My Own Mini Poll...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

My Own Mini Poll...

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 >> My Own Mini Poll...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

My Own Mini Poll... - 5/27/2009 10:54:53 PM

barbarossa2

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

Just curious. I would love know know your answers to these questions from as many players as possible (please note that I have added a question 6 and 7 since this all started):

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

If you own CoG:EE, please take the time to answer these 6 or 7 questions (or the ones which interest you). They are actually not just going to get flushed down the toilet and someone might be interested! :)

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 5/28/2009 2:42:32 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/27/2009 11:11:47 PM

MorningDew

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Subect matter/WCS

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

I enjoy the PBEM with multiple players

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

Nothing specific

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Have not used extensively

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Absolutely

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 2

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/27/2009 11:51:29 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Was impressed by FoF and and the CoG-EE Forum discussions during development indicated that this might be a real challenge. Also the attitude of the WCS staff and Beta testers to enquiries certainly helped. Outside of naval subjects I have no special interest in the period however.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

I like the scale (monthly turns and divisional combat units/individual ships), available player options and the diplomacy.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

Naval combat. The available naval hex grid is far too small and damages an otherwise simple but effective naval combat system.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

We Have a Winner!

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Probably not.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players in slots for Portugal, Venice, Sweden, and Denmark?

Not at all important, don't use PBEM (yet) and have little interest in playing as most of the Minors listed.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

Yes. Have had few issues with it and only request would be for more options when dealing with Minors.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

Think that 1-month turns are perfect for the scope of the game, the scale and the era.

Best Regards

Edited to address additional questions

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 5/28/2009 6:03:45 AM >

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 3

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/28/2009 1:10:08 AM

barbarossa2

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

My answers are:
1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:EE?
A) I saw Crown of Glory a few years back, and the treaty system really interested me. I heard about a few problems, and when I heard about the upgraded re-release, I knew I had to have it since I am a fan of all strategic level gaming before WW1 and WW2.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is best to you?
A) The treaty system is one of a kind.

3) What aspect of Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
A) The treaty system needs to be ironed out and must function flawlessly. The graphics could use a minor upgrade. Especially in tactical battles.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
A) I don't know. I haven't played them yet. But after the positive things I have heard (and for another reason) I am looking forward to diving in soon.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
A) Yes. I get my tactical kicks with the Total War series and the glitz makes it hard for me to do anything in two dimensions/turn based again.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players in slots for Portugal, Venice, Sweden, and Denmark? A) I play almost exclusively against human opponents after 1 or 2 days with the AI. To me if a game doesn't have PBEM it isn't interesting. I would love to have 12 to 16 player capabilities.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
A) I think that the treaty system, while genius in its conception, has some bugs (which will be fixed with the first patch). However, I think there are also lots of grey areas which I would like to see ironed out. For instance the forced making and breaking of alliances, the way players are penalized for not complying with forced treaty terms (seems that it is not entirely consistent), and one very confusing treaty event which I went into depth in another thread. I would love to have an airtight rule book for the treaty system so that we would know if the computer game was WAD or if it was a bug in every case. The treaty problem I had is here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2109764

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
A) Not sure what to think here.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 5/28/2009 3:12:42 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 4

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/28/2009 2:22:57 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
A. I was looking for a strategic level game of any era. CoG EE looked somewhat bug free with a good amount of depth.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
A. Although I like the tactical battles very much, my favorite part of the game is the economic management.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
A. Can tactical battles be changed to a WEGO or real time?

The time it takes to change windows needs to be sped up. The loading, saving and quitting the game are very fast-compared to the best. However, for some reason, changing control windows takes a couple of seconds too long.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
A. Lots of fun and challenging, but take too long sometimes. With the ability to bail out to a quick battle at any time, the time is not a major problem.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
A. I think so.

6. 12 Player Variant?
A. No. Although I agree it would be more interesting to have minors taking actions, to maintain 12 players long term will be extremely difficult. I would give very generous odds that such a game would not be completed.

7. Is the treaty system clear?
A. Superficially, yes. I'm sure that there are some aspects to it that I have not noticed yet.

8. Six week or 2 month turn length?
A. Although it could have a big impact on game completion time, I prefer the current scale. To spend two months going through a province or two is just not very realistic.

