Amateurs! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

Casus_Belli -> Amateurs! (12/4/2005 11:45:45 AM)

I did have a whole list of suggested improvements for CoG, really a fantastic idea for a game, if only someone could actually develop it so it worked! Bugs and glitches are just too numerous to mention, and make the game unplayable. (Like, it's a bit hard to go to war with someone when you can't even move your forces into their territory). I thought the patch might fix a few things and I was really hoping, because it would be a fabulous game if only you could actually play it. But every time I try the patch the server is "busy". Well, it can't be busy for a week.
Really, it makes the whole outfit look like amateur hour, and if I thought there was any chance of success, I'd ask for my money back.
I don't usually write posts like this, but when you pay a good chunk of cash on something, you expect it to actually work.



zorlag -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 12:39:26 PM)

Rather strange, I just updated my game yesterday with latest beta patch from members downloads. Maybe someone could help you to get it if you are unable to download it for some reason.



Casus_Belli -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 1:03:01 PM)

Having let off some steam, let me say again how good I think the game is/would be if it worked. If it wasn't, the problems wouldn't be so extremely frustrating. Also, it may be that I'm doing something wrong or there's some other problem. If so, help!



ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 3:45:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
to mention, and make the game unplayable. (Like, it's a bit hard to go to war with someone when you can't even move your forces into their territory). I thought the patch might fix a few things


Players are forbidden from entering another nation's territory unless they do one or more of the following: secure rights of passage via a treaty clause, declare that they are violating the territory of that nation, secure an alliance with that nation, or declare war on that nation. So the behavior that you describe -- not being able to enter a foreign nation's territory -- is actually the expected behavior and not an example of buggy behavior.

I can't say for certain, but there may be other examples of things that you don't think that are working that are really just instances of the games' rules.

I appreciate any feedback we get on aspects of the game / manual / user interface which players find to be unclear or frustrating. It helps me to update the FAQ's, and such feedback is an important factor in determining the design changes for sequel products. If you have any questions about game mechanics, write them on the forum and you're likely to get numerous replies.

As to the issue of the server's being busy, I don't personally have anything to do with the game's distribution, but many people do seem to be downloading the newest patch, so perhaps it will be working for you before too long. If you're still having problems, check the Matrix' support page (from direct link off their home page) and try e-mailing their support at support@matrixgames.com. On the Crown of Glory forum we're mostly the game's developers and players discussing the game play and mechanics; we the developers don't really have anything to do with the game's distribution.








elmo3 -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 3:59:59 PM)

Casus

The game is a bit rough around some edges but it is getting improvements. It is hardly unplayable. Perhaps if you read the manual you would understand the requirements to move into another country.

Regarding the patch, I checked on it yesterday for someone else. The servers were up and the patch was there for registered users.

elmo3



rich12545 -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 7:02:09 PM)

I think the biggest misunderstanding is the way the game is described as intermediate. Well, I just bought pure sim baseball and that is really intermediate. In comparison, CoG should be complex or very complex. This game takes a long time to understand. Well, at least for me. I'm still trying. As much as I'll like it if and when I really get it, I wouldn't have bought it if I had known. But since I did, I'll keep at it and maybe someday the light bulb will go on.



ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 8:47:21 PM)

Rich12545,

One of the things we learned from player feedback from Crown of Glory is that a majority of players would seem to prefer a simpler economic model -- at least one simple enough so that they can predict the direct payoff of their actions. For the sequel, we've simplified many of the more complicated aspects of CoG -- the supply rules and the economy in particular.

For what it's worth, my original vision of the economic engine was to design something more complicated than players could easily understand, but which acted predictably enough so that players would develop a feel for the engine and discover little economic laws, develop their own model of the underlying engine, as they gained experience. This sort of discovery process with an unknown rule-system is something I personally love in games. Apparently, however, my aesthetic is in a very small minority -- it seems the vast majority of players prefer a less opaque system. (And the American reviewers who gave CoG mediocre reviews seem to want a set of rules that is no more complicated than an intermediate-level boardgame...)

Now when I say we're simplifying the supply rules and the economy, the systems will both still be fairly comprehensive. We're mainly trying to eliminate all those things that are hinderances to players who are trying to make direct calculations -- so we're avoiding polynomials with percentages in favor of simpler "mines give you +1 iron" type modifiers. We're also avoiding costs that vary wildly depending on the status of the board, as the current supply rules do; nothing seems to baffle players more than when they run out of money do to the additional expenses associated with supporting troops on the march. The costs will still be there, but we're stabilizing their tendency to change dramatically so that players can predict the economy with more certainty.







