Sometimes you (or the AI) can run supply from captured town in the middle of nowhere. As in: running supply from Moscow to the Grand Armee sitting in Moscow.
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>
> My second impressions of this game are starting to reveal some more > 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.
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.
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.
>>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. .
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.
> >>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. .
> 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
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.
> 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.
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.
> > 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, > 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.
> No, of course I didn't say that about French capitulation. That's not > 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.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
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, >> > 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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".
> > 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.
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.
> > No, of course I didn't say that about French capitulation. That's not > > 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I said I wouldn't write about it more but I will make some quick 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, >> > 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.
> 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.
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.
> >> > 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.
> > 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.
> 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.
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.
> I said I wouldn't write about it more but I will make some quick > 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.
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.
On 9 mrt, 07:07, "Gil R." <g...@west-civ.com> wrote:
> 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.
I have no problem with an ahistorical game or alternative history. 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.
> I have no problem with an ahistorical game or alternative history. > 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.
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.
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?
> 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
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.
> 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.
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?"
|