< Message edited by 06 Maestro -- 6/21/2009 5:40:40 PM >

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 5

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/28/2009 2:38:38 AM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

I am a big fan of WCS, increasingly so the more I play their games, and knew this would be the best depiction of the "Grand Campaign" of the Napoleonic Wars. FoF was my first game from this developer and I knew I wouldn't be disappointed in COG:EE.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

Just like any other game, the pbem is where it really shines- a blast to play with a good group of 8 players. That said, the single player is well done and FoF and COG:EE are two of the only games I enjoy playing against the AI.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

The Glory Point system. I believe they said it will be fixed in the upcoming patch however.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

I enjoy them, although I had issues with the AI acting odd because of a random element which is supposed to be tweaked in the patch. My biggest dream for WCS games is to be able to import/export Detailed Battles over LAN during pbem games.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Yes, although that would be a shame because they are nicely done.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players in slots for Portugal, Venice, Sweden, and Denmark?

Agree with your answer, pbem is very important to me. I think 12 players might be tough to get going (8 is already a challenge to keep going) but I agree that it would be fun. Maybe if you add an option to keep it at 8 or make it 12 so you don't have to add AI players- I prefer not to have AI players at all if possible.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

Agreed that it is a bit vague in places and could be explained better in the manual. My reading comprehension isn't the greatest though, I admit. I am starting to think that it's because the WCS guys (I assume) are from the upper midwest (think Fargo) that I have a hard time understanding some things.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

Don't think I'd care for it much. If anything I might be open to trying 1 or 2 week turns. I think one month turns work well though.

9) Does this questionnaire remind you of My Space?

Yes! What the hell?!

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 5/28/2009 3:25:17 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 6

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/28/2009 8:26:24 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Own both CoG and FoF, and know that I can ask questions on the forum if there is things I want to know + Gil and Eric actually responds to the players

quote:

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

Had you asked some weeks ago I would say tactical battles, now I am leaning towards Pbem.

quote:

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

Pbem, espesially diplomacy.

quote:

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Love it, but would like to see some changes (AI buying heaps of CAV it does not use properly etc)

quote:

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Doubt it.

quote:

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players in slots for Portugal, Venice, Sweden, and Denmark?

Very important, and yes, that would be heaps of fun! Although Poland or Papacy instead of Venice.

quote:

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

I thought so

quote:

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

No thanks.

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 7

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/28/2009 9:26:47 AM

Mus

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

1.� I bought COG EE because COG and FOF were both outstanding.� WCS makes good games on historical subjects that interest me, and as a fan of wargames I think its important to support companies that are going to make the kinds of games I want to play in the future.

2.� I am really digging the PBEM play in COG EE.� I had never played PBEM before, had always imagined it would be boring, but Im actually liking it.� It reminds me of chess, every move is very well thought out several moves ahead because of the amount of time in between turns, as opposed to single player where I sometimes lose patiences and "pass" a turn to get something else happening.

3.� Diplomatic/treaty clauses and associated Glory penalties/interactions.� Im not entirely convinced all the issues will have been fixed in the upcoming patch, but Im ready to be pleasantly surprised.� I think a couple more have cropped up in our PBEM games, of clauses not working exactly the way they should.

4.� I really enjoy the tactical battles.� I wish there was a way to play out tactical battles in PBEM where we could create "battle files" of engagements above�a certain number of men in any given turn and the participants would fight that battle over a TCP/IP connection and then the results of the battle could be imported back into the PBEM game and play could continue.� The number of men required to fight a detailed battle could be set by house rule or by a option in the game setup.

5.� Probably not, because I didnt play PBEM in original COG or FOF, and so a big part of the single player game for me was the tactical battles.

6.� PBEM is very important.� Again I would like to see more features of the single player made accessible to the PBEM game.� In future WCS titles I would like to see all decision making moved out of the "movement phase" so that decisions dont have to be delegated to the AI.� And to repeat, would like to see tactical battles above a certain size able to be played out in a TCP/IP battle engine with an exported battle file that can be reimported to the game.

