Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Nightmare scenario...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> RE: Nightmare scenario... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 12:00:33 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Thanks Ericbabe. :) Now, we can move ahead one step in this discussion.

So, the next question is...can you code other parts of the engine to give us conditions which would better approximate conditions after a surrender so that there would be no "trapped" units and we could keep our units in place as victors?  If so, how much effort will this take?

Or, how about teleporting only units which would be "trapped" until a more complete solution can be developed? That's an idea!

-B

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/4/2009 12:23:51 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 31
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 4:27:37 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I don't think of it as teleportation but more like strategic movement.  I've played a lot of table games that have strategic movement rules -- even for 18th century units -- and so these sorts of rules don't seem that unusual to me.  I can see how they might be unusual if one hasn't seen these types of rules before.

The vacating of armies from conquered nations solves a number of things that would otherwise be issues in the game -- the most significant being that of trapped units.  Say a French corps is in British Malta when Britain surrenders to France.  Even if the French are violating British territory, a French fleet still cannot enter Malta to pick up the French corps there.  The corps is stuck there.

When Hard Sarge recommends playing early versions of COG1 -- before we added this sort of rule -- I believe what he's saying is that people who complain about the side-effects of the vacating rule now ought to compare those side effects to those of the game without this rule.  The issues you're describing now are very mild compared to the actual game-play problems the game had before we added this system.



Yeah I can definitely see how it is legitimately thought of as strategic movement. That is a very common game device, and not unrealistic on the whole. Just means fast movement as a result of unconstrained logistics, and no demands from combat or some such.

I can also see how NOT having them vacate would produce even worse problems.

Maybe there is a kind of middle ground that could be coded without too much hassle in patch though?

1. Allow players the choice of whether or not they want to move a unit(s)
2. Allow players to move each container separately.
3. Move the units on the map during a special strategic movement phase, instead of just having them "teleport"

Maybe coding all that would be a real bugbear? But if if could be done, it would combine the best of both worlds. Players who want to play 'more realistically' would get the chance to do so every time there was a surrender, and at point (1) leave them inside neutral territory if they want to, and take the hit from breach of neutrality if they want to. At point (2) players could move each container to a different province if they want, thus not having them all dogpile in one province. At point (3) players would understand that it was 'post-surrender' strategic movement, and not just 'teleporting.'

If some wiseguy leaves units in Cyprus after the war like the problem you mention Eric, then nobodies fault but his own.

But again, maybe too hard to code?

As a shirker of my own beta-testing, erm, 'duties' . . . I can only imagine that fine-tuning of stuff like this is the least of a team's concerns when what they are trying to do is get a product to market. As someone said, there are always patches. In this case, we are talking about (maybe, assuming devs agree it is worth doing and is doable) a slight tweak for the sake fine-tuning, not major overhauls to make the game playable.

Just wanted to say that to clear the air a bit.

I don't get the impression there is a single one of us on here who is currently an active poster who has ANY serious criticism of the game. As the one guy said, "It is a triumph," and it most definitely IS a triumph. To me, one of the best strategy games ever, at least a 9/10 maybe higher . . . though having only played from 1792 to 1796 in a grand campaign, I need to reserve judgement on whether I would call it a 9.5 or a 9.75. I had played 3 or 4 games (all starting 1792 and as France) through a year or so to figure it out, and now I'm on an actual Diff setting campaign that I intend to finish. I _HAD_ been feeling like the AI was a bit of a pushover, but in the last year, he has surprised me quite a bit, so I'm going to withdraw that implication altogether. AI for a game that does not run on a supercomputer is never gonna be as challenging as a human, which for me is always a slight annoyance because I find PBEMs just too slow and cumbersome most of the time. But this AI seems to be well-balanced and resourceful. A well-designed game can compensate for an AI that is actually pretty simplistic algorithmically by anticipating ongoing game dynamics and programming some of those simple algorithms in ways that can create challenges for the player. From what I've seen so far, WCS HAS achieved that here quite well!

I know some guys have been trying out all kinds of different starting times, and different nations and stuff, and that is of course fine. But to me, the game was primarily designed as a simulation of Napoleon's explotis, and so for me, for now, I'm focusing on finishing one complete long campaign as France on a fairly challening difficulty level. I'll reserve 'trying out' all the sub-possibilities until later. After all, the game has only been for sale for a couple months, right!?

I consider some of these issues that guys have brought up as 'criticisms' ALL quite minor, and for me, not in any way spoiling game play. Minor annoyances? Sure, but with any complex strategy game there are always going to be slight tweaks to be done even after the best, most extensive design and beta-testing.

