne. Later constraints brought on by the various coalitions prevented the French from encamping for training once again, but it may very well have been done were the given the chance (Prussia not declaring war in 1806 - or at least not preparing to do so).
Another thing I've not seen done, or done well, in a wargame for this period is the proper utilization and affect of the cavalry screen. Although it would be difficult to do on the strategic map, because fog of war is already handled abstractly from province to province, I do think it could properly come to play in the detailed battles.
Cavalry should (when set to screen) simply blook LOS to hexes behind it for any LOS drawn on the same elevation. Breaking up cavalry divisions into their component brigades (split the unit function) or pairs of brigades would then become a useful tactic. I mean for heaven's sake, cavalry screens were a huge part of the mission of light cavalry and many dragoon regiments as well.
I'd really like to see cavalry units (either divisions or split divisions) affect a screen in each hex surrounding them for LOS purposes. So you can then have two hexes between each cavalry unit for the purposes of screening. This would certainly add an element to the multiplayer battles that was missing before; the, "oh crap, I hope there's not an infantry corps coming up behind those screening cav units" moment.
I've not played the game in well over a year (the xxxxx of an exwife took that particular computer) so I don't know what changes were made with later patches. So forgive me if any of this has been addressed already since I last played.
Upgrades to a nation could even play a part in this calculation so as to increase the threshold percentage slightly.
Another thing I'd like to see is the ability to order a general to train his troops, instead of leaving it to random chance (I may be mixing CoG and FoF here...see below). The Grand Armee of 1805 was the result of the camps of Boulogne. Later constraints brought on by the various coalitions prevented the French from encamping for training once again, but it may very well have been done were the given the chance (Prussia not declaring war in 1806 - or at least not preparing to do so).
Another thing I've not seen done, or done well, in a wargame for this period is the proper utilization and affect of the cavalry screen. Although it would be difficult to do on the strategic map, because fog of war is already handled abstractly from province to province, I do think it could properly come to play in the detailed battles.
Cavalry should (when set to screen) simply blook LOS to hexes behind it for any LOS drawn on the same elevation. Breaking up cavalry divisions into their component brigades (split the unit function) or pairs of brigades would then become a useful tactic. I mean for heaven's sake, cavalry screens were a huge part of the mission of light cavalry and many dragoon regiments as well.
I'd really like to see cavalry units (either divisions or split divisions) affect a screen in each hex surrounding them for LOS purposes. So you can then have two hexes between each cavalry unit for the purposes of screening. This would certainly add an element to the multiplayer battles that was missing before; the, "oh crap, I hope there's not an infantry corps coming up behind those screening cav units" moment.
I've not played the game in well over a year (the xxxxx of an exwife took that particular computer) so I don't know what changes were made with later patches. So forgive me if any of this has been addressed already since I last played.
RE: COG2?
Oh.! I forgot to put my vote down for the detailed naval combat. I do want to see that in CoG.
Another thing I'd like to see, for detailed combat, is the ability for the player to determine the hexes the reinforcements will enter the map and perhaps the formation or order in which they enter.
A corps commander of the period would have been able to tell his subordinates, "get your infantry here fast, let the guns fall behind and arrive as they can." or "get your cavalry here quickly and tell your infantry to double time."
Perhaps a pre-battle option for corps/army commanders (or maybe for a general with a high enough rating) would be a selection list (as we see for the various pre-battle options in FoF) for various Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery orders of march.
For example,
Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery (100% and 0% fatigue)
Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry (60% and 35% fatigue)
Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery (40% and 50% fatigue)
etc..etc.
Getting back to choosing the reinforcement hex...
The armies of the period used roads whenever practicable. In CoG, being able to use a road to arrive on the battlefield is a miracle of no small order. So, I'd like to be able to have the option of getting a little closer to historial realities and choose (within certain parameters) a hex (or possible hexes) where the reinforcements should be expected to show up.
I'm not asking for the ability to do something unrealistic; like in having the French 3rd Corps arriving SE of the Austrians at Austerlitz. I'd rather be able to select the road hex south west of my battle line, nearest my map edge. Instead of having it smack in the middle of a damn swamp/dense forest or for heaven's sake between two or rivers or tributaries.
Nothing was more frustrating to me than having my artillery arrive tangled and then stuck having to cross a swamp hex and then two river hexes before it could even move in the general direction of the rest of the army.
Another thing I'd like to see, for detailed combat, is the ability for the player to determine the hexes the reinforcements will enter the map and perhaps the formation or order in which they enter.
A corps commander of the period would have been able to tell his subordinates, "get your infantry here fast, let the guns fall behind and arrive as they can." or "get your cavalry here quickly and tell your infantry to double time."
Perhaps a pre-battle option for corps/army commanders (or maybe for a general with a high enough rating) would be a selection list (as we see for the various pre-battle options in FoF) for various Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery orders of march.
For example,
Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery (100% and 0% fatigue)
Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry (60% and 35% fatigue)
Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery (40% and 50% fatigue)
etc..etc.
Getting back to choosing the reinforcement hex...
The armies of the period used roads whenever practicable. In CoG, being able to use a road to arrive on the battlefield is a miracle of no small order. So, I'd like to be able to have the option of getting a little closer to historial realities and choose (within certain parameters) a hex (or possible hexes) where the reinforcements should be expected to show up.
I'm not asking for the ability to do something unrealistic; like in having the French 3rd Corps arriving SE of the Austrians at Austerlitz. I'd rather be able to select the road hex south west of my battle line, nearest my map edge. Instead of having it smack in the middle of a damn swamp/dense forest or for heaven's sake between two or rivers or tributaries.