As far as extra player slots are concerned,� I wouldnt mind seeing a playable Portugal and Denmark.� Naples might be a better choice than Venice.� Sweden is already a major power, so not sure what you mean by this.� Would also like to see a bit of expansion in the way minor powers are handled, ie make them more like majors.

7.� Some clauses have an unknown effect or dont seem to be working correctly.� See our PBEM threads or PM for details, but some clauses dont do what they seem to be supposed to and or their are mysterious and wrongly assigned glory penalties involved,�and other times the effects of clauses are inexplicably able to be circumvented/ignored by the signing parties.

8.� If there was going to be a change I would rather go to 2 week turns, but 1 month seems about right.� 6 weeks or 2 months is overly long.

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 8

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/29/2009 4:18:06 PM

twitter

Posts: 49
Joined: 1/28/2009
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

I enjoy military history and this era is one of my favorites to study. Games help me to get a better understanding of the experience that the leaders went through in the different centuries.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

I like two things the "best". One - the ability to have the computer take an advisor role for you. I approach it as a leader who might be confident with military matters but struggles with the economy and then I pretend that I have selected a trusted advisor to run my country's economy for me while I focus on what I know best. Two - the treaty system and how your country's fate relies on certain treaties being accepted and/or rejected at crucial times (for example I was playing as Poland and the usual Russia/Austria/Prussia alliance declared war on me and I was able to beg and plead and get France to open a second front within two months of the opening of the war and that eventually pulled Austrian troops from my borders so they could defend their westeren border with France - great timing).
3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

I would like to be able to make treaties with small nations and would like to see them use their armies for hit and run strikes in your rear (or where they best see fit). It would be a lot more real if you have to worry about little armies striking you when you least expect it and can least deal with it due to large countries invading you.
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

So far I have mostly fought QB so I won't attempt a lame answer on this question.
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Yes.
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

The PBEM is not really important to me NOW (no internet at home) but in the future YES. Secondly, yes that would be awesome (see my answer to #3)
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

Yes.
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

I think it is perfect right now.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 9

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/30/2009 4:29:45 AM

vaalen

Posts: 387
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

I love the period. I really like historical strategy games. I had the original Crown of Glory, But did not enjoy the economy. The improvements as described in the Developer's Forum sounded very interesting. The simple economy resolved my problems with the original.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

Perhaps the feel of Napoleonic Strategy,where the decisions you make have such a powerful effect, yet the results of such decisions are somewhat unpredictable. I really have to plan what to do, but the game system results in surprises that remind me of what actually happened in the real wars.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

The tendency of the AI to fight meaningless wars with each other while the French conquer them one by one. The other great powers should be more prone to combine against France.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

The best tactical Napoleonic system ever to hit the computer. Just when you think you are invincible, the AI will hit you with a stunning defeat. The important details of Napoleonic combat are all there. The various battlefield techs really matter.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Yes. I really like historic strategy games, and the period.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

Not important to me, as I never do PBEM.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

I like it, but it is not as clear as it should be. I have trouble getting the AI to agree to treaties that would be in both our interest.The AI should be more willing to accept a treaty that combines them against the strongest nation.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

I like the one month turn, which is perfect for this system.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 10

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/30/2009 4:37:45 AM

DaveP

Posts: 41
Joined: 1/4/2002
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Because I had CoG and loved it.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

The advanced economy and the period covered.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

A complete campaign 1792 to 1815 with leader reinforcement and special rules.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

I rarely use it unless I cannot win a battle with quick resolution. I can almost always win the tactical battle.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Yes

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

I do not play PBEM.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

For resolving victorious wars, yes. For creating relations with other countries, not so much.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

NO!!! I like the advanced economy and the ability to build up one's economy. Anything that would shorten the game is bad.

