quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I dont necessarily think that that is the case at all. It not a question of having too much control IMO, but more that the CoG econ was too 'fuzzy'. And by 'fuzzy' I mean that it was too convoluted and it was very difficult to determine what the cause and effect of various actions taken was. This leads to players making guesses rather than decisions and eventually to just the desire to not want to mess with it at all (and hence the reason why

I'm just going by a lot of the comments I've seen on other forums as to why people didn't like the COG economy.

I do think you're right that people prefer things that are more transparent. In the COG economy, everything affects everything else over a few turns. I was trying to design something I'd never seen in a strategy game before, an economy that was complex enough that making economic decisions might feel something like making economic decisions in the real world. In the real world, Paul Volcker increases interest rates, he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen... he may have enough experience to have a good idea, but the system is so "fuzzy and convoluted" that he's not just able to predict the exact effects of his decisions. Frankly I still like having this kind of thing in the game -- knowledge of the economy becomes a matter of intuition and experience -- but I agree with you 100% that the majority of players hate having to deal with something that's too complex to be able to handle more directly. There are a few European reviewers who really loved the economy in COG and one who actually "got" exactly what I was trying to do with it, another who thought we ruined FOF by taking out the COG economy, but I think these guys are exceptions and, (sniffle, sniffle), I don't think we'll being trying to implement this kind of economy again.

quote:

I agree there was too much economic development possible in COG. Originally (at least in our in-house testing in the beta stage of development) we tried to ensure that economic development would be held to reasonable levels of GDP growth by balancing the costs of things with their economic benefits. The longer-scenario and the mitigated waste rules really allow things to grow much too large.

I don't think it's inappropriate to have appropriately large economic growth in this period though. Napoleon and the Directory introduced sweeping economic reforms, and to a large extent Napoleon engaged in an attempt at "micromanaging" some sectors of the French economy.

By way of examples: in 1800 London built the West India docks, expanding them steadily over the next six years, and in the same year the Berlin's Royal Porcelain factory begins to use steam power for the first time, greatly increasing its production of luxury goods over the next few years. The first advertising agency is opened in London. A major horse-drawn railway opens in the Ruhr Valley to increase mining operations there. Berlin introduces a new postal system. Denmark begins to regulate guilds in Copenhagen.

In 1801, the Bank of France is founded. Horse-drawn railways are introduced in Surrey. Gerhard von Scharnhorst starts a war college in Berlin. Chivas Royal Scotch whisky is first blended (an increase in luxuries if ever there was one). The London Stock Exchange is formed.

I do agree that as it is now, the growth can easily be too large. I also think that the more feudal nations should have a harder time of changing their economy -- note that the examples in 1800/1801 are all French, British, and Prussian (not that other places weren't making economic developments as well.)

quote:

For my own opinion, I disagree that the upgrades are too fantastic for the period. Most of the things on the list were things actually developed during the period covered by the game (or else were attempted to be developed, such as Rocket Horses), and their effects aren't anything like the sweeping technological changes introduced into WWII. They also for the most part don't represent technological improvements but rather developments in military doctrine or training. I would argue that the Coalition showed marked improvements in military doctrine during the Napoleonic Wars. I'd appreciate more opinions on this as I haven't heard too many people complain that the upgrade system is too generous.