Nothing was more frustrating to me than having my artillery arrive tangled and then stuck having to cross a swamp hex and then two river hexes before it could even move in the general direction of the rest of the army.
RE: COG2?
CoG mainly needs some of the nigling bugs worked out, not a facelift. I much prefer it to FoF in general, though FoF is more polished, benefitng from being a second generation game. One place where CoG is far superior to FoF is the economic engine. I would consider it a catastrophe to retrofit the oversimplifed FoF model on to the nations of Europe. Indeed, the development of my nation's economic and political engine so as to leverage my military power projection was one of my favorite parts of that game. Where FoF shines is in the way it cleaned up containers (and applied leaders), better tactical battles, a good concept and implementation of naval power and more personable units.
KEEP the CoG economic engine!
KEEP the CoG economic engine!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
RE: COG2?
ORIGINAL: solops
...
KEEP the CoG economic engine!
I concur.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
-
jkBluesman
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:48 pm
RE: COG2?
ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
ORIGINAL: solops
...
KEEP the CoG economic engine!
I concur.
I do as well.
"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz
Carl von Clausewitz
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: COG2?
eerrr, 4 - sorry can't count
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: COG2?
Oh and maybe this isn't the place to mention this, but -
PLEASE put the ability to handicap or strengthen nations (+3 to -3) back into the interface when setting up a new campaign.
1.2.26 (maybe it was 1.2.25, and .26 didn't fix it) eliminated that feature, and I suspect it wasn't intentional...I used that feature to set up what I considered "historical" parameters, weakening Sweden (-3), Turkey and Spain (-2), and Prussia (-1), while giving France a +1.
(And no, I didn't always play France under these conditions, usually Russia [8|])
RE: COG2?
Really? I didn't know the power thing was missing in V1.2.26. I'll look it over.
I too like the economics of COG, and we definitely won't remove it, but we will very likely offer the option of using a much simpler system.
There's no strict need to have 1 detailed combat unit for every 1 strategic unit -- what I mean is that we could easily have 1 strategic "ship" split into several units in detailed battle. I did use cavalry screens in my multiplayer games by splitting my light cavalry into two groups -- perhaps we could allow cavalry to split into more than 2 groups?
I too like the economics of COG, and we definitely won't remove it, but we will very likely offer the option of using a much simpler system.
There's no strict need to have 1 detailed combat unit for every 1 strategic unit -- what I mean is that we could easily have 1 strategic "ship" split into several units in detailed battle. I did use cavalry screens in my multiplayer games by splitting my light cavalry into two groups -- perhaps we could allow cavalry to split into more than 2 groups?
RE: COG2?
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
I did use cavalry screens in my multiplayer games by splitting my light cavalry into two groups -- perhaps we could allow cavalry to split into more than 2 groups?
How about a toggled action instead? Toggling gives a screen to adjacent hexes. Splitting would be nice, but the way the combat mechanics work, it would add several degrees of frustration to a player as well.
RE: COG2?
Another thing that annoys the heck out of me is the % to change formation.
In 1805 scenario a number of French divisions have a 50% or less chance of changing into a line. WTF!
Sure, we need some friction in the game so the player can't get everything he wants, but come on, the best Armee the French ever fielded was during 1805-1807.
I just played a battle from the standard scenario, my French vs Austro-Russian force. During my first turn, I advanced each infantry unit and artillery unit one to two hexes (to create a physical line of units ) and hit the "line" command button for each. The end result of 8 infantry and 2 artillery units was 2 divisions in line and the rest shaken.
Since the % for forming line was the same before I moved and after I moved, it wasn't the movement that screwed up my plan for a battle line, it was the damn % to carry out the order.
Now, I could understand this, somewhat, if my units had been standing in difficult ground, but as they were all in open terrain, this is just plain silly.
I'd much rather the % chance to form start at 95-100% and then become modified down based on various factors (adjacent enemy, shaken/disordered, terrain, unit quality).
Hell, when my Imperial Guard refuses, two turns in a row, to form line and instead becomes shaken and then disordered, when the enemy is STILL out of sight, I'm not too keen on fighting the battle.
Needless to say, but I will anyway, my "battle line" ended up getting smashed by Austrian Cavalry as the shaken/disordered units were easily shattered in charges that started from 6 or more hexes away.
In 1805 scenario a number of French divisions have a 50% or less chance of changing into a line. WTF!
Sure, we need some friction in the game so the player can't get everything he wants, but come on, the best Armee the French ever fielded was during 1805-1807.
I just played a battle from the standard scenario, my French vs Austro-Russian force. During my first turn, I advanced each infantry unit and artillery unit one to two hexes (to create a physical line of units ) and hit the "line" command button for each. The end result of 8 infantry and 2 artillery units was 2 divisions in line and the rest shaken.
Since the % for forming line was the same before I moved and after I moved, it wasn't the movement that screwed up my plan for a battle line, it was the damn % to carry out the order.
Now, I could understand this, somewhat, if my units had been standing in difficult ground, but as they were all in open terrain, this is just plain silly.
I'd much rather the % chance to form start at 95-100% and then become modified down based on various factors (adjacent enemy, shaken/disordered, terrain, unit quality).
Hell, when my Imperial Guard refuses, two turns in a row, to form line and instead becomes shaken and then disordered, when the enemy is STILL out of sight, I'm not too keen on fighting the battle.
Needless to say, but I will anyway, my "battle line" ended up getting smashed by Austrian Cavalry as the shaken/disordered units were easily shattered in charges that started from 6 or more hexes away.