Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Crown of Glory: Europe in the Age of Napoleon, the player controls one of the crowned potentates of Europe in the Napoleonic Era, wielding authority over his nation's military strategy, economic development, diplomatic relations, and social organization. It is a very thorough simulation of the entire Napoleonic Era - spanning from 1799 to 1820, from the dockyards in Lisbon to the frozen wastes of Holy Mother Russia.

Moderators: Gil R., ericbabe

User avatar
Ralegh
Posts: 1548
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:33 am
Contact:

Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Ralegh »

WCS are always thinking about features to put into patches, and what might be suitable for a sequel or to be built into other games based on the same game engine. I have a huge list - culled from lots of posts from other people - and here they are. Please nominate other great ideas, and let us know which of these you find the most compelling. (We want to pick things that would justify people paying money - these wouldn't be done for free.)

1. Enhance Multiplayer
[*] A bidding system for assigning countries (they start with negative glory!)
[*] The option during a multiplayer game to have the AI take someones turn
[*] The option for a player to 'set' the AI to take their turns until a particular real date, and to specify which 'strategy' the AI should take [assume the strategy mod discussed in a separate suggestion]
[*] The option during a multiplayer game to change a computer player to a human player, or a human player to a computer one
[*] a web site to be the repository for the save game file, and a place where the players can have their own BB etc - where they can interact while it isn't their turn.
[*] Be able to switch from PBEM to TCPIP and back, and even take a PBEM save game and play it out against the AI.

2. Enhance naval combat
[*] Provide a detailed combat version of naval combat
[*] Have a new status of ship "damaged" - ships captured in battle get escorted home and then have to be built up to make combat worthy again

3. Supe up strategic AI
[*] Provide AI strategies for high level Ais
[*] AI stragegies and leanings ("personalities") with radical change after insurrection?

4. Supe up detailed battle tactical AI
[*] Some decision making based on strategic and tactical considerations
[*] Better use of fortification vs fire-and-0movement decisions

5. Super enhance supply system
[*] Separate ammunition from other supplies
[*] Each ("ammo" and "supplies") would be a trade good (produced in cities, and tradable)
[*] Units and containers would be able to 'hold' a certain amount of food/ammo - for containers, this would be configurable by the player and effecting the strategic initiative of fleets/armies/corps - and this is what they would take into combat. [So you could tell a city to stockpile supplies, and set an army to load themselves up before charging off into the wilds.]
[*] On the strategic map, supplies flow from supply sources through depot chains to end units, with little stockpiles in depots, containers (armies, corps, fleets) and units (divisions and ships). When you conquer a depot, city or unit, you would get some of their supplies, creating a new incentive to take cities! If a supply chain was interrupted, supplies in the system on the unit end of the chain would continue to filter through until they run out, while supplies up stream would bank up. The player would control the degree of flow - supply sources could be set to create more or supplies in the province control area. Tthe degree of flow would narrow with each staging point (ie. only 90% of the supplies pass down to the next depot in the chain) reflecting some wastage.
. Similarly ships would have a stockpile of suplies to feed troops being carried, and could get more from their own ports, or buy some from allied ports as they sailed.
. Supplies could reach a unit via a supply chain, or by being carried - a fleet, army or corps could ferry out supplies to another unit/container.
[*] In detailed combat:
. Units within their resupply range [an attribute of units type] of the caissons (a stockpile) would get some additional supplies every turn - the amount reducing with distance. A unit attempting to rally (ie passing its turn) would get significantly more. However each caisson would have a limit of the amount they could dispense in a turn - probably apply a rationing system based on current supply levels.
. Units in combat who are out of ammo would lose their fire attacks, and only be effective in charges.
. Units in combat who are out of supply would suffer reduced combat effectiveness, representing the foraging parties out getting food instead of being in the battle line.
. A division could be tasked to carry supplies to a point on the map, creating a supply dump. Such a dump would be accessible by units bordering it, but not mobile - creating an opportunity to capture supplies in detailed combat.

