Small problem with supply in COG:EE - it doesn't work
Mike Kreuzer
nowhere. As in: running supply from Moscow to the Grand Armee sitting in
Moscow.
Confirmed here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2054656
And while we're on the topic of Moscow, why does the French army sitting in
Moscow cause Russian morale to collapse? They did sit on Moscow, nothing
happened except they ran out of stuff & had to retreat. 1812 & all that.
My second impressions of this game are starting to reveal some more
potholes; I'm waiting for some patching action ...<sigh>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
ryand...@yahoo.com
> potholes; I'm waiting for some patching action ...<sigh>
Same here. The first few years of my campaign were good fun but the
whole thing goes quickly off the rails. I have seen the Grande Armee
smash the Austrians and Prussians - only for France to promptly
surrender to them. I have seen small English armies invade France and
even seize Paris while the Grande Armee looked on. The Turkish fleet
is permanently stationed off Spithead and is pumelling Nelson while
the American Navy seems to have its eye fixed firmly on the Med.
Sweden is stuck in a state of frenzied diplomatic activity,
surrendering and declaring war each turn on just about everybody.
The whole thing is like some kind of History of the Napolenic Wars as
imagined by Salvador Dali.
With a touch of Stephen King: sometimes an unseen hand guides my
Armies in odd directions. Perhaps the game is reacting to my attempts
to impose rationality.
Gil R.
The supply depots issue is unrelated to the AI -- both humans and the
AI can do this. What you are observing is something that we changed
based on feedback regarding the original COG, and something that we
have been considering changing further. We were discussing this late
in testing and decided to get more opinions. What you are seeing,
then, is definitely WAD: the only question is whether we will further
tighten the rules for how supply chains function.
As for the issue of Russian morale collapsing with a French army
there, I'd point out that just because it didn't happen in history
doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. But more importantly, the way
the game is programmed is that if Russian morale is at a high level it
should take 1-1.5 years for it to collapse -- so in your game Russia
must already have had a low morale if it appeared to collapse too
quickly.
ryandyl,
If France surrendered after military victories there must have been
something else in the game that made this happen. We might need to
add a more detailed message explaining AI surrenders, but the
surrender itself almost certainly made sense within the rules.
ryand...@yahoo.com
>>>something else in the game that made this happen. We might need to
>>>add a more detailed message explaining AI surrenders, but the
It can make sense within the rules and have me rolling on the floor
laughing at the same time. If France can beat the hell out of a host
of countries and immediately surrender to them and this is according
to the rules then this game has bigger problems than mere bugs.
Anyway, after another session of frustration and hilarity this has
been consigned to the "might give a quick check after a few patches"
list.
What's next on the release list anybody?
What's next on the
Gil R.
You missed my point, which was that there was SOMETHING ELSE leading
to the surrender. For example, France might have suffered a major
naval defeat elsewhere. In a PBEM game (advanced economy) during beta-
testing, to give another example, I put Prussia through some major
feudalism-related reforms that caused national morale to plummet at
the worst time, leading me to surrender to France and Sweden even
though I had just captured a French territory -- so a military victory
was more than offset but another type of setback. Not knowing the
situation in your game, I can't say what happened. But that surrender
you saw did not occur in a vacuum -- that's what I meant when I wrote
that the surrender made sense within the rules.
One thing I can add is that we're right now looking at whether naval
defeats cause a disproportionate morale hit, and we're welcoming
player input. If that's what caused the odd surrender of France that
you observed then it's easily fixed through a simple tweak, and not
some sort of systemic problem.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> to the surrender.
No. You missed MY point. I will however repeat it for you.
The behaviours in this game are plain *crazy*.
The French capitulation - following which France stopped participating
in the Napoleonic era - is just one example of the craziness that I
summarised. Listen to yourself. Are you saying that the France AI
tried some kind of reform following which it collpased and retired
from the world stage? This is the Napoleonic era, not the Russian
revolution. It would really be nice to have France partipating for
more than, oh, a couple of years following a couple of massive
victories. I don't know. Maybe even try to invade Prussia, or
something.
Anyway, as a dev you would be better off putting the focus you are
putting into defending the game against consumers after release into
that bit of extra effort before release. You might have a better game.
Now if you will excuse me, I think I will fire this baby up again as
now I am actually curious to see how the Turkish Navy's domination of
the English Channel is faring. Then it's de-install and wince at the
VISA bill.
Gil R.
On Mar 7, 1:13 pm, ryandyl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You missed my point, which was that there was SOMETHING ELSE leading
> > to the surrender.
>
> No. You missed MY point. I will however repeat it for you.
>
> The behaviours in this game are plain *crazy*.
>
> The French capitulation - following which France stopped participating
> in the Napoleonic era - is just one example of the craziness that I
> summarised. Listen to yourself. Are you saying that the France AI
> tried some kind of reform following which it collpased and retired
> from the world stage? This is the Napoleonic era, not the Russian
> revolution. It would really be nice to have France partipating for
> more than, oh, a couple of years following a couple of massive
> victories. I don't know. Maybe even try to invade Prussia, or
> something.
>
No, of course I didn't say that about French capitulation. That's not
what I wrote.
> Anyway, as a dev you would be better off putting the focus you are
> putting into defending the game against consumers after release into
> that bit of extra effort before release. You might have a better game.
To be honest, I was responding to Mike because the name of this thread
suggested to me that he might think there's a supply-related bug, and
I wanted to make sure he (and others reading this, of course)
understood the situation. I responded to a single one of your
complaints because I thought it would have seemed rude to ignore your
post while responding to his.
Mike Kreuzer
news:a6b6383d-5d82-471e...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Mike,
> The supply depots issue is unrelated to the AI -- both humans and the
> AI can do this. What you are observing is something that we changed
> based on feedback regarding the original COG, and something that we
> have been considering changing further. We were discussing this late
> in testing and decided to get more opinions. What you are seeing,
> then, is definitely WAD: the only question is whether we will further
> tighten the rules for how supply chains function.
>
So the French start a supply chain at the Russian border. Then the supply
chain gets cut, but it still works with the supply source now being any
occupied city in the chain, including ones that weren't legitimate supply
sources before they were in the supply chain, including ones right at the
end of the chain. This includes supplying a French army in Moscow, from
Moscow, with the supply magically coming from nowhere.
This may be working as designed, but this is a bad design.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
ryand...@yahoo.com
> what I wrote.
Listen to yourself again. You said in a PBEM game you tried to put
Prussia through some minor reforms which forced you to surrender.
Your basic message was that something like that could have caused
France to surrender in my game after wiping the floor with Europe,
yes? So the flow of the entire game could depend on the country's AI
making some minor governmental reforms? As opposed to something
inconsequential like major battles?
And then you say this is a game without systemic problems?