I applaud WCS and the beta-testers for an incredible work of art!


< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 4/4/2009 3:40:12 PM >


_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 32
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 5:39:36 AM   
ptan54

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
Surely the solution would be for the defeated power to automatically grant military access to the victor. This isn't so unrealistic, after all, if you win, you still have to march your troops home (through the lands of the defeated power) or onwards towards enemy territories (from Prussia to Russia for example). This period of military access should only last a few months.

As for the Malta example, maybe change the way troops board ships. If the ships are in a sea zone adjacent to that province, allow the troops to board.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 33
Surrender - 4/4/2009 1:21:54 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
What about simply offering the victor a choice? A simple Message Box and "If answer = yes" so the coding is easy (I know, it's never that easy:)

But that way the victor can decide if they want to leave their troops there with the associated risks of getting stuck/violating neutrality or have them strategically moved.

< Message edited by AndrewKurtz -- 4/4/2009 1:22:18 PM >

(in reply to ptan54)
Post #: 34
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 3:13:36 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I agree and I meant no disrepect... but a number of us did have a question for the developer and everyone keeps telling us to basically be quiet... I have used a lot of HS's advice plenty of times and greatly appreciate it.


first off, please remember that the BIG GUYS can be busy and are not always on the puplic forums, and when they do show up, they may miss some of the posts were questions are asked

some of the beta testers try to hang around and help out where they can, some times it helps, sometimes it don't, or comes across the wrong way

when most of my answers were being met with more questions, I asked Gil if he could have Eric or Mr Z drop by and read the post and try to answer the questions, some of what you guys wanted me to answer, are in the NDA area, and I am not really allowed to get into those areas (the haves and the whys, did we agree, did we disagree, why did we, why didn't we and what not)

and above all, I hope nobody took any of my posts or replies to be meaning be quiet or shut up, none of that was the intent

most of us that try to reply to questions, are trying to be helpful, not trying to get the issue to be dropped or covered up

(Slick, will be happy when the next patch comes out, i need to relax and blow some troopers away :)


_____________________________


(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 35
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 3:38:21 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Don't worry Hard Sarge, no offense taken here :)

I know NDAs can be a bitch.

I am wondering which other situations units get "trapped" in with the old system.

If we can violate neutrality now, I don't really understand how a unit on Malta would be trapped. Can't it just be picked up? Or are fleets not allowed to violate neutrality?

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/4/2009 3:54:16 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 36
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/4/2009 7:30:55 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
Ditto... no offense taken here HS... I write and test software at my office so I know the limits and how busy people are.  I would just describe it as frustrating and leave it at that…

... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)

To me the simple solution would be to allow fleets to enter ports to pick up troops... just don't know what this takes for coding or how historical this was?


_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 37
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 12:38:48 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Dude,

It seems to me that allowing fleets to violate neutrality would be less of an unrealistic hassle than the "teleportation" issue.

Maybe if a fleet violated neutrality the violating nation would be penalized more?  But I hardly see it as a reason to implement the forced strategic movement (a.k.a. teleportation).  Teleportation puts a major cramp in my game.  Whereas allowing a major power who is already violating my neutrality on land to also violate it with his fleets, would be MUCH less so.

-B

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/5/2009 12:56:48 AM >

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 38
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 1:44:56 AM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
I agree with you that letting fleets violate neutrality would be much better than teleporting armies (I was just curious if there was a historical precedent one way or another).  I'm just wondering now if there's more of a problem with the coding to allow ships to violate neutrality.

I also feel that if someone takes the risk to transport units to an island and then has no way to remove those troops that's their fault.  The troops should then be disbanded.  That's the risk you take and will make attacking islands a risky proposition.

In a game I played I just found it too much of a gimmick that the French army was at Moscow on one turn and the next was back in France.  I ought to take them a few months to march back.  Again... that would make the French player think twice about sending a large force all the way to Moscow.  As it is now... if he make it there and knows he can defeat the Russians he also knows his army will magically appear back in France to attack someone else or defend France.  He doesn't have to worry about the long march back and possibly leaving France venerable for longer than neccessary.

< Message edited by dude -- 4/5/2009 1:47:18 AM >


_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 39
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 8:36:32 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

I agree with you that letting fleets violate neutrality would be much better than teleporting armies (I was just curious if there was a historical precedent one way or another).


Im fine with the option of special rule "strategic movement" or "teleportation" whatever you want to call it after surrenders to avoid certain trapping situations.

