Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

After playing awhile there are 2 things which really can make this unplayable

 
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 >> Crown Of Glory Support >> After playing awhile there are 2 things which really can make this unplayable Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
After playing awhile there are 2 things which really ca... - 7/23/2005 11:00:11 PM   
Grand_Armee

 

Posts: 809
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
Despite it's bugs, I've come to love this game and can't wait until the TCP/IP issues are fixed for us dialup users. Hopefully I won't have to cough up the bread for broadband.

Still, there are two major issues that have made me end a game prematurely because they are so glaringly wrong and impossible to deal with on any economy or method.

The first thing is POW's. Instead of actually having them show up on the map after capture they should just become a number that doesn't disappear until peace is declared. It shouldn't be a number that costs you anything to hold them...i.e., feeding the buggers. Historically, many rotted in hulks or in out-of-the-way places until they died or were set free by peace. Some were put to work, but they shouldn't be an economy wrecking factor. There weren't any huge POW camps at the time.
...if anything, the size of the losses should cause some unrest for the side who has lost them.
...That they can be released by a few cossacks and immediately cause you casualties is the biggest piece of rubbish! NO country on the map is large enough to prevent their being found by some roving band of guerillas.

The second thing is cossacks and other supply inhibiting creatures operating in your homeland.
Cossacks were great for Russia while they were in Russia. But outside of Russia they were less of a force, and often had to be hunted down for brigandage. It is one thing for your army to starve in the vastness of the steppe...or in the rugged countryside of Spain. And something quite different for your army to starve to death on it's own soil with friendly citizens who would: a) tell the local gendarmerie where and when they had seen cossacks/guerillas and even help track them down and kill them. And: b) Not have done scorched earth on their own farms, keeping you from feeding at their expense.

THe 1812 Campaign in Russia and the 1813 Campaign in Germany were the greatest occasions of Napoleon's armies starving in huge numbers. Spain was a problem too, but over a longer period at a slower rate.

IN 1812, the failings of supply against distance added to scorced earth and cossack raids caused the invaders to starve into insignificance. Cossacks were a factor, but a smaller factor than the fact that an ox has to eat more hay or grain than the weight of hay it can pull behind it.

In 1813, not only did Napoleon have to survive on a corrupt supply system, but also deal with a German population who was no longer friendly, enemies who drove cattle away from the French, adn some effects of raiders in his rear. But it was nothing like this game does.

In 1814, with Russians advancing through French ground, we hear less and less of starving French forces. We hear less and less of cossacks.

...away from their home turf, cossacks alone should mean that that your army will whither away.

...Please Fix!
Post #: 1
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/23/2005 11:15:05 PM   
Naomi

 

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline
Ya. Supply inhibition should be limited at least to French-speaking Cossacks, who could ask French inhabitants how they would tour around in France. :p

(in reply to Grand_Armee)
Post #: 2
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/23/2005 11:20:16 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, What stops you from
1. Guarding your POW so they are not freed by a cossack
2. Guarding your land so cossacks can't roam about.

Just wondering because I see a lot of posts on these subjects and can't understand the problem. It is a known fact that
1. Province need garrison in city but garrision in city does not stop enemy forces from moving into province and destroying depots and setting POW free so
2. Province need garrison outside city.

You need to at least provide the outside garrison on your borders and where you keep POW. (If you do this then there is no problem.)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Naomi)
Post #: 3
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/24/2005 1:14:15 PM   
Hard Sarge


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

Hi, What stops you from
1. Guarding your POW so they are not freed by a cossack
2. Guarding your land so cossacks can't roam about.


don't go there Mog, you get yelled at for being gamey

:)

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 4
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/24/2005 7:57:36 PM   
marirosa

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
As i played a bit EiA in the past, i am most inclined to compare stuff in this game.

- In EiA we had a house rule so cossakcs can't be more that 2 provinces away of any friendly army. We made this house rule after some gamey russian conquered tunissia with only cossakcs. In CoG i don't see cossacks capable of assault a medium city.

- In EiA you put garrison on your depots, so one chit with militia will not take it. In CoG you can't garrison depots but you must deploy divisions in the province with depots.

- In EiA to figth guerrillas you needed corps iddle. Here in CoG you can try pursue guerrillas with Corps (divisions simply can't catch guerrillas) but then you are most likely to make guerrilals to retreat as it is hard to kill them in quick battles.

- In EiA you can place a depot next to an already deployed one, and by already deployed it means IN A TURN BEFORE. In CoG i see too often the ia austrians to place depots from Tyrolea to Ille de France. Of course they deploy them ungarrisones so it is easy for me to capture them.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 5
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/24/2005 9:34:26 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
These are two issues I would like to address since we've gotten quite a bit of player reaction on them.

On POW's, my current thought is perhaps to make the following changes to the rules:
1) POW's cannot be liberated; once captured, they remain captured until war is dissolved.
2) POW's require less upkeep for the nation that owns them. Thinking 1/4 the normal cost.
3) Award victory points for total level of POW's held at the end of a war (which, inter alia, would give you an incentive not to starve them all to death.)

I like this better than abstracting it because the abstraction would lose the particular attributes of the units (their morale, for instance, but also whether they are Landwehr or Cossacks or Janissaries.) It would also be simpler to implement this than an abstract system because would just be a modification of the existing system.


In regard to Cossacks and other wandering units, I like the simple modification that your depots cannot be disrupted in provinces you control (not just cities you control...) Disrupted depots are depots that are removed despite that they are being guarded by a division; cossacks et al. would still be able to destroy unguarded depots in a player's home territory, and I think this is not unreasonable.

Another rule I'd like to tweak is to give Light Cavalry an increased chance of forcing battle against loose divisions.