Kevan -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 10:28:12 PM)

I can't say that I'm happy to hear that you're considering changes to the economic system.

I agree that the "intermediate" designation might be a bit low. Not necessarily for any single component, but for the sum of the parts. The micromanagement has been a very pleasant surprise for me since purchasing the game.

It seems I may be a minority, in that I'm an old-fashioned grognard who grew up on detailed board games that necessitated incessant debates about published rules and occasionally the creation of house rules to better reflect historical accuracy. I can't wait for the final patch of CoG to come out, because then I'll start the exciting (for me) process of discovering what can be modded to suit my own ideas of historical accuracy. I'm very surprised at the lack of modding (at least as evidenced in these forums) so far.

I think that the better solution would be a re-design of the rule book, with clearer or more detailed explanations of some aspects of the game.



TexHorns -> RE: Amateurs! (12/4/2005 10:43:44 PM)

COG is not Napoleon Lite. If you want Napoleon Lite then Imperial Glory is what you want. COG is a wargamers wargame. As I have spent time playing the game, reading posts on this forumn and reading the rule book, my understanding of the economics and other systems have grown. I go back and read the rule book and find things I missed the first several times I read it. The evolution of understanding and mastering the system is part of wargaming. When my group of game buddies were playing Longest Day for 5 years straight it was an eveolution. We had every errata and read and re-read the rules as our understanding of the system grew and our mastery improved. I want my games complex and detailed. COG is that kind of game. Eric, please don't dumb it down. People who don't want to take the time to LEARN a game and it's nuances need to find another hobby. There are enough vanilla companies who make vanilla games for the mainstream poeple who want it easy.



Casus_Belli -> Professionals! (12/4/2005 11:56:05 PM)

I really should know better than to post when I'm frustrated and p'd off. I apologise for the tone off my earlier post. I have now discovered some of the reasons for problems I was having and have also successfully downloaded the patch (I was trying to do it with GetRight, which no-one seems to like for some reason).
I have been wargaming for 25 years, on and off, and I'm a keen student of mil hist, so I do have some understanding of the issues involved.
Anyway, it seems to be all ok now - until something else comes up, of course. I do have a bunch of suggestions, which I will post soon.
Thanks for your patience, and I will try to be a little more diplomatic in future.



Adam Parker -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 12:30:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

COG is not Napoleon Lite.


Yes I tend to agree. My very brief first take on the game - and I'm still to get the rules under my belt is that CoG:

1. Is not as complex as Europa Universalis 2 nor thankfully, as micro-managed as War in the Pacific (in terms of the complexity and player time involvement required).

2. Is not as simple as Age of Empires, Total War or Lords of the Realm 2 in terms of empire building and fighting.

3. Is not as confusing as (what would have been the best attempt at this type of game in the past) - Imperialsm 2 or the more recent Grigsby's World at War.

CoG seems to offer a better interface, the promise of true diplomacy which is what this era was all about and the ability to run a turn based battlefield along the lines of Civil War Generals 2.

Where supply and economy do determine the fate of empire - not merely act as an excuse for players to do something abstractly associated with running an army.

In fact, I think I'm going to like this entire concept of "Glory" - winning through culture, diplomacy and war. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the diplomatic model as work here vs the AI. Where treaties actually need to be crafted in order to get anywhere.

If CoG can pull it off - then companies like Paradox could give it serious look and possibly learn a thing or two when designing their next foray at the "PC Diplomacy" genre.



TexHorns -> RE: Professionals! (12/5/2005 1:28:07 AM)

Casus, before posting your questions you might peruse the threads for the answers. I'm sure that whatever questions you have have already been asked, answered and debated. The Raleigh guides are very helpful also.

As to my point earlier, many people have come to this forumn and complained before having read the rules, read the posts or given the game a fair play through to learn it. I struggled with the economy parts of the game early on. I asked questions, read posts, read and re-read the rules and played through until I began to grasp the workings of the game. I guess I just expect that everyone else will do the same. If they do they will find what many of us have and that is that this is a great game that is loads of fun to play, has great replayability value and is keenly supported by the developer. In fact, I'm not playing anything else right now.