I just dont think it should be mandatory, and it should take a certain amount of time, depending on the distance moved. 1-2 turns for very short distances (Malta to Genoa for example), 3-4 for moderate distances (say back to France from middle Austria/Prussia), 5-6 for long distances (Moscow to France).

I dont know that it would be deemed worth the effort from the powers that be, but the example given of the Grand Armee teleporting instantly from Russia back to France to pull Nappys fat out of the fire back home I have seen happen in numerous games and I just dont like it.

If there was a way to make it so that teleportation would only be an option IF the force involved was somehow trapped that would be even better, but thats probably even more work.

Really its about whether or not the problems teleportation causes is enough to justify the work needed for a fix.

< Message edited by Mus -- 4/5/2009 8:45:14 AM >

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 40
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 10:51:34 AM   
ptan54

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
I believe the British launched an attack on neutral Denmark in 1801 and 1807 to destroy their fleet. So there is historical precedent for barging into neutral ports...whether WCS want to/are able to code this is another matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

Ditto... no offense taken here HS... I write and test software at my office so I know the limits and how busy people are.  I would just describe it as frustrating and leave it at that…

... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)

To me the simple solution would be to allow fleets to enter ports to pick up troops... just don't know what this takes for coding or how historical this was?



(in reply to dude)
Post #: 41
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 12:18:30 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
The Royal Navy lifted a Spanish Corps that was serving with the French right out from under Nappys nose when he invaded Spain.  Ships dont necessarily have to sail into a port to take off troops.  They can come as close to the shore as possible and bring parties on board with small boats.

One thing that would simulate that and be a balanced game mechanic is just allowing embarking troops to fleets in adjacent sea zones that started the turn there. This would prevent trapped troops and also wouldnt be exploitable to do driveby sealifts.

< Message edited by Mus -- 4/5/2009 12:21:04 PM >

(in reply to ptan54)
Post #: 42
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 1:19:24 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
That idea about allowing fleets to pick up units if they are in an adjacent sea zone is interesting Mus.

I wonder if there are any other problems which "surrender teleporting" solved, or if this is the only one?

Look, in principle, I don't mind "strategic movement" either.  But the rules which CoG:EE applies are very, very odd.  The ONLY time we get to use strategic movement in CoG:EE is after a surrender.  And then, sometimes the armies and units using it would have to cross hostile territory (what if France is at war with Russia, and Prussia AND Austria are at war with France--HOW do these French troops in Russia get home immediately?)  Normally, we can't even use strategic movement on our interiror lines as France.  Sometimes it can take months to march back and forth from our Spanish front to Germany.





< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/5/2009 4:47:44 PM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 43
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/5/2009 2:17:35 PM   
SlickWilhelm


Posts: 1854
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)



Ah so! Thanks for explaining this, dude. I didn't know this was the case, and since in my first game I'm playing as England, this is very good to know!


_____________________________

Beta Tester - Brother Against Brother
Beta Tester - Commander: The Great War
Beta Tester - Desert War 1940-42

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 44
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/6/2009 1:00:42 AM   
ptan54

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
If anyone has played Hearts of Iron by Paradox, that has a great strat redeploy engine. Need to have an uninterrupted zone of control back to your country to redeploy. But I would guess that kind of a change, with a force pool concept, is too much to be done in a patch.

If naval pickup rules are changed to allow troops to board ships in an adjacent seazone, then it seems we can do away with teleporting. For those who like the way things are, we can make strategic redeploy upon surrender a player option. Turn it on or off at your own will.

(in reply to SlickWilhelm)
Post #: 45
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/6/2009 4:40:39 AM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

If anyone else has already suggested what I suggest here, apologies in advance: How about when the pop-up appears asking what Province you want to retreat your forces to, it also asks if you would rather instead stay put, Forcing Access, and begin paying the political cost for doing so beginning the following turn...?








(in reply to ptan54)
Post #: 46
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/6/2009 5:41:21 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Russian Guard, your suggestion (which mirrored one of my suggestions above) would be music to my ears.  It beats no change.

However, I do think it would still leave an "unrealistic" door open to allow my enemies to redeploy ridiculously fast at the wrong times.  For example: I am Prussia and have France almost at its knees when France beats Russia in a war.  Suddenly, the whole French army appears before me.

Perhaps the idea of "strategic redeployment" following a war wouldn't be so "odd" to most of us if this were allowed at other times, along peaceful interior lines.  But it isn't.  As I stated above, I can't even get some units from Languedoc to Paris in under 3 turns regularly. 

However, the proposal you are making (give the victor an option) is much better than what we are currently dealing with.  So, I would say yes.