Thanks for the poll.
Dave

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 11

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/31/2009 9:42:07 AM

Marshal_Ney

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline

this is my answer at your questions:

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Becouse i used to have the first CoG which i really liked,it was great to have a napoleonic game that mixed the strategical and tactical aspect together,i think this was done only once a long time ago with
napoleon 1813,but that game was too buggy.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

i know it has been answered before,but i still dream to manage more accurately my corp of army,in a regimental way.
i still feel that the division or brigade level is still too vague,at least for me,it would be great to simulate minor type of battles like elchingien or teugn-hausen which can't be done with the division/brigade scale.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

Well,as posted above i think that it is a great thing to be in command of your armies in all his aspect,so it is enjoyable to plan a campaign and then be in the battlefield controling your units and your marshals.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

if i can,i tend to play all of them,becouse i love the tactical battles,and i think they had a very nice idea to add them in the CoG serie,and the best part is that they used the idea to make the tactical battles similar to the taloonsoft/HPS games,which is a great touch of class,even if i still wish to have a more detailed simulation and freedom in the tactical battle,i still feel weird to have a granadier's guard division.
so it would be nice if we could control and manage each regiment on the battlefield.
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Good question,i would say yes,but for sure i would have less enjoyment in the game,so it is good that we have it,becouse the final�hesit of a�campaign at that time where always decided
in a decisive battle,and just simulate it doesn't give me the feeling to be part of the action,think about napoleon that commanded his grand armee in 1805 with his great strategy,and then at the day of austerlitz he was just absent of the field delegatin one of his generals,so in this CoG is really the best choice for me.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
i do not play PBEM.

to tell you the truth i am not a PBEM player as well with this kind of game,so i don't have enough knowledge to answer you at this question.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

well,at the beginning it's not an easy thing to understand becouse in my opinion the interface is not that intuitive as it should be,but after my first campaign and checking this forum
i could handle the treaty system.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

in my opinion the game is fine as it is now,i wouldn't make the turns shorter,maybe i would even make them longer,to simulate a campaign you need time to plan and move your troops,and same is with the diplomatic aspect.

regards.

< Message edited by Marshal_Ney -- 5/31/2009 9:49:28 AM >

(in reply to DaveP)

Post #: 12

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 5/31/2009 9:35:00 PM

Bobbyjack60

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/1/2006
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

The Original COG was the wargame I have always been waiting for. A stategic game that then let's you delve deep into tactical combat. You had me at hello. Truely, a great game. The only thing it lacked was naval combat. When I saw the new COG:EE, I bought it because my experience with the original. This is one of the best games from any genre that I have played.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

I have always loved games like the old battleground series. I always thought, "Wouldn't it be nice if I could bring my own army to the field and choose when and where I fought?" Now, I know the answer. Not only is it nice, it's freakin awesome!

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

Quick battles. I get so pissed off when one of my corps with 5 full strenth units gets it's butt whipped by two or three badly depleted units with poor morale.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

They are the best feature of the game. A little more eyecandy would be nice. More detailed uniforms and more varied terrain. I feel like every battle is fought in the same place.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Maybe, but, I would have played it for a while then set it aside to be forgotten with all the other games that left me disappointed. Tactical battles have turned a good game into a great game.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

Very important. More players are always better.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

Yes but, it needs more depth. I should be able to reorder Europe like Napoleon did. Nations need to "remember" who their friends have been and who their enemies are. If I have been Prussia's faithful ally thru 4 wars, they shouldn't declare war on me because some turd Sultan in the Ottoman Empire asks them to. Especially since they have recently been at war with the Ottomans.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

I would like more turns and longer games. I don't like hitting an end point and having my game end. If the turns take up too much time, you lose a lot of the depth of the game. Stategic manuvering to outnumber and trap enemy units is much better if you move at two weeks/1 month turns than if you upped it to longer turns.

(in reply to Marshal_Ney)

Post #: 13

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/1/2009 11:50:20 AM

Krasny

Posts: 315
Joined: 7/3/2003
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

There was a Napoleonic era grand strategy hole in my gaming life. AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns whilst a pretty good game, does not fill the gap.

I did not like CoG because of the enforced economic management BS. Making it optional made CoG:EE very attractive.