Anyway, I give up. I have wasted enough time trying to play this
thing without wasting more time writing about it.
at...@suddenlink.net
> "Gil R." <g...@west-civ.com> wrote in message
I'm not sure that's bad design, assuming I correctly understand the
issue. Napoleon's original plan *was* to draw all supply from Moscow
upon its capture. We're talking food and fodder here, and that
ordinarily would be available. The problem was, that the Russians
were able to burn Moscow, removing it as a valid source of supply.
It's certainly possible that Moscow is not burned, and the Grande
Armee successfully winters there as the French expected. The burning
of Moscow should not be a foregone conclusion in my opinion, as it was
one of those "special events" whose actual probability of occurring
we're not completely sure about.
Raymond O'Hara
<at...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:1a17993d-2a74-47ec...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it wasn't an accident that it was burned,
the russians employed a scorced earth policy.
and if the game doesn't allow for that then it's a design flaw.
Mike Kreuzer
news:gp1ao5$e5g$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I'm left wondering whether he thinks Nappy's plan was also to just stumble
across his communications. Were the Russians going to capture his messages,
then drop them off again somewhere convenient? And let's not mention
ammunition. Or equipment. Or look at how French morale collapsed when the
road West was cut for a few days in September ... seems they're all "special
events".
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Gil R.
Mike, I'm not sure if you saw it before posting, but there has been
further discussion of this in the thread that you originally linked to
up above, including a post by our lead developer Eric Babe. It may or
may not satisfy you personally, but it will definitely explain the
thinking as regards supply chains in COG/COG:EE past, present and
future.
Gil R.
You're commenting on an aspect of the game that I am not sure you
understand (which is perfectly understandable if you only played in
the "simple" economy mode). In the "advanced" economy mode, feudalism
can be quite significant, as is especially the case with Prussia.
What I did in my beta-testing game was essentially take a country with
strong elements of feudalism and attempt to eliminate them very
rapidly. When one lowers the level of feudalism in COG:EE there is
something like a 15% chance of a sharp plummet in national morale --
think of it as massive unrest due to sudden economic changes -- and
the chance of this is greater if one does what I did. I got unlucky
and was hit by that morale collapse, causing Prussia to pull out of
its war with France and Sweden (which wasn't a very hot war at the
time, anyway). Imagine Prussia's leadership realizing that the
domestic situation has become so serious that it can't focus on its
expansionist efforts -- that's what happened. To call that "some
minor governmental reforms" is simply not accurate.
As I wrote before, I don't know why France surrendered in the game you
were playing, but there must have been a reason for it. If you
somehow missed that reason it might be that we failed to have the
Event Report explain that reason clearly, which we should look at.
Since by now it seems you've uninstalled the game it won't be possible
to examine your save files, but at some point this situation is bound
to reappear and be reported by another player, so eventually it will
be solved -- whether it's a rules issue, a data-files issue, or an
information feedback issue.
Lastly, I mentioned your comment about the Swedes' diplomatic frenzy
to our developer, since I hadn't previously thought that a problem,
and he says that during this period Sweden actually WAS engaged in
something of a diplomatic frenzy, with a series of alliances,
unalliances, realliances, etc. So what you described seeing indicates
that strategic AI for Sweden was doing what it should have been doing.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> issue. Napoleon's original plan *was* to draw all supply from Moscow
> upon its capture. We're talking food and fodder here, and that
> ordinarily would be available. The problem was, that the Russians
> were able to burn Moscow, removing it as a valid source of supply.
> It's certainly possible that Moscow is not burned, and the Grande
> Armee successfully winters there as the French expected. The burning
> of Moscow should not be a foregone conclusion in my opinion, as it was
> one of those "special events" whose actual probability of occurring
> we're not completely sure about.
Interesting but a couple of things to think about. Firstly, there is
a difference between a plundered city and a supply source; the latter
in gaming terms often represents a point in the flow of national
resources to an army from its zone of origin, either the home country
or an established captured or allied territory (would that be a fair
definition?).
Secondly, supply is not just food and fodder, but also replacement
arms and ammunition, replacement animals, clothing, tentage,
harnessware, etc.
Thirdly, even if Moscow was not burned, to assume that the Russians
would not have removed/destroyed supplies is assuming a lot; I can't
imagine Napoleon assuming this. I wouldn't and I have to admit that
despite my odd PBEM success Napoleon was probably a better commander
than I. Assuming that, that would leave not the city but the
surrounding countryside for some amount of food and fodder. And if
path to Moscow was of little use to the Grande Armee in harvest time,
the lands around Moscow in Winter couldn't be expected to yield up
much.
All this reminds me of "Panzer General thinking". You take an enemy
city by parachute one turn, next turn your are building tank units
deep in the enemy rear.
ryand...@yahoo.com
comments. You are saying I am missing the point, not understanding
etc. Fine. I am a particularly stupid consumer. Perhaps specify
minimum IQ in the System Requirements. Now onto those comments before
I waste more time on this:
> You're commenting on an aspect of the game that I am not sure you
> understand (which is perfectly understandable if you only played in
> the "simple" economy mode). In the "advanced" economy mode, feudalism
> can be quite significant, as is especially the case with Prussia.
This is OK with CIV, but changing internal governmental arrangements
with the potential of knocking the world's major superpower out of a
game with a timescale as limited as this? Hello?
> expansionist efforts -- that's what happened. To call that "some
> minor governmental reforms" is simply not accurate.
It is accurate relative to the possible effect of *knocking France out
of a Napoleonic wargame*. Let me say that again. Knocking France
out of a Napoleonic wargame. What happens after that? Tolstoy called
it "War and Peace" not "Knitting and Peace" (I just checked he
definitely did not call it "Knitting and Peace").
> As I wrote before, I don't know why France surrendered in the game you
> were playing, but there must have been a reason for it. If you
> somehow missed that reason it might be that we failed to have the
> Event Report explain that reason clearly, which we should look at.
> Since by now it seems you've uninstalled the game it won't be possible
> to examine your save files, but at some point this situation is bound
> to reappear and be reported by another player, so eventually it will
> be solved -- whether it's a rules issue, a data-files issue, or an
> information feedback issue.
If after winning massive battles France gets *knocked out of a
Napoleonic wargame* (have I mentioned that before?) then in all
likelihood there are other issues under the hood that will just add up
to wasted gaming time. Not into co-development or testing software.
Spent too much time doing that down the years. And too much money for
the privilege.
> Lastly, I mentioned your comment about the Swedes' diplomatic frenzy
> to our developer, since I hadn't previously thought that a problem,
> and he says that during this period Sweden actually WAS engaged in
> something of a diplomatic frenzy, with a series of alliances,
> unalliances, realliances, etc. So what you described seeing indicates
> that strategic AI for Sweden was doing what it should have been doing.
Every month? For the duration of the game? And what about all the
other crap I mentioned? Don't tell me you have an historian on hand
who wrote "Crescent against Crown: The Turkish Blockade of
Portsmouth"???
This whole saga has left me perplexed. On the one hand, I have gotten
into the habit of not buying games until a few patches come out
(except for Panther Games and this sorry experience). But if
everybody did this there would be few wargame developers left. Going
to have to think this one through.