6. Permit battle resolution at the demi-brigade level

7. Supe up leaders
[*] [Note that we expect to get another 10 or so leader abilities implemented in a patch
[*] (OPTIONAL RULE) Based on combat, permit creation of new leaders, promotion and change in attributes of current leaders . When played, this would replace historical leader reinforcements.
[*] Have more leader special abilities that flow down the chain of command....so a corps leader's special abilities are accessible by any division in the corps (and not just the division to which the leader is attached).
[*] Have leader capabilities in managing protectorates/nations, which gives them economic advantages, and provides a new dynamic for the player between using leaders to enhance their military forces, or using them to enhance their economies. Maybe make diplomat capabilities available to all leaders, so they can be used that way too.

8. Supe up trade
[*] Enhance the trade adviser, so the player can nominate the quantity of each type of goods they want to get from trade
[*] make all trade after waste, not before
[*] permit relative supply and demand to effect the AI's opinion of what a fair deal is (and the trades) as the game goes on.

9. Supe up Minors
[*] [Note we expect a patch to reduce the impact of protectorates on waste, and provide a minimum feudal level for protectorates regardless of the nation's setting]
[*] Add any province with adjacent territory into a protectorate
[*] Permit enhanced minor diplomacy: treaties with minors

10. Army/corps/fleet orders:
[*] Set a destination, as can be done for a division
[*] Set an enemy stack or city as a destination
[*] Add intercept option to an army or corps that didn't move (by definition, neighbouring area)

11. Refine treaties/surrenders:
[*] Permit treaties with nations you are at war with, as long as one of the clauses is either cease fire or one side surrendering (allows negotiating surrender terms or terms for a cease fire)
[*] Any time a nation makes a treaty with someone who is at war with one of the nation's allies, the ally should consider the situation and:
. require the nation to break one of the treaty or the alliance OR
. issue a complaint, reducing its attitude to the nation OR
. keep quiet because they are hoping the nation doesn't dump the alliance.
[*] New treaty options:
. break alliance with X
. do not ally with X
. deny access to X
. do not supply X
. offer limited surrender to X
. do not trade with X for Y duration [include independant minors]
. declare war on X [include independant minors to current capabilities]
. Don’t attempt diplo actions against me!
[*] Tweak treaty conditions:
. no duration/end date longer than 3 years
. depreciate AI valuation of outyears
[*] Enhance treaty adviser valuation
. Treaty adviser currently doesn't correctly estimate DOWs, cedings, and interaction with other treaty commitments.
[*] When a nation makes an unconditional surrender to one of the countries it is at war with, any allies of that power who are also at war with the nation and who were not surrendered to should have the option of:
. (i) accepting a white peace with the surrendering power (enforced peace, but no terms)
. (ii) requiring their ally to take a peace condition that forces the surrenderer to offer a limited surrender to them
. (iii) require their ally to break their alliance
. (iv) just continue the war
. [a nation would identify its selection from these options on the SET POLICY screen]
[*] If a country surrenders to all powers - reduce the glory loss to the greatest value, not all of them
[*] When a country surrenders to multiple powers have some sort of resolution system so they don't take impossible treaty conditions
. If multiple powers ask for the same territory, refund the guys who miss out
. Similarly, if one says "don’t dow x" and another says "do dow x"
. Computer to phase out any cash payments to make them possible to meet

12. Option to fight quick battles using a EIA-style tactical chit selection, and just be given the result. (super quick?)

13. Pre-game treaties, trade routes, units under construction etc

14. UI Enhancements:
[*] Make the various lists sortable
[*] Hyperlink to online help text
[*] Only show me the provinces that aren't building anything option for province management
[*] A "find" button for physical locations and/or units
[*] Right click in detailed combat to give info about the terrain, as well as of the unit (if any) under the cursor, AND some info about the general attached AND garrisons to state their nationality
[*] Provide mouse alternatives for all keyboard commands (and v.v)
[*] Jump from military screen to that unit on the map
[*] Make cossack super-avoidance of battle an optional rule
[*] Historical archives - Old treaties