The discount programme for owners of CoG swung the balance.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

I like the combination of the grand strategy and the tactical. CoG:EE is Total War for people with a pre frontal cortex, who aren't graphics whores.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

The UI still blows goat.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Crude yet strangely compelling. I think they would be best done in pauseable real time.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Probably.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

I have not played PBEM, but am considering it. Waiting for the patch.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

As mud.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

I think turns add unnecessary and artificial complexity to the game. Pauseable real time ala EU3 is the way to go.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bobbyjack60)

Post #: 14

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/1/2009 12:38:07 PM

ant1815

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/5/2007
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Because I'm a big Napoleonic era fan and there are hardly any Strategic Napoleonic games around, so I took an interest in the original 'Crown of Glory' and generally enjoyed it. Buying the follow on 'Emperor's Edition' was a bit of an automatic for me.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

The fact that it's a Strategic Napoleonic game. In over 20 years of computer gaming I still can't think of another one at all (and, no, CNAW doesn't count). All other Napoleonic PC games tend to be either battle or campaign games.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

As other have said, the UI. Can be a bit fiddly and clunky in places. Also the Strategic AI needs a bit of work to be a bit more 'Anti France' but I believe that's something that's coming in the patch. I'd like better graphics in tactical battles too.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Really enjoy them. Of course, in a perfect world I'd like better battle AI, but it's OK. Still a bit disappointed in the graphics though, but they don't bother me as much as at first.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

Quite possibly. As I say, it was the grand strategic nature that first appealed to me.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12
player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

No interest at all. I tend to be a solitaty gamer.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

It took a while to figure out but it's OK now.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

I'd hate it. At that scale the whole of the Danube Campaign could be decided in about two turns. My tendancy would be the opposite. I'd like two week turns.

(in reply to Krasny)

Post #: 15

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/1/2009 8:12:00 PM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

Okay:

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
I'm interested in the period, wanted a game that dealt with Grand Strategy and Grand Tactics in one, and CoG looked to fit the bill. Plus, I'm still waiting for WitP:AE and HOI3.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
Main map movement, instant battle system, diplomacy - what I can do without having to go into another screen.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
Despite the best efforts, I still find the detailed economics opaque. That's okay, I'll play in simple more for now.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
The biggest let down.

Let me explain. I was really looking forward to this aspect, hoping to bring back the fun I felt in SPI's "Borodino" or "Napoleon at Waterloo" games - simple yet immersive.

It hasn't happened that way. I've not played out a battle to the finish yet; I've got fed up and hit the instant resolution button. It's DEFINITEKLY not helped by the way the game decides what I move first - which it seems is never what I want to do. I want to go methodically from left to right or right to left across the map, instead I find the focus dodging around all over the place, get frustrated and lost, and quit out.

Oh, one more thing? I want to be able to fight campaigns as the agressor, but battles as the defender. If I occupy ground that the enemy HAS to have, they have to attack ME. But if I'm in their territory in CoG *I'm* deemed to be the attacker and get the malus applied each day. That's not right.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
At the time? No. Now? Not so sure, see above.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
No, not now, not ever, never. I only play against the AI.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
As mud! <grin> But I'm still learning it.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
No opinion, but the shorter the turns the better I like things. Daily, perhaps?

Overall I rate the game as good, not great. It's main problem is that it's not holding my attention - it doesn't have that "Just one more turn!" imperative that the really great games get.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to ant1815)

Post #: 16

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/2/2009 2:35:59 AM

ithuriel2

Posts: 62
Joined: 4/28/2009
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

Avid fan of of Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

Detailed combat.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

Naval combat. The deployment is weak and the "Far Start" is not an option for me as a battle would take far too long - my wife would give me severe earache if I played that long....

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Love 'em. As with chess I tend to play aggressively and like to try and sieze the initiative and take risks. Defensive play is less of a challenge for me.

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
I think not.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

I've never tried though I would be interested - not sure how to go about it. Might not be able to dedicate enough time - the AI does not mind being kept waiting. Tempting though.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
Adequately enough. I do not use it much, mostly for surrender terms. I like to keep my otions open and treaties can hamper one's plans with regard to playing the AI, however human opponents.... well that is very different.

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

What would be the point ? I'm a great believer in ... "if it ain't broke, don't mend it".

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 17

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/2/2009 12:55:14 PM

montesaurus

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline

1. I bought it because I wanted a multiplayer game that would reasonably depict the Napoleonic period, and be fun to play. I bought the original edition, but was put off due to the bugs in the game. This one appears to be much better than the original. I love the boardgame EIA, but the computer edition proved to be disappointing. So, hopefully COGE will satisfy!