Mike Kreuzer
Yes I read it, & it no it doesn't satisfy me - for all the reasons already
mentioned.
I suppose we must just have very different ideas about lines of
communication & why they might be kind of important in a wargame.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Gil R.
Based on the time of your post, it's quite possible that you didn't
see the subsequent post by Eric in that thread indicating that we are
indeed likely to make a change to the supply rules. Nothing official
yet, but I'd say it's unofficially official.
Gil R.
I, too, am happy to let this discussion drop. One thing that has
become clear to me over the years is that every game has the people
who like it and the people who don't. COG:EE obviously isn't the
right game for you. To give an example, based on your posts: you are
understandably bothered by the ahistoricity of the Ottoman fleet
ending up off the coast of the U.K., but other people like to have a
game that doesn't conform perfectly to history and instead let's them
enjoy a few what-ifs. In the original COG, not only was it possible
for the Ottoman fleet to make it out beyond the Mediterranean, but
Cossack units would reach France, and *this* bothered people quite a
bit. So in COG:EE the Cossacks are limited in terms of their
geographical range; but, since there was no such outcry over the
Ottoman fleets, no similar coding has been implemented. If enough
players on our forum indicate that they hate this then of course we'll
consider making a change. (I might also add that I can think of at
least one popular Napoleonic board game that lets the Ottomans sail
beyond the Mediterranean. So it's not as if this is unprecedented.)
I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing "knocking France out of a
Napoleonic wargame." If France is defeated and surrenders, it's not
taken out of the game -- it agrees to a surrender treaty and gives up
some territory, some money, some ships, whatever. The game continues
until one nation reaches the target number of "Glory" points.
As for Sweden, what you're describing is mathematically impossible.
When wars end in COG:EE there is an enforced period of peace between
the previously warring nations of eighteen months (or nine months for
a "limited" surrender), so with seven other nations there just simply
aren't enough nations in the game for Sweden to be declaring war on or
surrendering to one of them each month, as you've twice stated. Maybe
you saw Sweden declaring war on minor powers/countries that are
nearby, but that's what it should be doing if it wants to gain
territory.
My final thought on this would be that we will continue to listen to
player feedback, both on the Matrix forum and in threads elsewhere on
the internet, and if there are issues that are troubling a significant
number of players we'll fix them. So you might want to see what's in
future patches, since perhaps one or two things that bothered you will
be changed.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In the original COG, not only was it possible
> for the Ottoman fleet to make it out beyond the Mediterranean, but
> Cossack units would reach France, and *this* bothered people quite a
> bit.
I wonder why. In 1814 Russian troops including Cossacks stormed
Montmartre heights in order to capture Paris and in 1815 the Cossacks
were actually the first Allied troops entering Paris after Waterloo.
But the Ottoman fleet ... a fleet is more than just a bunch of wooden
platforms that can go everywhere they please, it needs friendly
harbours, dockyards and supply sources nearby. A Napoleonic type army
can subsist practically everywhere, but a navy that far from friendly
waters looks a bit gamey to me.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
But the Turkish fleet moored in the channel is *unrealistic*.
And I understand that you have a commercial imperative to defend
against my criticism (or rather, against me: I am missing the point;
not understanding the game; it's not my type of game etc.). But if I
bought WPP and after conquering much of the map and winning major
battles Japan suddenly surrendered, I would be peeved. I would be
even more peeved if I discovered it was on foot of some kind of
internal governmental reform well short of regime change.
This game has serious, objective gameplay problems and you would be
better off trying to fix them than defending the product which in its
current state is defending the indefensible.
But the fact that you see no problem playing a Napoleonic era wargame
where France is offside for much of it suggests to me that you miss
the point of the era - dealing with the strategic imbalance that
France caused - and the whole thing could be bug free but a
ridiculous design.
Gil R.
Well, I don't do the coding, and I'm not even the main designer, so my
time spent posting this has zero impact on the quality of the game or
speed at which it is patched. At worst, it is keeping me from working
on the data files for a completely unrelated project.
As for your other points, I do understand what you're saying, but do
not see the "problem" in the same way. At worst, I feel that there
might still be the need for some tweaking of the strategic AI and one
or more of the rules that impact when surrenders can occur (or changes
to one or more morale-related rules). But overall, I believe the
game's design is perfectly sound, even if you did experience what you
experienced.
Bloodstar Eddy Annoyer
I'm not sure that's bad design, assuming I correctly understand the
issue. Napoleon's original plan *was* to draw all supply from Moscow
upon its capture. We're talking food and fodder here, and that
ordinarily would be available. The problem was, that the Russians
were able to burn Moscow, removing it as a valid source of supply.
It's certainly possible that Moscow is not burned, and the Grande
Armee successfully winters there as the French expected. The burning
of Moscow should not be a foregone conclusion in my opinion, as it was
one of those "special events" whose actual probability of occurring
we're not completely sure about.
---
Oh, so it's another time that this Balkan peasant must lecture history here?
OK, it's dirty business but somebody must do it.
First and foremost when Hitler and his generals (Paulus etc...) have planned
Barbarossa they had Napoleon campaign in Russia also as an example (of
course experience from World War 1 was also useful).
One of the biggest problems of Napoleon campaign in Russia was lack of flank
cover. Although flank near Riga with Prussians etc... held a little better,
southern flank that mostly Austrians covered didn't fared so well.
Napoleon planned to defeat Russians in one decisive battle (which Borodino
turned to be not!) or series of battles which will make Russian Tzar sue for
peace.
We are talking about Napoleonic wars not World War 2 here!!!
There was not continous front here! So to say that Napoleon intended to
winter in Moscow was really stupid or even beyond stupidity!
What, do you think that Bagration and Kutuzow would STAY IDLE during winter
and don't probe Napoleon rear and flanks???
Smolensk, Orsha as well proved that were not possible and near Poland to
allow Napoleon to winter there! Imagine supply lines, which were harrased by
Cossacks!
Even Battle of Beresina allowed Napoleon to get away but he escaped as a
pure miracle and Russian stupidity which maybe even allowed him to escape.
Even at that Napoleon at Beresina had tremendeous losses. In soldiers and
non combatants as well. At one time Russians even brought cannons at shoot
at masses that were waiting to cross the bridges. Napoleon escaped because
Russians believed that he will cross the river more to the south. And they
didn't destroyed causeways in swamps which if they destroyed Napoleon army
would perish.
Hmmm, I was thinking what battles in Napolenic wars would be good for a
wargames, Beresina, Leipzig?
Mario
Raymond O'Hara
"Bloodstar Eddy Annoyer" <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:gp66la$1gd$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...
one of the biggest myths is that the winter defeated Napoleon and hitler,
it was the distance. it was just too far from home and there were no good
roads.
trivia
even today Ohio has more miles of paved roads than Russia does.
its twice as far from New York to L.A. as it is from Paris to Moscow.
Bloodstar Eddy Annoyer
> it was the distance. it was just too far from home and there were no good
> roads.