15. End of game review and keepsake
[*] Major wars and who declared, and troops lost, and who won, and what the surrender terms were
[*] Treaties entered into
[*] Statistics - total trade, units raised by category, units killed/dying
HTH
Steve/Ralegh
plasticpanzers
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:12 pm
Contact:

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by plasticpanzers »

wow! is that all?! LOL!
really, its a darn impressive list. I agree with just about everything there. i would say on some of them:

5> supply suggestions are nice but any country that
landed an army on anothers soil would have to buy a
depot from the friendly party
England's navy and merchant fleet was never
designed to support an army by sea for more than a
VERY short time. all the time the army spent in
Spain, Portugal, and France the British depended overwhelmingly upon locally obtained purchased
supplies. They did not bring them with them. No
English depots except in English province. They
would be required to "buy" on a month to month basis
a depot from a friendly nation where they plan to
have a field army. this would mimic the problems
they had putting armies into the field overseas.
This would apply to all nations. being an ally
means you get to pay to have your troops on their
soil! LOL!

6> regimental rather than demi-brigade which was use
pretty much only prior to 1805. calling them all
regiments is just easier. making them namable by the
player would be nice also or have a list predone with
names/numbers of historical units and each one is used
as units are created. if destroyed they go to the top
of the list to be the first rebuilt. add a nice historical flavor if your doing regiments.

7> if what your saying is what i think it is then
making monarchs more important at the capitol rather
than on the battlefield i agree. also making other
leaders rulers of minor nations/protectorates would
be cool. might cause unrest in some where they would
already have a monarch but allow more direct pro-
duction in that province like making Joseph king of
Spain. Severe loss of morale and possible cease
fire/peace offer if countries leader is killed in
battle. Keep Francis of Austria at the palace!

9>losses from minor nations made from their own
countries troops and no others. if a unit drops
below 33% it will be disbanded and its troops
reassigned to other units of that nation. when
enough troops are available in that minor nation
then that unit will appear again.

I think making some of the minor powers more unique
with their own characteristics would make the game
alot more interesting. Bavaria, Poland, Westphalia
(when created), and Saxony had substantial numbers
of troops.

I would also recommend, if possible, a historical
one player scenario where the player is France. All
the other nations would be set up with deferance to
their neighbors as was the case in 1805 thru lets say
1820. Leaders and nations would act more or less
as they would back then. Turkey would be reduced to
a minor power that has a large army that declares
war upon austria and russia at times but that the
AI player for Turkey/Austria/Russia may sign treaties
of peace or cease fire. Turkey would remain in its
area on land and sea only. its invasions would be
no more than one province beyond its original border.

Spain would be a sit the fence AI player looking to
stab one or the other for opportunity.

England would have a limit of what sized army it
could put overseas. Generally no more than 125,000
men beyond its borders at any time.

Sweden would have a more restrictive troop max.

The above scenario (what i can think of with a
fuzzy brain at 3:47 in the morning) would allow
historical players to play France against Europe.
I am sure i will think of more later. gotta look
at my old posts! LOL!

really a great game and i think a sequel with some
improvement and tweaks will be THE Napoleonic
Strategy game. I enjoy it immensly now and can't
wait to see what is down the road!

PS: how about some different types of music in
the background. I am starting to hum the one that
plays in my sleep!!! LOL!
Tim
ian77
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:05 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by ian77 »

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

wow! is that all?! LOL!
really, its a darn impressive list. I agree with just about everything there. i would say on some of them:

what i can think of with a fuzzy brain at 3:47 in the morning........

PS: how about some different types of music in
the background. I am starting to hum the one that
plays in my sleep!!! LOL!
Tim

[&:] What sleep Tim?[;)]
Ektor
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:16 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Ektor »

a quick suggestion :
A bidding system for assigning countries (they start with negative glory!)

I prefer a bid system with an add to the score needed to win (example :I bid that if Ihave France I will need 1300 points to win)
like this even a unbalanced nation can win if not outbidded, and vice versa a wanted nation like france would be a hard one
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Ralegh great topic.

