What Could Be Next? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition



Message

barbarossa2 -> What Could Be Next? (4/12/2009 11:15:27 PM)

I am curious which period might interest some CoG:EE fans here other than me. Let's say you could take the CoG:EE engine and give it a new time period to play around in--using the same exact map. And, let's say that because things like supply, corps system, and even transportation function totally differently in many time periods, that we are limited to the following THREE periods, which one would you be interested in seeing a title on:

1. Europe 1618-1670
Think Thirty Years War, English Civil War, Polish Deluge, Russo-Polish War (1654-1667), Gustavus Adolfus, Wallenstein, a powerful Sweden, Poland, and Spain. I do have a concern that there is more than a little to change here...supply, religion, a nation's finances, even the military all looked significantly different here than by the time Napoleon came around--so it may be out of the question. Other problems include:
1. Civil Wars (I am not convinced that CoG:EE has adequate provisions for Civil Wars)
2. The Holy Roman Empire (I am not convinced that CoG:EE has the political abilities to deal with the Holy Roman Empire pre-1648).
3. The CoG:EE System has absolutely no provisions for mercenary armies.

2. Europe 1660-1700
Think siege of Vienna (1683), Anglo-Dutch Wars, Franco-Dutch Wars, the Nine Years War (War of the Grand Alliance) a powerful Sweden, Netherlands, and a powerful Polish-Lithuanian Union with its own mind. This is the period of the four discussed here that I am least familiar with. I do find many aspects of it interesting and worth exploring more, but I don't feel it would be a great super mod (though I may be wrong!).

3. Europe 1700-1740
Think War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714), The Great Northern War (1700-1721), the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1738), the Swedish invasion of Russia, Marlborough, the battles of Blenheim, Malplaquet, and Poltava. This is, arguably the era of the birth of modern warfare. With standing armies, military budgets, and more. Things that would have to be taken into consideration include:
1. It seems that advanced fortresses with many walls and guns should be harder to take due to the nature of warfare demonstrated on France's northeastern frontier and in the Netherlands. Additionally, each "city" in a provence may end up representing many cities and sieges could take longer or be unsuccessful, representing a general moving from one city to another to another take all of the major fortresses in an area.
2. It was relatively easy for armies to refuse battle.
3. Marching long distances was arguably tougher on armies due to some things I have read. Marches are also slower. It is a little like "Napoleonic War on A Leash".
4. Large armies were about half the size of Napoleonic armies.
5. Perhaps a tiny bit of additional work would have to be done to code for changing monarchs (Spain and Poland historically), as two of the named conflicts were really wars between the Bourbons and Habsburgs who were trying to place people they knew and trusted on the throne of a nation. I do not feel that CoG:EE does an adequate job of modelling this right now. (for instance, if France and England are at war over who will be on the Spanish throne, in the end, the Spanish player remains the Spanish player).
-Interesting note: in Charles XII's Swedish army invaded Russia in 1707, they brought 40,000 men. From the descriptions of the campaign I have access to, it seems there was no real supply train or line and that most of the army was supplied (poorly) with "foraging". Of course, he ended up in the Ukraine with the Cossaks on his side (who wanted freedom from Russia) and lost to Peter the Great's reformed army at Poltava, instantly changing the balance of power in Europe.

I put together a quick cover concept for this period, it is below.

4. Europe 1740-1780
Think Frederick the Great, the wars for Silesia, War of Austrian Succession (1740-48), Russo-Swedish War (1741-1743), Seven Years War (1756-1763), the "Forty-Five" Rebellion in Britain, Sweden and Poland in Decline. I think this period would require the fewest real changes. My only big concern for this period is that if Prussia gets unlucky and loses one war, they will lose their precious few provences! That would quickly put them out of the game. For that reason, I tend to lean towards, Europe 1700-1740.

What do you think about these possibilities? And is there something else you would recommend trying with the same engine and map within the constraints of using a very similar army/corps, supply, and transportation system?

The reason I ask is because it seems that even though titles like these won't sell nearly as many titles as a Napoleonic title would, some players will be starved for something new. Are you one of them? Like me? I mean, why do we get 3 US Civil War, 3 Napoleon, and 5 WW2 Theatre games a year? But nothing else? :) (I know what the answer is: Because they sell...but that doesn't mean there is no market for the other games if they can be produced at a reasonable cost :D)

[image]local://upfiles/19419/07CD17C0563046B19D557DDD4134B188.jpg[/image]



dude -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 1:07:16 AM)

I wouldn't mind seeing a decent Roman period game.  Just don't know how feasible it would be with this engine.