But if I were designing, I would say make it so that "teleportation" after a peace agreement never happens, and then I would boost movement rates in areas which are under friendly control.  I don't see why someone who has transported half of their army to Turkey and wins a war should be allowed to magically return their armies home.  Napoleon's own forray to Egypt shows us that armies could be virtually abandoned and lost if they couldn't be returned home safely.

Players don't get to bring troops home after a successful campaign against a minor...why then against a major power?  It is all odd and adds a lot of hoops to the whole process.  Like a Rube Goldberg machine. 

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/6/2009 5:54:41 AM >

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 47
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 12:39:09 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Perhaps the idea of "strategic redeployment" following a war wouldn't be so "odd" to most of us if this were allowed at other times, along peaceful interior lines.  But it isn't.  As I stated above, I can't even get some units from Languedoc to Paris in under 3 turns regularly.


Using containers and Corps/Army leaders with decent initiative values you should be able to Force March 2-3 spaces a turn.

I do think there ought to be some kind of delay. 1-2 turns for distances of 3-4 spaces. 3-4 for distances of 6-8, 5-6 turns for longer distances.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 48
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 2:03:45 AM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

My problem with "Strategic Redeployment" is that I think it’s fine for a game based on the US Civil War or afterwards… IE… railroads were used… I just don’t see that kind of strategic redeployment before that time period except by ship.

Russian Guard:  The problem with staying put even if access is forced… you can’t land a fleet into a neutral port… it must be allied to do that.  So your force would be stuck on any island unless the owner was allied to you.

It just stretches the imagination to see the entire French army teleport from Moscow back to France.  I’ve seen this happen in too many games now (to me and other AI players).  Twice directly it seriously hampered my careful plans because I was reeking havoc in France with British troops only to see Nappy show back up because my ally Russia surrendered before France did and instead of buying time for my forces I had to face the French army about three or four turns sooner than expected.
 
If it were possible to code it to allow units to board ship from adjacent sea zones (perhaps with a loss to stregth) then that would greatly help.

So what are the possibilities to code the game to either allow access to neutral ports for ships by violating neutrality just like land forces do or to allow boarding directly from shore and not port?


_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 49
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 6:29:13 AM   
ptan54

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
Solving the stranded on an island scenario would do away with the need to teleport. Would appreciate some feedback from the WCS team.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 50
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 10:04:50 AM   
ubik

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
I agree with barbarossa2 the troop teleportation breaks the logic and the suspention of disbelief this game so masterfully achieves. Something more sophisticated could very well be implemented.

In my opinion, a simple way to deal with it (and as we are talking about a patch thing probably something complex will never be implemented) would be to give x months to the player to remove the troops from foreign territory. After those "free months" two things could happen:

- Easier option: Apply the teleport rule.

- Not so easy option: Make the owner of the troops pay Glory points to have the troops in foreign territory. This price would be increased per month of delaying.

< Message edited by ubik -- 4/7/2009 10:07:19 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 51
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 1:15:13 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
I really want to make it clear that in spite of everything else discussed here, I am lobbying for just one change in this very good game:

That is to allow the victor's units to stay in place after the a surrender has occured.  This means making any additional code changes to allow this to happen to prevent units from getting stuck or whatever.  I don't want anything else changed.  Just leave the units in place. 

Almost 1000 hits and 50 comments after the thread was started and no one has disagreed with it yet (and most have outright agreed). I don't think it is a stretch to say this is the most agreed on change required to the "working as designed" aspects of the engine.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/7/2009 3:20:42 PM >

(in reply to ubik)
Post #: 52
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 8:56:24 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Is there anyone reading this thread who is against the idea of having the victor's units be able to stay in place following a surrender? 

It is important that you speak. 

S-P-E-A-K  U-P  N-O-W! 

I am interested in what you have to say. (and someone else might be too)

Additionally if you are for having units stay in place, it is equally important that you speak up now!

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 4/7/2009 9:02:03 PM >

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 53
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/7/2009 11:52:15 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I wouldn't mind say reducing the treaty by 100 points for every unit that remains in the surrendered nations territory.  There needs to be some considerable cost.  You should be saddled with violating neutrality and likely a Glory cost too.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 54
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 12:01:44 AM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline
The behavior in COG was somewhat different and the object of many complaints in the Cog forums, as I recall.  I remember that there were vocal opinions on all sides.

Anytime software is being developed and a strategy is eventually adopted, somebody will wish it had been done differently.  As different approaches are explored, the deciding factor is, in many instances, the reduction of anomalous situations caused by programming logic and event sequencing and practicality of implementing a different strategy.  Believe me when I say that I understand and even agree with many of your assertions, but also know that this decision was not arrived at lightly.  The staff at WCS are wonderful in trying to do things the right way.  I think very highly of them.