My list would be items:

1, 2 and 14 (in no particular order)

Explanation:

1. This game does not support PBEM in it's fullest (no tac battles) and for me any play vs humans is much more preferred than AI, so I put item 1 before any AI improvement (which would be hard to do, require lots of testing and be time consuming for developers anyway).

2. Tactical naval battles should be lots of fun.

14. I never posted about it but now that you ask, I think this game's UI is truely dreadful. I have never seen so bad an UI paired with such excellent game underneath. No consistency whatsoever. I constantly have problems finding buttons that do this and that on various screens (because the same button, on different screens is placed in different segment of the screen etc etc). Graphically - jagged fonts and those dreadful smiley faces iritate me to no end.

Much criticised WITP's UI shines in comparison with COG in every aspect (in my opinion at least).

Again, COG is excellent game, and this post is not meant as dissing the game, but UI is in my opinion truely awful, since you asked thank you very much [&o] I think it has to be said in harshest words possible, because - I am sure - grongards that make up most of the audience here will surely ignore item no 14. and go for more "substantial" stuff like having more treaties etc. blah. In my humble opinion, nothing is more "substantial" than good UI.

Oleg
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Yes, here's another idea.

It would be nice to be able to fight historic battles in tactical engine, regardless of the "big campaign". They would be welcome as standalone scenarios, to have some quick fun battling Austerlitz in tac engine etc. with historic terrain and forces.

Does WCS have any ideas and/or preference for the next game in the series? Will it be "COG Improved v2.0" or something altogether different?

O.
ian77
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:05 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by ian77 »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It would be nice to be able to fight historic battles in tactical engine,

I think that would be a marvelous addition to the game!

ian
gdpsnake
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Kempner, TX

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by gdpsnake »

My vote would be to beef up detailed combat.

Keep the stragetic as is (divisions and corps) but change the production to producing regiments that a player puts into divisions. You already have a mechanism - when you select a division you see a number of 'men' in the window which represents strength. They often have different uniforms to represent experience. Simply change this so that each 'individual man' is actually a regiment in the division.
The uniform can represent the type like line, fusiliers, rifle, light, guard grenadiers/chasseurs, musketeers. grenadiers, Spanish mobs, militia, guerillas, legere (French for line that could deploy 100% skirmishers). For cav divisions: dragoons (shoot), hussars (light + skirmish), lancers, cossacks, Chasseurs (regular saber cav), Currasiers (the heavy cav with sabers), Guard units of the same types. Artillery would be Heavy batteries, 12lb, 8lb, horse (6lb guns some guard had 8lb), rockets like the British unit at Waterloo, (artillery could be defined as Smooth bore, parrot etc of various size).

Then in detailed combat, the "Division" units would fight as their regiments rather than as divisions. Regiments could also break into two demi-battalions.
This should work well for a more tactical game and you can tweek up the various types to function true to type. I.E. heavy cav and infantry melee better in assault column, lancers melee in line, light cav as an area harrasment unit in skirmish formation, infantry shoot best in line, etc. Each would have different morale levels based on type.
Add some new formations General order for fighting in buildings/forts and heavy woods.

Generally a regement was of a 'uniform' kind of troop so a build of one type is standard in the game (not perfect but better than the generic divions we build now when in reality, divisions were far from generic. Also, art can be attached to divisions in this method foot to infantry divs, horse to cav divisions (But fight seperate on the battlefield). Cav divisions generally contained different types of cav (usually squadrons but regiment terms will work.)

You can also have division commanders!

Now you approach a game of strategic proportion with the ability to fight battles at a much more tactical level. Heck, the battles themselves would allow for a whole slew of scenarios of just famous battles.

Lots of ideas here - just my two cents worth for now.
User avatar
Ralegh
Posts: 1548
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:33 am
Contact:

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Ralegh »

Rest assured that when WCS release public information about their current project, you will hear about it here. (So yes, there is a project, and yes, its based on significant chunks of COG code, but no, I won't tell you any more right now. Except that its pretty cool - and Eric invited me to be involved.)

I didn't list being able to launch detailed battles seperately - oops. I really want that one. I suppose I left it off because I keep trying to talk Eric into doing it for free as part of a patch - if he writes the launcher, I will write a UI to help the user put together the config files, and we can get other users to help create the historical files.