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 1:11:57 AM)

Dude, I have a feeling that the Roman map might have to be bigger (show more of the Middle East) and some things would really need to be changed. Or?

I am suggesting these 3 time periods (1618-1670, 1690-1730, 1740-1780) because they will take the least work to change the engine for (I think).



sol_invictus -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 1:51:25 AM)

War of the Spanish Succession would be nice but The Seven Years War would be even better!



Mus -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 3:34:49 AM)

One thing I would be quick to point out is you dont necessarily have to have a continental scale scenario to have a good game.

A game could be just about smaller national or regional conflicts like the English Civil War or Peloponessian War and still be a great game.

Given the huge differences between COG and FOF I dont think WCS needs to confine itself to using the same map just to make it easier.

I believe map areas of a different scale showing much greater detail would be necessary to do justice to some of the subjects you mentioned.



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 1:25:26 PM)

Mus, I agree with you.  One could take the CoG:EE engine and put it on a smaller map.  However, I am really just considering modding CoG:EE extensively.  And that means I think I am "stuck" with this map.



Anthropoid -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 7:40:40 PM)

1618 to 1780 is the period of Euro history about which I know probably the least, so . . . any comments I make must be qualified by that ignorance.

Wasn't "Seven Years War" more or less an inter-continental war involving struggles to consolidate colonial holdings and control/disrupt inter-continental trade? Assuming it was, I don't see how this engine could satisfactorily cover that period.

The other two periods I know even less about, but I'd guess that the issue of having to deal with inter-continental "global warfare" stuff would be subtantially less important for those earlier periods?



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 7:51:20 PM)

Anthropoid,

"The War for All the Oceans", which is about the naval conflict between France and Britain during the Napoleonic wars seems to paint the picture that the war between these two powers was about trade as well.  In fact, I am guessing most european wars between maritime powers always had this as a major goal and issue...expanding your trade power at the expense of your neighbors. 

Ideally, even CoG:EE would have off map areas which produced goods to be traded.  Players could then attack them and try to take them.  However, WCS went for the super abstract, "colonies" system in which you can strip your enemies of their colonies in treaties.

I have a feeling that there were many of the same trade issues in the 1700-1740, 1740-1780, and 1792-1815 periods.  However, I would love to hear the opinion of an expert.



Anthropoid -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 8:30:31 PM)

Oh for sure, there were 'global' dimensions to the Napoleonic period. It was just my sense that the relative importance of those 'overseas' dimensions were far greater relatively speaking during the Seven Years War than during the Napoleonic period. Just reading the first paragraph in the Wiki article make me wonder if it is reasonable to try to simulate this particular war with an engine where conflict outside greater-Europe would necessarily be so abstracted (bold added to quote for emphasis)

quote:


The Seven Years' War (in Germany sometimes called the Third Silesian War) lasted between 1756–1763 and involved all of the major European powers of the period. The war pitted Prussia and Britain and a coalition of smaller German states against an alliance consisting of Austria, France, Russia, Sweden, and Saxony.
Portugal (on the side of Great Britain) and Spain (on the side of France) were drawn into the conflict later, and a force from the neutral Netherlands was attacked in India. Because of its global nature, it has been described as the "first World War". It resulted in some 900,000 to 1,400,000 deaths and significant changes in the balance of power and territories of several of the participants.

The war began with Frederick the Great of Prussia's invasion of Saxony. Fighting between Britain, France and their respective allies in North America had broken out in 1754, two years before the general conflict, as part of an Imperial rivalry. The fighting in America is sometimes considered a separate war, the French and Indian War.

Despite being the main theatre of war, the European conflict resulted in a bloody stalemate which did little to change the pre-war status quo, while its consequences in Asia and the Americas were wider ranging and longer lasting. The war ended France's position as a major colonial power in the Americas (where it lost most of its possessions on the mainland of North America, in addition to some West Indian islands)[2]. Prussia confirmed its position in the ranks of the great European powers, retaining the formerly Austrian province of Silesia. Great Britain strengthened its territories in India and North America, confirming its status as the dominant colonial power.[/quote]

With the exception of the Prussian outcome "confirming its position in the ranks of the greats" the other two primary outcomes: reduction of French colonial power and achievement of British colonial dominance, I don't see how this war could be simulated using the COG:EE system?