Krec -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 1:29:27 AM)

i agree with Tex, make the game as you envisioned, let the players figure it out. thats what wargaming is all about. if someone wants risk, go buy risk. this game is very close to being an alltime classic, i have not played a game yet quite like it. i like the economic model. its all about estimating, isnt this what makes the game great? not knowing exacly whats comin in. make better trades and guard your trade routes better. this is the stretgh of this game. sure there are tweaks that are needed but please nothin major. playing the game with others is were it really is fun. COW is turning into my favorite game , the more you play the more you come to appreciate its design!!



garoco -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 1:51:35 AM)

and you must experiment the emotion of game TCPIP still my friend [;)]



Reiryc -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 2:34:26 AM)

Hate to hear about the more simplified approach to the economy.

I too like it better when I don't have a predictable simplified understanding (mines +1 for instance) but rather like knowing that mines will help in most cases but not always type approach. It adds more flavor to the game imho.




ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 7:30:34 AM)


Hey guys, thanks for the kind words. We really appreciate the great support we've received from the fans on the Matrix forum.

The economic/supply rules for Crown of Glory won't change; the changes we're considering are for the *next* product using the COG engine.

Overall I don't think that that game will be any less complicated than COG, but I do think it will be less confusing for new players -- we've tried to move some of the complexity away from places where players (and reviewers) were complaining that they found it superfluous/confusing -- economic rules and the supply costs -- but have made several other areas of the game modeled in greater depth.

We're also giving more detail to provincial developments and some other aspects of the economy (there will be about 40 different areas of development, more specialized and less abstract than the COG categories). Mostly what we're trying to eliminate is the need to integrate over the square roots of polynomials in order to be able to predict accurately the effects of your economic decisions. In any case, it certainly won't be RISK, but it also won't be so much like a midterm exam in macro-economics either.




BossGnome -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 9:25:20 AM)

I personally dont really like the economy of COG, but an overly simplified model à la "rome total war" could seriously ruin the game. Let's be honest with ourselves here: budget wise, matrix could never beat activision, so COG must be (and currently is) beating RTW by brain power, that is, having more diverse diplomatic and economic options, since it would be hard to make COG battles as entertaining as the RTW ones (sorry for those who prefer turned based). My view is: you lop off most of the economy in the sequel, and you lose almost 1/2 of your advantage over rome.



Gresbeck -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 11:26:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For what it's worth, my original vision of the economic engine was to design something more complicated than players could easily understand, but which acted predictably enough so that players would develop a feel for the engine and discover little economic laws, develop their own model of the underlying engine, as they gained experience. This sort of discovery process with an unknown rule-system is something I personally love in games.





Totally agree. I personally didn't find the economic model so difficult to understand. After all, the results seem in general predictable. The game allows to see what kind of resources the player needs, and what kind of investments are required. Probably you cannot exactly predict the amount of resources you can gather, but that's how economy works in real life. A wargame shouldn't be a game of patience in calculating the optimal amount of resources to have the optimal amount of output. I find these games rather annoying, and I think they are essentially "puzzles", not "wargames". A player should be able to "guess" what his economy needs and than see the results of his actions.



michaelm75au -> RE: Professionals! (12/5/2005 11:51:58 AM)

When downloading from the Member's area, download managers are not supported. The server is not the normal Matrix FTP server, where those managers are supported.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

(I was trying to do it with GetRight, which no-one seems to like for some reason).




ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 6:46:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

I personally dont really like the economy of COG, but an overly simplified model à la "rome total war" could seriously ruin the game. Let's be honest with ourselves here: budget wise, matrix could never beat activision, so COG must be (and currently is) beating RTW by brain power, that is, having more diverse diplomatic and economic options, since it would be hard to make COG battles as entertaining as the RTW ones (sorry for those who prefer turned based). My view is: you lop off most of the economy in the sequel, and you lose almost 1/2 of your advantage over rome.


I haven't played Rome Total War, so I can't speak to that comparison (I did play Shogun Total War once shortly after it first came out). There will actually be more distinct economic options in the sequel, it's just that the equations that govern these options will be simpler and less-opaque and some of the smaller economic "wheels" that operate over the long term with more gradual effects will be replaced by more dramatic operations that have more immediate consequences in order to give players more immediate feedback on their economic decisions.

I personally find RTS games boring unless played against a human opponent whose strategies I know well (then one can start putting Col. Boyd's theories into practice...since the length of the AI's OODA loop is measured in mS, there's really no head-head out-Boyding the AI.) I don't think our battles are any less fun than, say, Shogun Total War's battles were (for my tastes, I much prefer ours, in fact).