>
> trivia
> even today Ohio has more miles of paved roads than Russia does.
> its twice as far from New York to L.A. as it is from Paris to Moscow.
With that I could agree...
I've heard that Russian "highways" between Smolensk and Moscow are not much
better than 50 years ago...
So if some new Hitler wants to attack Russia again hehe...
OK one joke:
Hitler was somehow ressurected and he calls in press conference... And he
started to speak: "For a start, I will kill one million Jews and a
clown!"... One journalist interrupts him and asks "Sorry Mr. Hitler but can
you explain why you will kill a clown?".
Hitler turn to his associate and says "Did I say to you that nobody will ask
about the Jews?"
;-)
Mario
ryand...@yahoo.com
> time spent posting this has zero impact on the quality of the game or
> speed at which it is patched. At worst, it is keeping me from working
> on the data files for a completely unrelated project.
I can see part of the problem now. Anybody involved with this game
should be right now testing like crazy in order to get the patches out
ASAP.
I have read through these posts and I have reflected on your efforts
to defend your product and also the personlization and rhetorical
chicanery designed to leave the impression that I am the problem
(don't understand, miss the point, not suitable for this type of game,
my expectations wrong, etc.) . It has made me think a little about
the general trend for developers to fight a war for their game on
discussion boards, either by banning people, deleting posts,
aggressive advocacy of their game, "leave no post unstoned", etc. (I
know of one developer who has referred to fighting negative posts by
consumers as playing "whack a mole").
Everybody is entitled to make their comment, nobody can and should
police Usenet, of course. But it seems to me that a developer (and
other team members) should show some restraint on discussion boards
and Usenet in defence of their product. As a community service, on a
purely voluntary basis. (I will point out here that the better
developers do just this).
Why?
I know there is money on the line for developers, but allowing a
better atmosphere for consumers to discuss the merits of the game
amongst each other - provide room for discussion among consumers, as
it were - might be good for developers too. There have been
discussions where the only people to say anything positive about a
game were the developer and associates (this may be one of them, so
far?) and that is not a good advertisement. And frantic scrambles to
defend make it look like there is a lot to defend sometimes.
Well, you got the last round of money from me. Have a post-mortem when
the dust has settles from this and think about how you might prevent
other wargame consumers from avoiding you in the future. It's a
process that might even help "Western Civilization Software" have a
future. But only if you are wise enough to listen, not just defend.
Gil R.
For someone who wanted this conversation to end, you sure like
continuing it. So what the hell...
First, your comment about how I should be testing patches is
pointless, since I have nothing to test. When a new build is ready
then of course I'll test it. Do you think I can magically test code
that has been partly written, or not yet written because we're waiting
for more input?
And yes, you're absolutely right that my comments have partly been
aimed at other readers who might be considering the game. I don't
think I'd be clever enough to be able to hide that. But you're wrong
about my trying to play "whack a mole." The fact is, I let critical
comments about the game pass all the time, both here and elsewhere.
Bloodstar wrote something negative a week ago, Eddy wrote something
critical just yesterday, Mike Kreuzer has written several negative
comments here (not to mention a negative review at his blog), and
there are probably some others I've forgotten, but I didn't respond to
any of these, even though I certainly could have. Why? Because I DO
NOT try to refute every negative comment about COG:EE (or FOF, for
that matter). In your case, as I previously noted, I responded mainly
because I was responding to Mike and thought it might look odd to
pretend your post didn't exist. This was a temporary lapse in
judgment -- usually I ignore critical posts of a subjective nature.
But instead I responded to just one aspect of your post, and once the
conversation continued I responded to other parts. If I had wanted to
"whack" you I would have dealt with your entire post at once. But
instead, I let pass the bit about the Ottoman navy, your comment about
Salvador Dali (which I enjoyed, by the way), and whatever else you
wrote, only addressing it once you responded to me. Is this really a
"whack a mole" strategy?!?
While my posts were indeed partly aimed at a broader readership, I
also did have in mind the notion that you might come to like the game
if you 1) understood it better and 2) had the patience to see whether
in our upcoming patch(es) we change the things you don't like. Last
night I almost recommended that since your main objections -- with the
exception of the surrender rule -- are related to the strategic AI you
try a PBEM game, but I didn't because I figured that if you were into
PBEM you wouldn't need me to make that suggestion. Despite your
comment about WCS having your money, it gives us no pleasure to have a
customer buy the game, play it for a few days, decide he hates it and
then uninstall it. If you were to give the game -- a game which you
yourself said you enjoyed for the first few years into it -- more
time, or more of a chance to grow, you might find that your purchase
wasn't a mistake after all.
Raymond O'Hara
a very old joke.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> continuing it. So what the hell...
Hey, I don't recall saying that!
> First, your comment about how I should be testing patches is
> pointless, since I have nothing to test. When a new build is ready
> then of course I'll test it. Do you think I can magically test code
> that has been partly written, or not yet written because we're waiting
> for more input?
This reinforces my point. You should be testing what you have already
released into the wild to speed up the quality cycle rather than
sitting back counting the money while the likes of me shake their
heads at the screen.
Look, pushing people away from an initial release purchase and forcing
them to wait to see how the patching pans out is self-defeating, as
when a big patch does eventually come out (assuming it does) there
will be other claims on folks' increasingly scarce cash, e.g. a game
from a developer with a reputation for a polished initial release; or
a major breakthrough game such as WPP; or a utility bill. The market
and consumer attention moves on and those who spot the patch
announcement and research the game further will just see old
discussion board posts describing issues, a press release describing
the patch in the same glowing terms that accompanied the flawed
initial release, and a much smaller, less active community (if
anybody). A few iterations of that and your initial release sales
will be badly hit. So get working on the game. Don't wait for a new
build to "magically" appear. Test the hell out of this and try and
see what the problems are yourselves. Don't wait for the customers/
beta testers/whatever it is you call them.
> And yes, you're absolutely right that my comments have partly been
> aimed at other readers who might be considering the game. I don't
> think I'd be clever enough to be able to hide that. But you're wrong
> about my trying to play "whack a mole."
In fairness I was making a general comment about developers, and the
"whack a mole" was quoting another developer about their attitude (I
was horrified and made my that clear to him!). But the general thrust
of that paragraph holds true here. Obviously I hit a nerve. I am
just surprised Erik isn't on the case as well (Erik are you OK?)
> Despite your comment about WCS having your money, it gives us no pleasure to have a
> customer buy the game, play it for a few days, decide he hates it and
> then uninstall it. If you were to give the game -- a game which you
> yourself said you enjoyed for the first few years into it -- more
> time, or more of a chance to grow, you might find that your purchase
> wasn't a mistake after all.
I actually had high hopes. The first COG was a bit of a let down.
FOF was weak to start with but got better with the patch. And the
first few turns were fun until that cold, $50 minus voucher
realisation ran down my spine. You won't get my money a fourth time.
But you've got my advice and input for free, so that isn't bad is it?
Gil R.