I must also add in relation to question #1, I have some friends who refused to purchase COGE due to they bought the original and felt they were being ripped off for only getting a $10 discount as being previous owners. I agree with them, even though I bought the game. I don't see a huge difference in the new one as I still use the advanced economy. WCS should have offered a 50% discount to original purchasers, instead of a paltry $10.

2. I like the fact that a nation can be forced to surrender if their people become too unhappy. Instead of watching a player lingering on, refusing to surrender, despite how terrible things are.

3. It would be nice to see more detail on how the make up of an army causes a battle to won, when playing the instant battles. For example, if my army is made up of pure infantry, and defeats an army mixed units I'd like to know how that happened!

4. I havn't tried the tactical battles yet. I'm mainly interested in multi player play.

5. Yes. The multiplayer aspect is most important too me, not the tactical aspect. If I want tactical aspects I'll play a boardgame system like "La Bataille" from the game company Clash of Arms.

6. The multiplayer aspects are the only reason I bought it. I might be interested in a 12 player aspect though finding 12 dependable players becomes expnentially more difficult! I won't pay full price for it though! It would require a 50% discount off regular price for me to be interested in it!

7. I have no present questions concerning the treaty system.

8. I prefer a 1 month turn system. I'm afraid too much would pass me by in a longer length turn! Though, I wouldn't be opposed as having a longer turn system as an option.

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 18

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/3/2009 7:54:26 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
I was looking for a good horse and musket game and ETW has let me down completely.
2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
Army OOB, diplomacy, AI, real looking events occur (non-historical but logicl alliances etc.)
3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
Minor improvements in military coordination between allies
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
I feel like if I were really there. Magnificient. Apart from two minor issues. One is the arbitrary and complusory sequence of units which is s little disturbing such as the lack of undo button. And also what someone else has mentioned the complusory attack if the battle takes place on enemy soil.
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
Probably not. I have not purchased AGEOD's Campaigns of Nappy for the lack of tactical battles (even tho it was serisously tempting due to its gorgeous UI and graphics. After playing and discarding a couple nappy games in the past years I feel the excitement which I have not felt since the days of Battles of Napoleon way back in 1988.
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
Currently I am seriously lacking spare time, so I am not really relevant but the death of EiA was the need to coordinate 8 people in a game that was lengthy and complicated even tho it was fascinating. IMHO 8 is enough. I dont think Saxony, Papacy or even Portugal or any other country has asserted so much influence on the course of events that require their independent faction. All of the above and the innmuerable other smaller country rarely fought or ated on their own.
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
�Yes.
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
It should be an option just as War in the pacific has optional 1,2,3 day turns.

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 6/3/2009 8:04:18 PM >

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 19

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/17/2009 2:44:01 PM

Raidhaennor

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

Hello everyone, this is my first message on this forum, I purchased the game a few weeks back, but I am only taking the time to talk about it now, and I thought this topic would be a good place to say what i think about it.

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
After buying ETW, wich disappointed me thoroughly, I saw a topic in a (french) forum which presented this game, and after learning about it I thought (and I was right) that COGEE would contain what I had been looking for, in a strategy game : a good ai, strategic and diplomatic/political depth.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
The diplomatic aspect, it is the main reason I got interested in the game ; its depth, and an ai able to make good use of it.

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
I wouldn't say that there are aspects needing more work, but it would be nice to have more options to deal/interact with minor countries.

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
I didn't pay much attention to that side of the game before purchasing it, but I have to say I enjoy them very much. So much so that it got me interested in an other WCS game, Forge of Freedom, which I bought a little bit later (haven't had the opportunity to play that one yet, just read the manual so far

)

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
Yes, see answer to #4. Although after playing them (and enjoying it) I feel they are an important part of the game, they add a lot of fun to it.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
Not that important, as I never played any strategy game on multiplayer before. But I'm definitely willing to try it this time around, once I feel ready for it.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
Yes

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
The turns are perfect as they are.

To sum up, I am having a lot of fun, kudos to WCS.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 20

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/17/2009 3:24:02 PM

Anthropoid

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

quote:

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

1. Why

FoF is one of the best games I've ever played at every level: user interface,vision, design, balance, mechanics, detail, historicity, replayability, innovation, everything. Loved the strategic and tactical engines combined. I believe this is wave of the future for wargames.