I think we can compete simply because there are a lot of strategy gamers who want to resolve their battles with a strategy-based sub-game, not a real-time click-fest. Some people might like a strategic game where the battles are resolved with a first-person shooter, since lots of players like FPS's ("and then Napoleon picked up his musket and started picking off the advancing Austrian mass" -- the game Dungeon Keeper was essentially a strategy game + FPS, can't think of any other examples...) but I think there are a lot of strategy gamers who simply wouldn't find such a thing enjoyable.

(I believe that RTW is in the reverse sort of situation... their main selling point is their RTS battle system. If their strategy game were too robust, it would be a turn-off to many of the RTS fans.)

I appreciate all the enjoyment that players who write on the Matrix forum get out of the game's complicated economy -- one of you guys should have written our review in CGW or CGM! The mainstream reviews did enormous harm to our prospects of distribution, and as long as I'm making less than minimum wage I've got to try to figure out a way to please/appease the reviewers so as to try to sell just a few more copies. I don't think that the new rules we have in mind will be any less enjoyable than the COG systems, but if there are enough players who don't like them, then it may be quite possible to have the game run in two different modes: have Basic and Advanced Rules between which players can choose. In Basic rules, mines might be +1 iron, in advanced rules their effect might be (+10%*Population+(15%*Roads_)/((Distance-From-Capital)^2*WasteLevel).







sol_invictus -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 7:15:06 PM)

I'm afraid you wont be able to please those bozos in the big mags no matter what you do, but I support any efforts to make your very detailed games more friendly for a casual crowd. I can almost feel your anguish and pain at trying to create complex and realisticly historical accurate strategy games, yet make a living at the same time. I think that COG while certainly complex, was also somewhat buggy and had a not quite ready for release feel when it was released and this had some negative effects on mag scores. I would suggest that you take all the time you need on the next game and make the changes that will make the game not so much of a chore to learn and you should have a good chance at success. Europa Universalis proves this. You have a potential winning system here that with a little adjustment could bring the desired rewards. Keep the faith and I feel confident that COG will become a cult classic at least and that your next game will make it over the top.

Speaking of which, when might we get a clue about the subject for your next magnum opus? Please let it be either Frederick the Great, Wars of German Unification, or Rise of the Roman Republic.[&o]



Russian Guard -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 7:43:17 PM)


I agree completely with this post (#17). I have always campaigned for less transparency in any game system; when all is revealed, the min-max'rs rejoice and calculate every consequence of their actions to it's precise outcome.

Indeed, it becomes a puzzle to figure out and, once the optimal choices are "figured out" the game becomes static/predictable/boring, as everyone plays the same way if you want to play it "smart".







ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 8:48:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I agree completely with this post (#17). I have always campaigned for less transparency in any game system; when all is revealed, the min-max'rs rejoice and calculate every consequence of their actions to it's precise outcome.

Indeed, it becomes a puzzle to figure out and, once the optimal choices are "figured out" the game becomes static/predictable/boring, as everyone plays the same way if you want to play it "smart".


We've foreseen the min/maxing problem and have a couple of mechanisms in mind for making that harder to do....




ericbabe -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 9:02:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald
I'm afraid you wont be able to please those bozos in the big mags no matter what you do, but I support any efforts to make your very detailed games more friendly for a casual crowd. I can almost feel your anguish and pain at trying to create complex and realisticly historical accurate strategy games, yet make a living at the same time. I think that COG while certainly complex, was also somewhat buggy and had a not quite ready for release feel when it was released and this had some negative effects on mag scores. I would suggest that you take all the time you need on the next game and make the changes that will make the game not so much of a chore to learn and you should have a good chance at success. Europa Universalis proves this. You have a potential winning system here that with a little adjustment could bring the desired rewards. Keep the faith and I feel confident that COG will become a cult classic at least and that your next game will make it over the top.

Speaking of which, when might we get a clue about the subject for your next magnum opus? Please let it be either Frederick the Great, Wars of German Unification, or Rise of the Roman Republic.[&o]


Our numerical ratings weren't actually that bad, it was more the mocking tone that the reviews took with COG has hurt distribution. There were some unfortunate bugs in 1.0 that were introduced late in the development process, and unfortunately both reviews were written based on 1.0. But one might point out that 1.0 versions of some Paradox games aren't the most bug-free things, so I don't think that this was the material problem for the reviewers (actually, I don't know how well Paradox games typically rate in, say, CGW...)