There is no need for me to put my life on hold to test COG:EE night
and day. How do I know this? Putting aside my own impressions of the
game from pre-release testing, I have the evidence of feedback from a
lot of players. At this point, COG:EE has been out for more than a
week, meaning that sales have undoubtedly reached the four-figures
mark. And yet the problem you complained of, the seemingly
unaccountable surrender of France right after two major military
victories, is not something being widely reported. In fact, I think
I've seen just a few (2? 3? 4?) complaints on our forum about
surrenders that made no sense to the player. So while you might be
100% correct that there should not have been a surrender in the
situation you encountered -- whatever that situation actually was -- I
have 0% doubt that it is not a problem that is wrecking the game for
most other players (if any). There are certainly a few issues that
need addressing, and will be addressed, but I hardly need to go into a
frenzy of playing the game 24-7 in order for this to happen.
And I don't think that indicating to people that we plan to make
improvements via patches is pushing them away. First, I was
addressing you specifically, since you obviously have the potential to
like the game, but might like it more after a few tweaks here and
there. Second, I think the people who read this thread are smart
enough not to buy a game because a developer says it's fine and not to
not buy it because a customer says it isn't, but rather to get a
broader sense of the reaction to the game. And third, lots of people
these days understandably wait until a game has been patched to buy
it, and I have absolutely no problem with someone taking a wait-and-
see approach to COG:EE if these horror stories they're reading about
hyperactive Swedish diplomats and spontaneous surrenders make them
leery. Maybe a few impulse buyers will be lost because they forget
about the game and move on to some newer release, but most people who
are interested in this game will still be interested in it a few weeks
from now.
As for Erik, if he thought I was acting in an unjustifiable manner I'm
sure he would have shot me an e-mail by now. (How about that sentence
for a neat rhetorical trick? See how I've coopted him into agreeing
with my posts?)
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Bloodstar wrote something negative a week ago,
Well, most people would call you sane if you just ignored that. That
mole has been whacked so many times he doesn't know his front from his
back.
> Eddy wrote something critical just yesterday
>, Mike Kreuzer has written several negative
> comments here (not to mention a negative review at his blog), and
> there are probably some others I've forgotten, but I didn't respond to
> any of these, even though I certainly could have. Why? Because I DO
> NOT try to refute every negative comment about COG:EE
It's a waste of time and would work counter-productive anyway, but I
do understand that a customer who has bought the original CoG, then
FoF and now CoG:EE might be a bit disappointed. I try to never blame a
game for something it wasn't meant to do and to me CoG:EE is more
designed to be level playing field for multiplayer games set in the
Napoleonic era than a France versus the rest single-player against the
AI game.
That's a design philosophy, and it allows players to play any of the
major nations and do something their historical counterpart would
never have done. This is both a strenght and a weakness. I wouldn't
have minded if the game was entirely structured on the France vs The
Rest historical basis as we already have a free-for-all multiplayer
game set in Napoleonic times called Empires in Arms.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
astrosmurf
Cute. But <a href=http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/
ECAEXT/EXTECAREGTOPTRANSPORT/0,,contentMDK:20647578~pagePK:
34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:571121,00.html>the first hit on
Google on 'roads russia'</A> says that Russia's road network is around
800,000 kilometers, while <A HREF=http://www.bts.gov/publications/
state_transportation_statistics/ohio/html/table_01_01.html>the first
hit on 'roads ohio'</A> says that Ohio has about 200,000.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> and day. How do I know this? Putting aside my own impressions of the
> game from pre-release testing, I have the evidence of feedback from a
> lot of players.
The issues I mentioned were only the funniest of the funny ones. The
surrender of France so early is merely indicative of this turkey. And
obviously serious enough to warrant the Usenet Police, it would
appear. If it were such a small issue why put so much effort into
countering public discussion of it?
You actually seem to have no problem spending time batting criticism
on Usenet while preparing for another sales opportunity with the game
in this condition, and leave it to gamers to test.
Amazing.
I really wonder about the future of PC wargaming. The only glimmer of
hope I have is that your approach is not universal.
And believe me, I am not angry at you; you're a business and I respect
that. I am angry at me for breaking my rule of following the
developer, not the subject matter, and wasting my money.
Erik
> surrender of France so early is merely indicative of this turkey. And
> obviously serious enough to warrant the Usenet Police, it would
> appear. If it were such a small issue why put so much effort into
> countering public discussion of it?
>
> You actually seem to have no problem spending time batting criticism
> on Usenet while preparing for another sales opportunity with the game
> in this condition, and leave it to gamers to test.
Two logical fallacies in a row. First, the idea that because the
developer responds to a customer's reported issue, that means the
issue must be very important and very severe, otherwise there would be
no response. In fact, one of Gil's duties as part of the _team_ is to
check the various wargamer forums and respond where he is able to help
out customers or potential customers. Gil already pointed out that
there are a large number of gamers playing this game and very few
reports of issues, but he has still responded in many places to both
issues large and small. While we are responding, tracking and working
on the reported issues overall the vast majority of feedback has been
very positive and problem-free compared to most releases. This is
data you seem to be choosing to ignore, but which the developer and
publisher are taking into account in our estimation of the solidity of
the release. This does not change the priority we put on post-release
support, it's just an observation. Your issue report was noted and
included in the list of issues to be investigated. If you would like
to help make sure it's found and fixed, since you seem to be in a very
small minority that has experienced it, please either e-mail or post a
save file that duplicates the issue. That will save the developer a
tremendous amount of time and speed any resolution.
Second, the idea that paying attention to the feedback from the large
pool of customers post-release is somehow "leaving it to gamers to
test". The fact is that any game has bugs that are only discovered
post release. If you took any piece of computer software and let 20
people use it for a year and then let several thousand people use it
for a week, you'd get new issues reported even if the smaller test
team was thoroughly happy that the software was bug-free. Also, every
team has people with different specialties and responsibilities.
Among other things, Gil enjoys participating in the discussions across
the internet and provides a valuable service to the team by both
representing the developers there and gathering any issue reports he
finds to report back to the team for investigation.
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
> The fact is that any game has bugs that are only discovered
> post release. If you took any piece of computer software and let 20
> people use it for a year and then let several thousand people use it
> for a week, you'd get new issues reported even if the smaller test
> team was thoroughly happy that the software was bug-free.
I can attest to that - a factor which is often overlooked is playing
style - everyone's approach to a game is differerent, hence the
problems the beta bunnies encounter are often directly related to how
they play a particular game. To put it in its simplest form : another
beta bunny will find bugs which I wouldn't have encountered in a
million years and vice versa. Only the most obvious bugs or gameplay
issues will be reported by more than one beta bunny, all the rest are
singleton observations. For me COTA on release was rock solid - and
then it needed 4 patches ... Same thing with the upcoming BFTB - I
played one of the longer scenarios from both sides this week - total
playing time of 10 hours upwards and encountered 1 non-fatal
reproducable bug and 1 other thing which looks a bit fishy. I bet you
someone else playing the same scenario could maybe let it crash within
the first 5 minutes.