COGEE is in some ways even better, though I would like to see them try to combine the greatest strengths of FoF and COGEE in their next game. I feel like some of the greatest strenghts in FoF were left out of COGEE and vice versa.

WCS are not just smart, gifted, "non-sell-out" game designers, their gamers, and their good guys. I know they want to do the right thing for the gamer community, and in particular the Grog community, which I think they want to grow by designing games that both Grogs and Grogs in development can love. Companies like this need our devotion so that our hobby develops in the right directions. I will definitely buy ANYTHING WCS makes; even if the next two they put out are only mediocre at best (which I canot imagein happening in a million years), FoF and COG are such good games, they've built up a sufficient loyalty from me that I'd endure even that many.

2. What best?

Strategy AND tactics. Historical constraings AND alternate history opportunities. Details. The non-linearity, "unpredictability" (i.e., not all provinces are alike and not all developments have equivalent effects) of the Econ engine are brilliant. Treaty system is brilliant. Graphics are brilliant. Interface is brilliant. Overall design and look and feel, brilliant. The basic naval engine brilliant. The basic detailed battle engine brilliant. The overall replayability and victory structure, and user-adjustable settings for difficulty etc. brilliant.

3. What needs work?

Well, this applies to virtually ALL games, but the AI leaves something to be desired. Once you figure him out, you can take him to the cleaners, but again, without a Cray super computer or Skynet running the show, what do we expect?

I dislike the randomly generated detailed battle maps; actual hexified maps for actualy battlefields, and surrounding area, and other strategic areas would be much better. This would be a huge project though I recognize. Maybe someday. The old Civil War Generals II game had better tactical maps, which were replicas of actual battlefields. It would be neat if all of Europe (or at least all of it that was within 7 miles of a road or town in Napoleonic Era) could be digitized into a connected hex map database WITH topography! You guys need to check out Civil War Generals II maps! The Close Combat maps are also more along the lines of what I'm thinking of here. It would be a huge project though . . .

More operational options linking strategic and detailed maps, e.g., I should be able to build defenses in prep for detailed battles.

Naval maps are too small, and naval AI is completely inadequate.

Need formations and tactical doctrine in naval battles.

Bring back the FoF approach generals, weapons, more attributes, etc., better "random" generals functions as I've outlined elsewhere (Wishlist etc.).

4. Tactical

Had I never experienced the FoF tactical I'd say sure. But now that I HAVE experienced an engine that seamlessly integrates a strategic and tactical interface, I have come to expect it from any game. For example, Commander Europe at War would be a so much better game if it was basically a combination of CEAW and Close Combat!! ALL IN ONE!!

The only problem with making awesome games is that it ups our expectations one more notch!

5. Buy w/o Tac?

I doubt it now.

6. PBEM

Engine works pretty well, but bascially a lot of the detail decisions, tactical decisions and stuff are completely absent from the PBEM, so PBEM is really just the strategic game. Not sure how it could be workable any other way, but that is a slight deficiency.

IMO, getting even 8 guys into a good cohesive PBEM crew is an amazing feat, but that is based more on the Civ gamer crowd. Maybe with the community who play games like WCS makes, a crew of 12 would be more tenable, but I tend to think that that is just way too unmaneable. I think it works fine iwth 8 guys and AI controlling the rest, esp considering how much of each humans actions are actually run by the auto AI script during the movement phase. I think 12 would be over-ambitious, and even if it worked, I don't think it would necessarily add anything to the game for a human to get to play an extreme underdog nation.

7. Treaty clear?

Yeah, seems perfectly clear to me.

8. Turns

If anything I'd go the other direction 2 week turns. 6 weeks would be too fast. I'd prefer more detail to less.

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 6/17/2009 3:25:58 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 barbarossa2)

Post #: 21

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/21/2009 2:02:47 AM

barbarossa2

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

Thanks guys. This helps.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 22

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/21/2009 9:47:55 AM

Asberdies

Posts: 44
Joined: 6/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Just curious. I would love know know your answers to these questions from as many players as possible (please note that I have added a question 6 and 7 since this all started):

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
After reading the Matrix forum and seeing comments about it.