16. Detailed battle launcher. This would be a seperate way to kick off a detailed battle. It would consume some config files, and we might write a little UI to help people put together their own OOBs (units, leaders, strengths, terrain etc etc). Could ship with sample files for lots of historical battles.
HTH
Steve/Ralegh
benpark
Posts: 3004
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:48 pm

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by benpark »

I agree as to the comments on detailed combat. I would love to see a greater AI overhaul, so that the AI uses it's forces in concentrated attacks or defence(in the contexts of period doctrines).

The rest sounds great[:D]
"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey
User avatar
Doobious
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Doobious »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

14. I never posted about it but now that you ask, I think this game's UI is truely dreadful. I have never seen so bad an UI paired with such excellent game underneath. No consistency whatsoever. I constantly have problems finding buttons that do this and that on various screens (because the same button, on different screens is placed in different segment of the screen etc etc). Graphically - jagged fonts and those dreadful smiley faces iritate me to no end.

I agree. [&o]
Where is that smoke coming from?
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Gil R. »

[quote]ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Rest assured that when WCS release public information about their current project, you will hear about it here. (So yes, there is a project, and yes, its based on significant chunks of COG code, but no, I won't tell you any more right now. Except that its pretty cool - and Eric invited me to be involved.)


It's worth adding to Steve's comment that many of the suggested changes people have made for COG may well find their way into our next project (Working title: "Backstroke of the West") even if it would be too complicated to make them available for COG v.1 through a patch. And then, quite possibly, down the road some of that code used for Project #2 would find its way into a COG 2.0. So, even if your suggestions are not implemented immediately for COG, do not despair! At worst, those suggestions will enhance Project #2, but it's more than likely that they'll enhance both projects in the long run.



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.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

It's worth adding to Steve's comment that many of the suggested changes people have made for COG may well find their way into our next project (Code Name: "Backstroke of the West")

Lepanto 1571?

Gulf War? LOL [:D]

Now with so many teasers you gotta tell us...

O.
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by siRkid »

30 Years War!
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
plasticpanzers
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:12 pm
Contact:

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by plasticpanzers »

would also recommend redoing the layout of the units
page. choice of garrison, land unit, naval unit.
change background to lighter parchment color. change
unit symbols from figures to one figure and a boxed
display showing strength, morale, expierence. this
can be clicked and dragged to or from another unit
box where men can be transfered and units assigned.
very complex right now going up and down the list.
breaking it into the three types above might make it
easier and faster to manage units.
Tim
ian77
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:05 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by ian77 »

To add to Tim's suggestion, IMHO it would make things much easier if all the units in a province could be displayed next to each other rather than spread throughout the list in the military advisor screen.

Ian

User avatar
Reg Pither
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: London

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Reg Pither »

To be honest, most of the stuff on the list just gets a shrug of the shoulders from me. The ones that stand out by a long way are the AI improvements and improving the interface. That would do for me! [:)]

Although, as the game stands right now, the two biggest immediate improvements I'd like to see are the removal/fixing of Cossacks and POW's! Grrr....[:@]

User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Now with so many teasers you gotta tell us...

O.


Just Google the phrase "Backstroke of the West" -- you won't regret it.
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.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

LOL! My god this can't be - *Star Wars*?!

The translations are hilarious though [:D]

Oleg


Image
Attachments
untitled.jpg
untitled.jpg (16.55 KiB) Viewed 31 times
User avatar
KarlXII
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: Stockholm

RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel

Post by KarlXII »

ORIGINAL: Kid

30 Years War!

I would love that. That important and long war is forgotten in computer strategy games history! What a war it was! I who long to play the swedes will have to due with Sweden in 1792 when its glory was long lost. The great nordic war might be a too small nisch for the mainstream players so 30 years war should suit everyone.

/Karl XII
Värjan måste göra det bästa, ty den skämtar intet

Been playing strategy games since 1987 and the Commodore 64 days
Post Reply

Return to “Crown of Glory”