That person could than rightfully complain about "being a paying beta
tester" - that's life I suppose. Every developer knows bloody well if
that which he releases is a bugfest or not, but no developer will ever
think he's going to release a completely bugfree release.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
points, bugs will always leak out and there is always a role for users
to feedback issues. The issue here is the *degree* to which this has
happened, and the approach to quality and also the "discussion
management", i.e. attacking critics of a game as a means of
controlling public consumer reaction. I think having Gil police
discussion boards is counter-productive to the company he represents,
quite apart from his offensive methods of arguing customers down.
But OK! OK! I'll shut up! It's a great game!
PS Anybody know a discussion board that Gil doesn't know about and
where it's safe to discuss wargames? Email me.
Gil R.
Gamershall.de. I *am* registered there, but my German's not good
enough for me to follow the discussion.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> enough for me to follow the discussion.
Isn't it enough for Matrix to own wargamer.com as well as trying to
control discussion boards as well?
eddys...@hotmail.com
> and also the "discussion
> management", i.e. attacking critics of a game as a means of
> controlling public consumer reaction.
<looks around> where ?
> I think having Gil police discussion boards is counter-productive to the company he represents,
"police" ? - Usenet's still a free speech area. You're free to express
your displeasure with the game, he's free to counter this. Seems a
level playing ground to me and if your case is strong enough your
points should easily outweigh anything a company rep says to counter
them. But he has every right to be here to defend his game, just like
you have every right to be here and complain about it.
> quite apart from his offensive methods of arguing customers down.
<looks around again> where ?
> PS Anybody know a discussion board that Gil doesn't know about and
> where it's safe to discuss wargames? Email me.
You've made this pretty personal and I really fail to see why. Ok, the
game is not what you thought it would be. Same here. But I really fail
to see where Mr. Renberg has insulted you so much as you make it out
to be.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
> game is not what you thought it would be. Same here. But I really fail
> to see where Mr. Renberg has insulted you so much as you make it out
Well, I think you are probably right. I think placing the blame for
issues with me rather than on my issues with the game peeved me off
as cheap debating tricks but clearly I should not have been so
offended. I don't think my sarcastic tone helped either but alas
that's how I interact with the world. Gil clearly crossed the line in
dismissing my problems as "horror stories" which as a paying customer
who bought the game in good faith and was bitterly disappointed was un-
warranted.
And absolutely Gil or any company representative has every right to
post and participate and defend their game, I just don't think it
serves their purpose very well (e.g. those hilarious discussions where
the only people praising the game are developers that I have seen on
some boards & which are a very poor argument for a game). I think the
game needed more work judging from my negative experiences with it,
and I repeat the point that depending too much on patches and initial
feedback runs the risk of killing off initial sales which is bad for
all devs and the industry. But in general I accept your points (and
apologies for recommending the game while in my first flush of
enthusism for it - you bought it because of my earlier post - I can't
be blamed for not having an open mind!)
Erik
From our perspective as a publisher, COG: EE has been very much a "low
problem" release. The development team is hard at work on those
issues that have been reported and the first update should clear those
up as well as making some other adjustments based on customer
feedback. I respect that your personal experience has been
disappointing, but with all due respect that does not outweigh the
experiences of all the other customers.
Also, I have not seen Gil attack you or "police" this forum (if that
were even possible). I also think you're overreacting to Gil's
posts. It's worth remembering that the internet is a very poor way of
communicating intent, tone or attitude. Usually when you base your
response on these, unless it's extremely blatant, you may be basing it
on your own feelings rather than what the writer intended. I always
try to give the poster the benefit of the doubt if there is _any_
wiggle room on what the tone of something was intended to be. Far
more often than not, when I've assumed otherwise I've been wrong.
Knowing Gil, I think that's an excellent bet here too.
Regards,
- Erik
finbogey
If you think anyone, let alone Matrix, controls this group, change
your meds.
I've followed this discussion. Sure, Gil may have stuck up for his
game, but all along the thread he also offered to report your "bug",
pass along your feedback, etc. He sounded pretty even-handed to me. If
you want to see what it's like when a company flak turns a real
problem into the customer's fault, go complain about DRM to SES.
-Fin
"We should shoot one banker a week until the others improve."
Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London
BP
>Isn't it enough for Matrix to own wargamer.com as well as trying to
>control discussion boards as well?
This is not a discussion board. This is a usenet newsgroup. Nobody
"controls" it.
Are you objecting to Gil speaking up here in response to your posts?
Sounds like you are the one seeking control, not Gil.
BP
ryand...@yahoo.com
car. I go on a public group to shoot the breeze about my very
negative experiences about it. A salesman from the company, whose job
it is to monitor discussion groups, come online and with a purely
commercial motive tries to convince the reading public that I don't
have a problem, the problem is with my understanding of the car or
with my expectations, very few people report these problems and my
gripes were "horror stories". Another staff member of the company
comes on and tells me to essentially stop being emotional.
That salesman has every right to do his job and protect his commercial
interests on a public forum. But it would leave a bad taste in a
customer's mouth, wouldn't it? It's one of the reasons I would not
buy a fourth WCS game and will also stop giving custom to Matrix games
(after I would say eight years? Eight years already!!!!).
I hope I have made myself clearer.
finbogey
You're just as clear as you have been all along. The only thing is, I
never felt the salesman from the company was " with a purely
commercial motive tries to convince the reading public that I don't
have a problem, the problem is with my understanding of the car or
with my expectations, very few people report these problems and my
gripes were "horror stories"." I thought he was defending his game and
trying to be helpful at the same time. Sure, he might have been a tad
defensive, but you've made a mountain out of a molehill.
If things were in any way as you see them, you can be sure there would
have been a few others chiming in to support your position. (Maybe
some will yet.) Until then, you can keep thinking we're not
understanding you. Wrong. We understand you perfectly. I understand
you perfectly. I just don't agree with you.
-Fin
ryand...@yahoo.com
> you perfectly. I just don't agree with you.
Fair enough - thanks for the feedback. Happy I was getting the point
across.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> (and apologies for recommending the game while in my first flush of
> enthusism for it - you bought it because of my earlier post
Not really - I'm an impulse buyer and being able to download and play
*right now* is my undoing :)
My feeling for the game is a bit ambivalent - I see what they're
trying to do : make every major power playable in a Napoleonic
setting, while the Napoleonic wars in my eyes were pretty much France
vs Whomever the English could buy / persuade to enter coalition x - a
2-player game in other words.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
> trying to do : make every major power playable in a Napoleonic
> setting, while the Napoleonic wars in my eyes were pretty much France
> vs Whomever the English could buy / persuade to enter coalition x - a
> 2-player game in other words.