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
It is what CEIA (Computer Empire in arms) should have been. I was lurking the EIA forum for years, here at the Matrix forum, for the computer version of this game and was so disappointed by comments about it that i did not purchase it. I think COG:EE is really what the game should have been so i am happy now :D

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
UI and graphics. i would have dreamed of COG:EE gameplay and ETW graphics :p
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
Good one even if somewhat limited, i do them often on big battles
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
yes
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
Dont think i will do a pbem game. So long, so many things can happen and ruin your game and chances of not finishing it ar too high
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
yes, but it is so much a copy of the one in EIA
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
1 month is fine

If you own CoG:EE, please take the time to answer these 6 or 7 questions (or the ones which interest you). They are actually not just going to get flushed down the toilet and someone might be interested! :)

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 23

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/21/2009 12:51:42 PM

ptan54

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?
I have COG. I saw COGEE, liked it, the discount helped.
2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?
Best strategic and tactical Napoleonic game out there.
3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?
Needs more event moddability. Want to write my own events relating to the rise of Napoleon. Also would be nice if you can board ships without the ships going into harbours.
4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?
Great. Better than in COG. Maybe make victory hexes an option for the player.
5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?
Not likely. I enjoyed tactical in COG very much. Now it's better. I like the pursuit phase better than trying to surround everyone.
6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?
I don't play PBEM.
7) Is the treaty system clear to you?
Yes.
8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?
1 month/turn is fine.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 24

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/23/2009 9:08:49 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

1) Why did you buy Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition?

I like the concept...tactical and strategic...naval combat addition is something I've looked for in other games for years

2) What aspect about Crown of Glory is the "best" to you?

The entire game concept

3) What aspect about Crown of Glory needs the most work in your opinion?

I believe the game needs to become a pure turn based movement system, where one side goes and then the other, just like virtually every other game out there...the turn based system applies to both strategic and tactical...the "my unit goes/your unit goes...my army goes/your army goes...my fleet goes/your fleet goes...." approach creates an unrealistic game to the point of unplayability in my opinion...I keep trying to play the game and then quit because the game feels silly at times...

The current movement system doesn't work at all in naval tactical...you can't do line ahead because your ships foul - because the middle ship in the line has to move first and fouls the rest - and if you leave spacing to prevent fouling, the enemy ships moves from 8 hexes away to cut the line...plus each battle ends up as scrums because there's aren't really another other tactics that can't be applied within the current movement mechanics...removes the tactics of the period and the realism

4) What are your thoughts on the tactical battles?

Same as above...naval ships and ground forces should be moved all at once for a side, then other side goes...this works better for pbem if people want to wade through tactical combat...plus, there's currently NO way for tactical in PBEM...and the strategic game, by itself, doesn't hold up to other games out there published by Matrix...

5) Would you have purchased the game if it wouldn't have had tactical battles in it?

No...there's plenty of other strategic level games out there...combination of strategic and tactical are what give the game great potential..it's the strange movement mechanics that reduce the playability...for example...the grand armiee wasn't two armies in reality...it's a game convention because of army size limits built into the game...however, because they are two armies, they move separately and one army can end up fighting without the other...didn't happen in reality...they were one large army.

6) How important is the PBEM game, and would you be interested in a 12 player variant, allowing for players to be added for any additional four nations of your choice?

Possibly....strategic game is not quite up to snuff as other similar strategic games published by matrix...without tactical it could end up being a ton of administration without the fun of the tactics...if they converted the movement system...tactical could be done pbem, albiet difficult...another option is allowing a specialized combat screen for tactical for direct connection so that tacticals can be done directly between participants while strategic is done via email....probably too expensive to so something like that from a coding perspective.

7) Is the treaty system clear to you?

Love it...

8) What would you think about a six week or two month turn?

Possibly

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 25

RE: My Own Mini Poll... - 6/24/2009 3:18:57 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

For what it's worth, the distances with which players need to keep ships from each other to prevent fouling correspond to the distances that Brian Lavery says were distances ships were kept apart on approach to battle in British naval doctrine for the purposes of preventing fouling.

_____________________________