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 8:43:23 PM)

Sure. I was aware of these facts.  However, I must sadly admit that CoG:EE sorely does need a system with which overseas conflict can be at least abstractly represented.  For instance, in the "Napoleonic" wars, there were several occassions when the French or British sent squadrons of 2-6 battleships to the Carribean to capture islands or cause trouble for the opposing power there.  Often very successfully.  This ability is completely absent in CoG:EE.

Unfortunately I need to work with it.

I have played two games about the Seven Years war which had either no events which occurred in North America (Avalon Hill's "Frederick the Great"), or had a simple table for this (Decision Games' "Seven Years War").  It wouldn't be a first to ignore this.  I would however, prefer an abstract system with perhaps off map boxes.

If you are saying I should lean to the 1700-1740 conflicts (though I don't think you are), I am for that personally. :D



Randomizer -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 9:12:59 PM)

As stated on another thread I really would like to see the FoF/CoG-EE Western Civilization Software Engine (WCSE - Thanks to Anthropoid for coining the phrase) used on the Thirty Years War. This period saw the rise of the modern nation state and the decline of mercenary entrepreneur as the arbiter of kings. Given the military, political, religious, economic and social issues of the day there should be something for everyone and lots of potential for player interaction against an AI (or I would think PBEM although I have never done so). I suspect that the combat system is very capable of handling arqubuses, pikes and positional artillery and I rather like the idea of having to deal with marauding unpaid mercenary armies rampaging around.

Am less enthusiastic about the Seven Years War period but mainly due to its intercontinental scope. The WCSE could certainly handle the detailed combat routines and naval warfare saw few material differences (but huge doctrinal changes) from the CoG era. The scope of the period might be too much however. Managing battlefields ranging from India to Quebec introduce the prospect of instantaneous communications that were physically impossible in the era. If you think teleporting armies is unrealistic, what about being able to react to an event in New France with the same celerity as one could react to a similar event in Paris. This has nothing to do with movement and everything to do with information; news would be months old upon receipt and often overtaken by events at home. It's not as though these overseas campaigns were minor or insignificant either since their impact on the real future would be huge.

Ignoring those theatres would be wrong but coming up with some sort of system that introduces a several month information delay and decision cycle for events outside Europe is a formidable technical problem and one that should be addressed. I just have no idea as how to do it in an un-umpired game setting without abstracting them to the limits of boredom.

WCS will do as they will and I wish them the best of luck but I have no doubt that whatever the era and subject is selected for their next project, it will be done well. I do really hope that starting it does not delay the long overdue FoF patch Any Longer though...

Best Regards



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 9:20:06 PM)

Randomizer,

I agree with you.  I would personally rather see a game on the Thirty Years War.  But if one were to do a full blown MOD of CoG:EE and perhaps even get a tiny bit of coding changed, I really think that Thirty Years War is not doable.  I am really talking full MOD here.

But don't get me wrong.  I would be thrilled to hear that WCS was doing the Thirty Years War.

-B



Hard Sarge -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 10:01:24 PM)

WCS will do as they will and I wish them the best of luck but I have no doubt that whatever the era and subject is selected for their next project, it will be done well. I do really hope that starting it does not delay the long overdue FoF patch Any Longer though...

that should be out soon, we been working with the installer



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/13/2009 10:33:45 PM)

Moved...



Anthropoid -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 12:37:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
. . .
Ignoring those theatres would be wrong but coming up with some sort of system that introduces a several month information delay and decision cycle for events outside Europe is a formidable technical problem and one that should be addressed. I just have no idea as how to do it in an un-umpired game setting without abstracting them to the limits of boredom.
. . .


Any system that could somehow represent that would be _FANTASTIC!_

That would effectively allow something like Civ to be played without it being a total farce.

Just "love" it when you're playing Civ . . . you build a "town," send out your scout a few tiles (hmmm, how big ARE those tiles anyway??). It takes "him" about 1000 years but he makes it over there 8 or 10 tiles to a coastline . . . he 'sees' a 'barbarian hut' . . . 'moves' into the 'tile' with the hut and 'pops' it . . . Ha hah! We've learned the secrets of a new technology from the friendly barbarian tribe.

And then somehow, miraculously, this information which has just been conveyed to our "scout"--who is 1000 years journey way--*POOF!* pops back across the intervening miles where it is immediately assimilated by our "scholars" and in the matter of one "turn" allows us a whole host of new buildings, projects, units, etc.

You just gotta love the 'realism.'