And I think that's the design choice that's at the root of the issue
for me. There is a difference between a "Napoleonic-era" wargame
(i.e. addressing the strategic imbalance caused by France) and a
strategy game set in a European sandbox within the first couple of
decades of the 19th century with, in my experience, the possibility of
a timid and pacifist France. Alternative history, sure. Nothing
wrong with that per se. But not "Napoleonic era" as I would see it.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Yeah, well, that's why I said a couple of post ago that I find it hard
to blame a game for something it doesn't try to be. It's a sandbox
indeed, so should be evaluated on whether it's a good sandbox or one
with some dog poop (still) in it.
I've already taken a look at the scenario files to see if they're
moddable, they're ascii files, but without an outline of what's in
there it's pretty hard to mod stuff even if the engine could be
massaged into a 2-player game.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
> to blame a game for something it doesn't try to be.
Well, the blurb says, "Every effort has been made to bring you as
thorough a simulation of the Napoleonic Era as is possible". I think
there's confusion in the design, as it has elements of Napoleonic era,
elements of sandbox, even some CIV-like elements.
> I've already taken a look at the scenario files to see if they're
> moddable, they're ascii files, but without an outline of what's in
> there it's pretty hard to mod stuff even if the engine could be
> massaged into a 2-player game.
Or Plan B for an AI game would, aside from fixing other AI issues I
have mentioned, would be to beef up the aggression levels for the
French on both the diplomacy and AI sides and also extract much
greater costs for suing for peace with them; also seriously look at
surrender conditions.
Frank E
I recall a similar discussion happening when they released their civil
war game where both sides started the war wtih fleets of ironclads.
Seems like many of the arguments used to justify that are the same
ones that are being used in this thread.
In other words, making sure that their games follow a somewhat
historical timeline isn't very high on their list of priorities, and
it takes a back seat to what they consider 'good gameplay'. It's not
an approach that really appeals to me but based on their track record
it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> In other words, making sure that their games follow a somewhat
> historical timeline isn't very high on their list of priorities, and
> it takes a back seat to what they consider 'good gameplay'. It's not
> an approach that really appeals to me but based on their track record
> it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Not if I had stopped and thought about it - which I didn't :)
A curse on digital download I say - oh, well, 30 euros, that's the
amount I paid for 2 pizzas last night because I didn't feel like
cooking diner - no biggie :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Erik
> In other words, making sure that their games follow a somewhat
> historical timeline isn't very high on their list of priorities, and
> it takes a back seat to what they consider 'good gameplay'. It's not
> an approach that really appeals to me but based on their track record
> it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I don't know about that - these guys are very well versed in their
history in my experience but in the case of FOF's standard scenario
they listened to the wrong feedback. I agree that the original FOF
scenario was not extremely historical. However, that was in response
to player feedback after COG suggesting a more "Balanced" scenario was
more desireable. As soon as post-release feedback suggested
otherwise, two very historical scenarios were added in post-release
updates (and those are the ones I play as well in FOF). Have you
tried the post-release "more historical" scenarios? By the way, those
starting southern Ironclads were IIRC removed in the update a week
after release of FOF so while they were in at release they certainly
didn't last long. This group is very responsive and if anyone reports
a problem with a scenario, they'll look at it and fix it if possible.
Also, COG: EE comes with a LOT of scenarios. Based on my playing,
most are very historical. I also see France as pretty darn dominant
in most of these scenarios, but the victory conditions are set (as in
EIA) to make it possible for any country to "win" even if they don't
necessarily dominate the map. I also see very historical OOBs and
pretty historical AI play. However, FWIW, the first update is already
going to tweak things based on feedback like this to make it a little
more along the lines of "France vs. the World" as far as alliance/DOW
preferences in my understanding. If you think it's currently not
historical, it would be helpful to tell us which scenario you find
lacking and in what way.
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
> However, FWIW, the first update is already
> going to tweak things based on feedback like this to make it a little
> more along the lines of "France vs. the World" as far as alliance/DOW
> preferences in my understanding.
Well, I'm giving it another go post-patch then.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
wrote:
>
>> In other words, making sure that their games follow a somewhat
>> historical timeline isn't very high on their list of priorities, and
>> it takes a back seat to what they consider 'good gameplay'. It's not
>> an approach that really appeals to me but based on their track record
>> it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
>
>I don't know about that - these guys are very well versed in their
>history in my experience
Agreed, but historic detail/flavor doesn't equal historic accuracy.
For example (not sure if this is relevant to FoF), it's nice flavor if
I'm playing a civil war game and have a choice of 10 different,
historically accurate, rifles that I can use to equip my troops. But
if I also have the possibility to micromanage my economy so that I
only build and equip my troops with Sharp repeater rifles, then you
have a problem with historical accuracy.
> but in the case of FOF's standard scenario
>they listened to the wrong feedback. I agree that the original FOF
>scenario was not extremely historical. However, that was in response
>to player feedback after COG suggesting a more "Balanced" scenario was
>more desireable. As soon as post-release feedback suggested
>otherwise, two very historical scenarios were added in post-release
>updates (and those are the ones I play as well in FOF). Have you
>tried the post-release "more historical" scenarios? By the way, those
>starting southern Ironclads were IIRC removed in the update a week
>after release of FOF so while they were in at release they certainly
>didn't last long. This group is very responsive and if anyone reports
>a problem with a scenario, they'll look at it and fix it if possible.
My guess is that you'll never get a FoF scenario where the player has
to operate within the same constraints as their real-world
counterparts. There are just too many ways for the player to
micromanage and game the system for the developer to catch and balance
them all.
FoF is more of a sandbox game compared to, say, ACW. That approach
didn't really appeal to me for a civil war game, which is my I avoided
FoF, but I don't mind it in a Napoleonic game with more than 2 playble
sides.
Rgds, Frank
Gil R.
through each moddable file and says what's what. We expect that to be
in the first patch.
Regarding that first patch, there is now a beta version available for
the testers to test. Some of the changes will impact France vs. AI
and AI vs. France. As I've previously indicated, tweaks would be made
to the strategic AI once we got a clearer picture of where this needs
to be done, and based on feedback this process has started with a few
relatively simple changes that should have a significant impact. (I
won't go into more detail because we don't discuss what's in a beta-
patch until it's been tested for a while. That way, we don't seem to
promise something that doesn't make it into the final version.)
Erik
> For example (not sure if this is relevant to FoF), it's nice flavor if
> I'm playing a civil war game and have a choice of 10 different,
> historically accurate, rifles that I can use to equip my troops. But
> if I also have the possibility to micromanage my economy so that I
> only build and equip my troops with Sharp repeater rifles, then you
> have a problem with historical accuracy.
Have you played FOF? This seems to me like a hypothetical that
wouldn't be raised if you knew the trade-offs in the game. If you try
equipping your army with Repeater Rifles, you will quickly have an
army that can't keep up with its supplies and you will also have spent
a small fortune that could have better been spent elsewhere. By the
late war, it's affordable to have a few brigades per Corps with
repeaters, but only as long as you have plenty of guys with normal
rifles to reduce the overall supply burden, especially if you also
want to have artillery (which is also a supply hog).