Perhaps they could look at ithe issue again in a future patch, but I can live with it the way it is.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 55
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 3:59:59 AM   
ptan54

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
I should supplement barbarossa's post by saying that if the player/AI decides not to stay put after a victorious war and chooses "teleportation", this should not be a 1 turn thing. Moscow to Paris would be at least 3-4 terms for this to be realistic.

Maybe the easiest thing to do would be:

1) Change naval pickup rules, can pick up troops without going into port, but some troops should "desert" since it's harder to pick up when not in port.

2) Make the strategic redeploy rule an option (maybe only an option you can tweak at game start, just once, then you're stuck with it for the game). If you choose yes I want teleporting, then either use the current system or take into account distance. Berlin to Paris is not the same as Moscow to Paris (I think distance is a key factor but not sure if the devs can code this). If you choose no I don't want teleporting, then you will have to move your troops out of the defeated country. Let the victor violate neutrality with a glory point loss.

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 56
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 4:36:34 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
I just want to say that, having them all reappear in the same province in disorganized fashion, and potentially as far as 10 or 20 provinces away on the very next turn is unrealistic. I think the Devs, and testers should consider possible ways it could be changed.

At the same time, I recognize that, the decision to have the automatic strategic movement was not made lightly, and it was a solution to a whole set of alternative problems that were emergent from the previous way that post war occupation was handled. I would hate to see a solution to the 'teleportation' issue merely resurrect some old COG-era problem with 'stuck' post-war units else 'lingering' post war pests.

It is rarely possible to achieve true 'realism' in games, which makes COGEE all the more amazing. But then these few little issues we are spotting that seriously rock the suspension of disbelief are made all the more 'poignant' because so much of the rest of the game works so realistically!

So my opinion is this: if the Devs can envision a way to change the system so that it is not likely to create alternative problems or to resurrect old ones, and with a sufficiently smalle expenditure of time and energy that it will not detract from other issues potentially being looked at (e.g., my naval capture points I made, and the merchant-beats-fleet problem) then I would very much encourage looking into alternative to the strategic movement option.

It is easy for me to say that I can live with the current system because it has not yet impacted a game for me. But I can definitely imagine how it COULD impact a game, so I am generally in agreement that viable changes are a good thing to be explored. But if 'humoring' us is likely to simply result in an alternative set of problems then I think just a concise explanation of why this is 'likely to be the best way it can be coded for now' might even be just as good.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to ptan54)
Post #: 57
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 8:15:43 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
I hope am not out of line for saying this but I suspect part of the problem here is that WCS did such a good job at replicating the era that the instant strategic movement solution just seems entirely wrong.  In a more abstract or a poorer quality game, teleporting units might pass with much less notice but with so much of CoG-EE done so well, the solution for dealing with the strategic redeplyment after third-party surrenders appears to be simplistic and ugly.

For me this is not a game breaking flaw and thanks to all the posters on this thread a player knows the issue is waiting out there but I do hope that there is potential for a solid fix and that teleportation can get patched away.

Best Regards

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 58
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 7:13:22 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I hope am not out of line for saying this but I suspect part of the problem here is that WCS did such a good job at replicating the era that the instant strategic movement solution just seems entirely wrong.  In a more abstract or a poorer quality game, teleporting units might pass with much less notice but with so much of CoG-EE done so well, the solution for dealing with the strategic redeplyment after third-party surrenders appears to be simplistic and ugly.

For me this is not a game breaking flaw and thanks to all the posters on this thread a player knows the issue is waiting out there but I do hope that there is potential for a solid fix and that teleportation can get patched away.

Best Regards


... that's my feeling exactly... I think the game is superb in everything else that this one thing just stands out so badly for me. I could accept this kind of “strategic” movement in later wars once railroads are available but not for this time period.



_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 59
RE: Nightmare scenario... - 4/8/2009 8:12:26 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Dude and Randomizer,

I think you both put that very well.  The people at WCS have done such a good job with most other things here, that the forced "strategic movment" after a surrender throws the train off the track (for me).  I don't know why if units getting "trapped" is the issue which forced this coding that WCS didn't just add code to keep units from getting trapped. I mean in real life, units don't get trapped (NOT ENTIRELY TRUE: look at the French army that Napoleon abandoned in Egypt).  Why couldn't they come up with a mechanic to allow ships to pick up these "trapped" units on islands?  By violating neutrality for instance?

-B

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> RE: Nightmare scenario... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.297