To repeat, any system that could achieve an effective and even _somewhat_ more believable way to balance such time-space-information dynamics would be a watershed for strategy games. But I don't think COGEE (at least in its present formulation) is the solution. Indeed, to try to apply an un-altered WCSE to such a global scope, at such an early stage in the history of long-distance communications would I think be a major breach of realism.



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 12:44:10 AM)

Randomizer and Antropoid,

That would be freaking awesome.  But how?  How can one control the movements of units precisely and then only hear back on the results of their moves later?

Maybe one way to do it would be to force the player to "BE" one person...say the King at his palace.  He can then delegate and give orders to advisors who attempt to execute his orders, and report back when new info arrives.  That's about the only way I can think this might be done.

But it is cool.  I once played a Napoleonic wargame which was a simulation of the battle of Waterloo.  It was for the Amiga.  What was cool about it was that it was ALL orders based, and orders could take forever to get where they were supposed to go.  It was really awesome when I think of it.  I wonder why there hasn't been more like that?  Seems everything is "micromanage" these days. 



Anthropoid -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 1:44:32 AM)

Back when I was still enthralled with Civ4 Beyond the Sword a couple years ago, I remember a discussion among the WiTP forum guys. There was some new War in Pacific game that included tactical battles, as well as some control over area strategic operations. I thought it sounded pretty cool, but some of the older true Grog WiTP forum guys protested, saying "I hate these games where you play the national commander, then somehow miraculous teleport 1000 miles away to be in the role of theatre commander giving orders, then in the next chapter become the Task Force commander coordinating launching planes and preparing for anti-air, then *poof* you become a squadon leader protecting a squard of dive bombers . . ."

At the time I had never looked at it from that perspective, and I pretty much disagreed. Having grown more tired of the major game breaches of realism in Civ that are related to this exact dynamic: time-space-warp-unrealism (or TSWU for short [:D] ) I have grown more sympathetic to the general complaint, but at the same time, I do not agree that any game that involves any such suspensions of realism is totally unpalatable.

It is fun to explore the tactical and strategic ecology of VARIOUS contexts, whether that is building a fanciful railroad empire (railroad tycoon), becoming a fanciful pirate master of the Caribbean (Pirates!) building a fanciful Zoo (zoo tycoon), or playing any of various roles as a soldier/commander/decision-maker/agent in an game simulation of various military contexts. Heck, even a game like "Drill Sergeant" in which you have to train recruits and then observe how well they perform could conceivably be fun, if it was cheap enough. Microsoft flight simulator is a really fun game, even though you can do all kinds of unrealistic things in it: including land at LAX with ZERO other planes on the horizon.

I guess what I'm getting at, or perhaps thinking out loud about is: it is not intrinsically unrealism which is annoying in this regard, because looking at a two-dimensional screen representation of a "battlefield" or a map is intrinsically unrealistic. Rather, it is _how_ that unrealism shapes opportunities and constraints on decision making as a player. This is what is at the heart of his point when Randomizer says

quote:

Managing battlefields ranging from India to Quebec introduce the prospect of instantaneous communications that were physically impossible in the era. If you think teleporting armies is unrealistic, what about being able to react to an event in New France with the same celerity as one could react to a similar event in Paris. This has nothing to do with movement and everything to do with information; news would be months old upon receipt and often overtaken by events at home.


I would think that a clever designer could figure out ways to abstract events in far off locations so that the player is NOT able to react to events that are far off with the same celerity, or determinacy, or flexibility as those happening nearby. What it would boil down to is a detailed 'taxonomy' of events, their possible outcomes and the hierarchy of contingent events into which each event/decision fits. This would require a close understanding of history, society, individual characters (both the real historical ones, and some sense of the 'could have been' ones), doctrine, custom, standard operating procedures, capacities, limitations, etc.

For example, if one were to apply the current COGEE engine to try to create a "Seven Years War" mod. You would first have to categorize all off map events in some meaningful way. Not being an expert, I would just guess that the most inclusive divisions would be:
North Atlantic
North America
Caribbean
Central Atlantic
Portugese Coast
West Africa
Southern Atlantic 
Cape of Good Hope
Cape Horn
South Pacific
Philippine Islands
Australia and New Zealand
China Coast
SE Asia/Indonesian Archipelago
Eastern Indian Ocean
South India
North India
Western Indian Ocean
Pakistan
Persia
Arabia
East Africa
Mozambique
Southern Africa

Perhaps several of these "boxes" would be inactive and therefore certain action options that existed for other boxes would not normally be possible. But, to be a good game, any reasonable strategic prospect that did not happen in real history needs to be at least some kind of possibility.