I'd appreciate your feedback on these two proposed rule changes. I don't consider them fixed in stone yet by any means.


Finally, one note: loose divisions should be able to fight cossacks, they just have a smaller chance of forcing a combat than a corps/army does.



Eric

(in reply to marirosa)
Post #: 6
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/24/2005 10:26:18 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Both of those sound very good to me

yes, POWs should be a prise/value

roget on the supply, I don't mind if I lose one if it is sitting in the open, but I hate it when I got troops there

sounds good to me

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 7
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/25/2005 1:49:32 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
On POW's, my current thought is perhaps to make the following changes to the rules:
1) POW's cannot be liberated; once captured, they remain captured until war is dissolved.
2) POW's require less upkeep for the nation that owns them. Thinking 1/4 the normal cost.
3) Award victory points for total level of POW's held at the end of a war (which, inter alia, would give you an incentive not to starve them all to death.)

This sounds good to me. If you could make it so that POW's are liberated if the city they are in actually captured that would be ideal. Also, a general reduction in the numbers of troops taken prisoner in open field battles would be desirable.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 8
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/25/2005 1:54:29 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
In regard to Cossacks and other wandering units, I like the simple modification that your depots cannot be disrupted in provinces you control (not just cities you control...) Disrupted depots are depots that are removed despite that they are being guarded by a division; cossacks et al. would still be able to destroy unguarded depots in a player's home territory, and I think this is not unreasonable

This will help. But how about restricting the movement of irregular troops that are outside of their home country to within 1 or 2 provinces of the nearest regular army or corps? Though I can see that being difficult to program.......

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 9
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/25/2005 2:43:01 AM   
ericbabe


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

that would be ideal. Also, a general reduction in the numbers of troops taken prisoner in open field battles would be desirable.


I think so too. Right now, when retreating from a quick battle:

Base surrender chance = 10%.

Guerilla units get +10% chance to surrender.

If forced to retreat into enemy territory that contains no friendly supply depots, surrender chance +55%. We added this in response to testers who wanted better LOC simulation. But I think it may be too high. I'll cut it down to +15%.

Eric




(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 10
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/25/2005 11:49:50 AM   
Ralegh


Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline
I like most of the changes you've outlined on this thread, Eric.

quote:

In regard to Cossacks and other wandering units, I like the simple modification that your depots cannot be disrupted in provinces you control (not just cities you control...) Disrupted depots are depots that are removed despite that they are being guarded by a division; cossacks et al. would still be able to destroy unguarded depots in a player's home territory, and I think this is not unreasonable.

Another rule I'd like to tweak is to give Light Cavalry an increased chance of forcing battle against loose divisions.


a) I am not quite sure what "provinces you control" turns out as - if it means depots can't be disrupted unless the city is beseiged, then I think this is GREAT. I would treat allied cities as capable to protecting the depot unless besieged too, but neutral cities could be treated as already beseiged.

b) I think all cavalry should have an improved chance, Light Cavalary even more than the others.


_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 11
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/27/2005 9:46:51 AM   
Grand_Armee

 

Posts: 809
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

These are two issues I would like to address since we've gotten quite a bit of player reaction on them.

On POW's, my current thought is perhaps to make the following changes to the rules:
1) POW's cannot be liberated; once captured, they remain captured until war is dissolved.
2) POW's require less upkeep for the nation that owns them. Thinking 1/4 the normal cost.
3) Award victory points for total level of POW's held at the end of a war (which, inter alia, would give you an incentive not to starve them all to death.)

I like this better than abstracting it because the abstraction would lose the particular attributes of the units (their morale, for instance, but also whether they are Landwehr or Cossacks or Janissaries.) It would also be simpler to implement this than an abstract system because would just be a modification of the existing system.


In regard to Cossacks and other wandering units, I like the simple modification that your depots cannot be disrupted in provinces you control (not just cities you control...) Disrupted depots are depots that are removed despite that they are being guarded by a division; cossacks et al. would still be able to destroy unguarded depots in a player's home territory, and I think this is not unreasonable.

Another rule I'd like to tweak is to give Light Cavalry an increased chance of forcing battle against loose divisions.

I'd appreciate your feedback on these two proposed rule changes. I don't consider them fixed in stone yet by any means.


Finally, one note: loose divisions should be able to fight cossacks, they just have a smaller chance of forcing a combat than a corps/army does.



Eric



Eric,
Thank you for your answer. I agree with all of your ideas. It still doesn't make conquering Russia a cakewalk,...in other words you can't just march to Moscow, you have to control it's provinces and you can't starve to death because you can't afford to build a corps for every province you own.

A major thumbs up to your POW ideas.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 12
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/27/2005 3:37:42 PM   
ericbabe


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


b) I think all cavalry should have an improved chance, Light Cavalary even more than the others.


Yes, perhaps this should go for regular and maybe even irregular cavalry too -- I was thinking more in terms of game balance, as light cavalry may need a bit more tweaking up -- but the heavy cavalry really wasn't much good at this sort of scouting from what I've read.

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 13
RE: After playing awhile there are 2 things which reall... - 7/30/2005 6:38:26 AM   
The Iron Marechal

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
There is one thing that I would enjoy seeing added to this game. That is the ability of the player to rename not only the major formations in the game, but also the sub-units as well. For example, the 104th Inf should be able to be renamed the 26th Line Regiment, or the 3rd Infantry Division, or whatever the player so designates. It would, in my opinion add some more historical feel to the game. Any chance of that being added in a future patch?
HAIL and Salute

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Crown Of Glory Support >> After playing awhile there are 2 things which really can make this unplayable Page: [1]
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

1.764