Hopefully, if we address some of the substantial points raised by the reviewers (and some of the points they raised were reasonable critiques...), maybe add different beginner/advanced rules, we can get slightly more respect in the mainstream reviews.

I'm under a vow-of-silence regarding the subject matter of the sequel...




Mr. Z -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 10:21:48 PM)

quote:

I can't say that I'm happy to hear that you're considering changes to the economic system.

Well, on the other hand, CoG will probably always be CoG, so you'll always have that!

quote:

It seems I may be a minority, in that I'm an old-fashioned grognard who grew up on detailed board games that necessitated incessant debates about published rules and occasionally the creation of house rules to better reflect historical accuracy.

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion nowadays, for better or for worse.

quote:

I can't wait for the final patch of CoG to come out, because then I'll start the exciting (for me) process of discovering what can be modded to suit my own ideas of historical accuracy. I'm very surprised at the lack of modding (at least as evidenced in these forums) so far.

Well, we certainly encourage it, so we look forward to whatever you (and others) find you can do!

quote:

I think that the better solution would be a re-design of the rule book, with clearer or more detailed explanations of some aspects of the game.

Manual is currently in a much-revised version, being reviewed. I'm afraid I don't know exactly what will happen when, however. I don't know that it is a more detailed explanation of things, though I hope it is a little clearer here and there--however, mostly an explanation of the economic system will lie outside the manual, i.e. in Ralegh's guides, and in a hoped-for economic white paper (the progress of which I haven't been monitoring closely.)



TexHorns -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 10:29:37 PM)

I played Medieval Total War extensively. I could easily say it was my favorite, most played game before COG. I enjoyed the strategic level of MTW, as there wasn't anything better at the time. I play EU some, but like HOI, didn't like the real-time strategic level. I like turn based games at all levels.

Rome Total War was a major disappointment to me. Although the graphics on the strategic map were new and interesting, after winning several times I became bored. COG blows RTW away in my opinion. I much prefer the pace of turnbased. I can't see myself buying another TW series game if WCS is going to continue to develop and have published games based on the COG system. I;m a pretty loyal customer who will keep coming back to the well as long as they keep putting them out there. BTW I still have MTW installed, but RTW isn't. Although it doesn't matter what else is installed as I'm not playing anything else but COG right now.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 10:37:05 PM)

And what mods have you installed Tex? Because even patched up to 1.21 the AI was a no brainer in tactical batles. Which was a real pity since it was THE centerpoint of the game, not to mention unrealistic strength of spear untis.
I played a lot with hungarians and later Aragon, just to have a little challange, but even on very hard it wasnt a real deed to win. But in MP 6 vs 6 15000 ducats -or whatever currency- per side it was real fun.



siRkid -> RE: Amateurs! (12/5/2005 10:57:11 PM)

[:D][:D]And just what is the next game based on? [:D]



Adam Parker -> Why I bought (12/5/2005 11:24:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The mainstream reviews did enormous harm to our prospects of distribution...


Well, here's the thing. I saw the Wargamer's review, found it too wordy and ignored it! My biggest issue as to whether to buy CoG were two-fold:

1. Impact of bugs.
2. Complexity of learning.

The release of the current beta patch allayed fears there and my failed effort to re-learn Europa Universalis 2 over the weekend made me re-look at the forum feedback here, the screen shots and predict the enjoyment CoG would offer me. The 2d tactical battles represented a supplementary feature of the game and not a faddish afterthought. That sold me as did the promise of a diplomatic engine that worked. And I bought!

Eric I think CoG has a definite market for it - the empire building, histo-realist, war gamer. Currently, there is nothing like your game available. Less historical alternatives are; Rise of Nations, CiV4, RTW and dare I say Age of Empires 3. None offer turn based, long term gameplay as with CoG. None offer the realism of a definitive epoch either. So there has to be something more to getting CoG churning out big dollars.

Marketing and straightening out bugs will do it.

Reviews can mean a lot but only where 1/2 star ratings are given - Paradox's PC Diplomacy for example! I was so desperate for a historical gaming session I nearly bought that over the weekend too! But being $15 AUD more expensive than CoG - I held back at the last moment and glad I did.

(Btw CoG's price is just right imo. I know the two hard copies at my local gaming store sold the day I told folks they we available! Oh well, I do love Matrix's Digital Download too [:)] )

Best of luck,
Adam.



garoco -> RE: Why I bought (12/6/2005 3:29:23 AM)

I ´m agree with the words of Adam Parker. This product has an part of market fall in love.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875