Maybe the Seven Years war did not play out in the Portugese Coast much at all, but a game that simply precludes anything happening there when a close read of the history suggests that a slightly different turn of events MIGHT have resulted in events there is taking a less than optimum approach.

Indeed, I would hypothesize as a consumer psychologist that it is exactly this openness to alternate histories which has made Civ so ragingly popular and kept games like War in the Pacific limited to a small but rabid fan base. People _like_ to explore prospects such as "What if the Egyptians had discovered "Philosphy" before the Greeks did, or "What if the Romans had not had abundant sources of Iron," etc., etc.



Dreadnaught -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 2:56:39 AM)

1700-1740 gets my vote. i'm interested in the great northern war and many of the other conflicts you just dont hear about much. we all know about napoleonic era, roman era (except eastern roman which is sooo interesting), medieval era, and ww2, its over played. thats said, i still love playing those eras.

so i vote for an era less known as its more interesting.

its a tough question if the option is just this map, let alone just this engine. a little outside your options, i would vote for a victorian late 1700's or early 1800's to early 1900's ending with ww1 would be perfect with this engine. BUT, with a whole world map. colonial conflicts and north and south america would add a lot of flavor. europe is great, but i want world wide war!!!




Randomizer -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 4:13:30 AM)

Nice post Anthropoid, solving with the TSWU (again with the acronyms, heh heh) problem would go a long way towards creating realistic contemporary situations that would require contemporary solutions.

I was actually thinking along the lines of pop-up map windows that would contain all the distant provinces and cities where the AI would wage war with the AI based on commands given several turns previously. The map would show information that is several turns old but the game engine would maintain the plot of what is happening currently. There would be no way to model detailed combat in this system but the instant combat routine could work. Just thinking out loud.

For example French North America might contain several provinces, New France (city Quebec), Lower Canada (city Montreal) and Cape Breton (city Louisburg). The English own the Thirteen Colonies (with their associated cities) and Nova Scotia (city Halifax) and Spain would have Spanish Florida and many of the Caribbean Islands.

Orders to container could be given by drop down menus and include such options as:

Passive Defence – Cheap to supply but surrenders all initiative;

Active Defence – Slightly more expensive with the better prospect of damaging an
invading force;

Maneuver Defence – Expensive but most effective defensive order;

Cautious Advance – Cheapest and least risky form of attack only likely to achieve anything against a passive defence;

Aggressive Advance – Effective against passive defence and marginal against active defence; and

Maneuver Advance – Most expensive and effective option.

Also of course there would be the usual siege options and there could be similar options for the fleets in adjacent sea zones and bonuses for combined operations. Orders would be implemented X-number of turns after they are given depending on distance from the home country.

This sort of system would have the computer comparing the default orders and could also use leadership values to modify the potential outcomes. In any event, the situation map would be several turns old and all strategies would be conducted devoid of current information.

In any case curing the heartbreak of TSWU would be a huge boon to the historical gaming community.

Best Regards



Mus -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 4:29:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dreadnaught

we all know about napoleonic era, roman era (except eastern roman which is sooo interesting), medieval era, and ww2, its over played.


Because those games sell.

I think it was eric babe in the other thread along these lines said he would love to do a 30 Years War but its not believed to be commercially feasible.

Whether or not WCS/Matrix are going to be able to move units has to be taken into account.



vaalen -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/14/2009 7:35:28 PM)

All of these periods are very interesting and would fit within the COGEE system.

The cover applies to the 1700-1740 game, and shows how appealing this subject could be. Many people are familiar with Marlborough's campaigns, Peter the Great and the Great Northern War, etc, so this is more of a mainstream topic than the others.

I would happily buy such a game.

I share Barbarossa2's concern about Prussia in a Seven Years War game. Prussia just does not have enough provinces to survive against all those enemies.



barbarossa2 -> RE: What Could Be Next? (4/15/2009 4:10:20 PM)

By the way, I found a series of three videos on YouTube where someone has posted the battle of Poltava segment of a recent Russian movie about it.  It's interesting to see, as I have not seen a depiction of the battle since the "Peter the Great" TV series in the early 1980s.  It's good to see this period in history doesn't get too neglected.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gQKRF9aJ0&feature=related
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esMhRIpxhSQ&feature=related
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j5X432TESM&feature=related



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625