> My guess is that you'll never get a FoF scenario where the player has
> to operate within the same constraints as their real-world
> counterparts. There are just too many ways for the player to
> micromanage and game the system for the developer to catch and balance
> them all.
Actually, the historical scenarios feel pretty darn historical to me
as far as the constraints go. Yes, there's a sandbox approach, but
with historical limits that keep things from going into left field, at
least in my experience. If you're not playing one of the historical
scenarios (I prefer the earliest one) or are playing with options that
boost the economies of each side, then it could be a different story.
> FoF is more of a sandbox game compared to, say, ACW. That approach
> didn't really appeal to me for a civil war game, which is my I avoided
> FoF, but I don't mind it in a Napoleonic game with more than 2 playble
> sides.
I enjoy both games, but frankly I find FOF just as historical as
AACW. They just focus on different scales.
Regards,
- Erik
Gil R.
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Erik <er...@matrixgames.com>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed, but historic detail/flavor doesn't equal historic accuracy.
> For example (not sure if this is relevant to FoF), it's nice flavor if
> I'm playing a civil war game and have a choice of 10 different,
> historically accurate, rifles that I can use to equip my troops. But
> if I also have the possibility to micromanage my economy so that I
> only build and equip my troops with Sharp repeater rifles, then you
> have a problem with historical accuracy.
>
I think what you describe would be very difficult -- have you actually
done this, or seen it done? As a way of keeping players from doing
just this and arming their troops with only the best guns we have
inflationary rules that make the prices become prohibitive once a
production limit (which varies for each gun type) has been reached.
With this particular rifle type that cost begins to skyrocket after
five brigades in the game have them, so to arm even a quarter of one's
brigades would require spending several months' resources on nothing
but those guns.
By the way, regarding the Confederate ironclads in the original
release, the reason for their presence is not that this was a design
decision, but that they were in the data files for testing purposes
and were accidentally left in at the time of release. We got more
criticism for that than for any other aspect of the game, and,
ironically, it wasn't even part of our game design!
Gil R.
Oops, I misread part of your post. I realize that you weren't saying
that this Sharps business definitely could be done in FOF, only that
it seemed like it might be possible. I was reading in a hurry...
Frank E
wrote:
>On Mar 12, 11:13 am, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Erik <er...@matrixgames.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but historic detail/flavor doesn't equal historic accuracy.
>> For example (not sure if this is relevant to FoF), it's nice flavor if
>> I'm playing a civil war game and have a choice of 10 different,
>> historically accurate, rifles that I can use to equip my troops. But
>> if I also have the possibility to micromanage my economy so that I
>> only build and equip my troops with Sharp repeater rifles, then you
>> have a problem with historical accuracy.
>>
>> Rgds, Frank
>
>
>I think what you describe would be very difficult -- have you actually
>done this, or seen it done?
No I haven't, which is why I went out of my way to say that I didn't
know if that example applied to FoF or not. Since I don't own FoF, I
was basing that on playing CoG and what I read about FoF on your
forums when I was debating whether to buy it or not.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that you can't get around that
problem given how your economic model is set up. If you give the
players a chance to micromanage their economy and a zillion potential
upgrades for their units then there has to be some payoff in terms of
what the player can buy or upgrade. If that isn't the case, the whole
economic micromanagement is for naught.
Rgds, Frank
Erik
> Oops, I misread part of your post. I realize that you weren't saying
> that this Sharps business definitely could be done in FOF, only that
> it seemed like it might be possible. I was reading in a hurry...
I did the same thing, sorry.
Erik
> Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that you can't get around that
> problem given how your economic model is set up. If you give the
> players a chance to micromanage their economy and a zillion potential
> upgrades for their units then there has to be some payoff in terms of
> what the player can buy or upgrade. If that isn't the case, the whole
> economic micromanagement is for naught.
The trade-offs are the increasing cost of the weapons and the supply
cost in the field. In my experience, the supply cost in the field is
what really keeps the "wonder weapons" under control. You will
literally have an army in FOF that is permanently at low supply if you
try to equip them all with Spencers. The logistical system of the day
couldn't handle the level of ammo required. You could mitigate that
to some degree with extra improvements in the supply and unit
abilities, but overall it's a very major deterrent even if you were to
divert enough of your economy to producing and equipping your units
with these (and there are always many competing and equally important
economic priorities, equipment upgrades are usually pretty low in the
relative priority scale).
Regards,
- Erik
Gil R.
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:23:32 -0700 (PDT), "Gil R." <g...@west-civ.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 12, 11:13 am, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Erik <er...@matrixgames.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Agreed, but historic detail/flavor doesn't equal historic accuracy.
> >> For example (not sure if this is relevant to FoF), it's nice flavor if
> >> I'm playing a civil war game and have a choice of 10 different,
> >> historically accurate, rifles that I can use to equip my troops. But
> >> if I also have the possibility to micromanage my economy so that I
> >> only build and equip my troops with Sharp repeater rifles, then you
> >> have a problem with historical accuracy.
>
> >> Rgds, Frank
>
> >I think what you describe would be very difficult -- have you actually
> >done this, or seen it done?
>
> problem given how your economic model is set up. If you give the
> players a chance to micromanage their economy and a zillion potential
> upgrades for their units then there has to be some payoff in terms of
> what the player can buy or upgrade. If that isn't the case, the whole
> economic micromanagement is for naught.
>
> Rgds, Frank
The philosophy behind the economic system in FOF is that you actively
put your nation on a war-footing, making decisions about what your
approach to winning will be. So the idea is to build up your economy
in order to increase the size of your forces (not to mention arming
them and supplying them the best you can), putting money into new
technologies (e.g., developments of new guns), enhance your rail
infrastructure, build up your navy, etc. So the payoff to managing
your economy is not that you can field armies that mostly/only have
super-guns, but rather that you can boost your war effort in a number
of areas. And the game is balanced enough that if you go overboard in
one area -- such as either side buying top-of-the-line weapons no
matter how insanely expensive they become, or the South putting its
precious iron supply into ironclads rather than artillery -- you will
weaken yourself enough in other areas that it isn't worth it.
Of course, this philosophy will not appeal to all, and you may well be
among those for whom a different approach is best. But that's what
our design approach was, at any rate.
Raymond O'Hara
"astrosmurf" <jon.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a01f46b7-94c6-41de...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> even today Ohio has more miles of paved roads than Russia does.
>
> Cute. But <a href=http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/
> ECAEXT/EXTECAREGTOPTRANSPORT/0,,contentMDK:20647578~pagePK:
> 34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:571121,00.html>the first hit on
> Google on 'roads russia'</A> says that Russia's road network is around
> 800,000 kilometers, while <A HREF=http://www.bts.gov/publications/
> state_transportation_statistics/ohio/html/table_01_01.html>the first
> hit on 'roads ohio'</A> says that Ohio has about 200,000.
paved roads, not just roads.
Raymond O'Hara
<ryand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:544e2630-8fb4-4d0d...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
it smacks of making a WWII game with germany just another country.