RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (Full Version)

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



Message

Gil R. -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (9/26/2010 7:13:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Good to know that CoGEE is eventually going to get another comprehensive patch, and that so many great minds are contributing to it.

So are we talking about a patch? A DLC? What sort of end product is this work that Marshal is proxying on going to result in? Just curious?

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

One other thing I'd like to suggest, and I know it is a dreadful one to contemplate: the rules book(s). It would be nice if the portions of the manual or whatever it is that deals with game mechanics could be updated to reflect the changes in the next patch/upgrade. As it is, it seems to me there are so many ambiguities if not incongruities b/w rulebook and game play that reading the rulebook just seems like a waste of time. Is that an unfair conclusion?

I see CoGEE as a legacy to computer strategy gaming in general, and assuming the next patch/upgrade is penultimate if not ultimate, it would be a good thing in the short- and long-term if there was a thorough, accurate, clear and detailed version of the rules that addressed all changes, as well as incongruities and open questions.


I'll ignore bjmorgan's post so that I don't risk getting banned from the forum, and answer this one instead...

Yes, a patch. Marshal at this point has a much better grasp than I do of the key issues, as I've been too busy with "Brother against Brother" to focus on COG:EE as well, so he's been acting in the way I traditionally do in terms of gathering input and presenting it to Eric. No prediction of when the patch will be out.

Redoing the manual isn't an option, because an enormous amount of work goes into formatting, graphics, etc., and much of that is done by Matrix's Marc von Martial, who must work on manuals for new games. So the readme file will have to remain the source of info on changes to the game.



Kingmaker -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (9/26/2010 8:36:57 AM)

HiHi

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

Gil, IMO A Post Xmas date for the Patch would be exteemly silly; there is enough bad News on the Forums re stuff that doesn't work/Bugs etc to put anybody of buying the game, whats really needed is a comprehensive Patch out before the end of October because Sods Law says not every thing will be fixed and that would give time for minor errors to be sorted via a mini Patch so as the game is a Marketable commodity that lives up to it's advertising campaign prior to the Xmas period.

CoG EE is potentially a World beater if the probs are sorted, never mind extra "Whiz, Bang Pops" (Nice but ...), get the basic game up to scratch and it will do fine, not only selling as a now reliable product but also entice all the folk that have gone off to other more reliable games back into the PBEM fold, folk that have played this game really really want it to do well, please put that extra bit of "time & effort" in to get it sorted and it will pay dividends further down the road.

All the Best
Peter



Anthropoid -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (9/26/2010 12:12:03 PM)

Agree the influence of militia on MOB limits should be easier to tell.



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/15/2010 2:16:29 PM)

Sorry to add to this now, but the situation just occured in the pbem109 game.
No matter the settings, even if I check a button labelled "check this if you are so stupid that you do not know what you just checked", should the AI accept a partial surrender in a pbem game, THAT is a choice that should be made by the player only.

Terje



Marshal Villars -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/15/2010 6:07:37 PM)

Terje, can you elaborate? I don't understand.



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 10:36:31 AM)

If you have the pbem settings placed to "Recieve Alliance", the AI will accept an offer made to you of a partial surrender without you getiing to say anything.

In Pbem109 I had my settings to "recieve alliance" with everybody (you never know who your new friend might be after all), and was in a war (me as France), together with Russia and the Ottoman Empire against Austria.

Austria then sends France an offer of a Partial Surrender which the AI then decides that I want.
Ofc I did not want that, and that is my point, all offers of Partial surrender is a somewhat game changing event, and is NOT something the AI should be allowed to accept. Only the player should be allowed to accept such offers.

Hope this makes it clearer
Terje



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 7:05:03 PM)

There is an additional issue with the limited surrender. In the situation mentioned by Terje France now has an enforced peace with Austria for 18 months. According to the rules a limited surrender is supposed to have a 9 month peace-not 18.

It is possible that the other victory points were not halved as those should have been. I'm just speculating on that, but if one didn't reduce by 50% maybe there was more not functioning correctly.

It is m understanding that if there is an alliance that the surrender cannot be a limited surrender at all.



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 8:57:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
It is possible that the other victory points were not halved as those should have been. I'm just speculating on that, but if one didn't reduce by 50% maybe there was more not functioning correctly.


Yup, 8075 VP sounds a tad steep for a limited surrender.

Terje



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 9:32:40 PM)

As far as the accepting a partial surrender and the PBEM settings, I do think that it is mentioned in the PBEM rules.  I never leave any of those boxes checked unless I have a specific reason to do so.

As far as limited surrenders and alliances, I always thought that if you limited surrender to one member of an alliance, you limited surrendered to them all.  HOWEVER, limited surrenders to do need to be accepted if, as previously mentioned, the proper box is not checked.  Did any other members of your alliance have the "receive alliance" box checked with Austria?  If not, Austria would have properly surrendered to France only.

Also, I do agree is doesn't sound like the limited surrender is working correctly as far as points and enforced peace times.  Did you gain and Austria lose the proper amount of glory?



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 9:52:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: evwalt

As far as the accepting a partial surrender and the PBEM settings, I do think that it is mentioned in the PBEM rules.  I never leave any of those boxes checked unless I have a specific reason to do so.


As mentioned, it was on because I thought it was needed for trading, and the fact that all nations might send some agreement that you would like to agree to.

quote:

As far as limited surrenders and alliances, I always thought that if you limited surrender to one member of an alliance, you limited surrendered to them all.  HOWEVER, limited surrenders to do need to be accepted if, as previously mentioned, the proper box is not checked.  Did any other members of your alliance have the "receive alliance" box checked with Austria?  If not, Austria would have properly surrendered to France only.


Austria ONLY offered it to France (with the #¤" AI accepting), from my understanding, neither Russia nor the OE had the option to accept/refuse, but 06 Maestro and Anthropoid have to confirm this.

quote:

Also, I do agree is doesn't sound like the limited surrender is working correctly as far as points and enforced peace times.  Did you gain and Austria lose the proper amount of glory?


I will have to check the values here.

Terje



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 9:56:39 PM)

France glory gain: 31
France NM gain: 200

Austria glory loss: 668
Austria NM loss: 100
Austria NM gain: 254

Terje



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/16/2010 10:14:06 PM)

I just checked the settings for Turkey in the 109 game. I did have the "be aggressive' box checked, but did not have the "receive alliance" or "Trade" boxes checked with Austria.

Edit: I should have mentioned that I did receive the offer of a limited surrender the turn following France receiving the offer. I had an opportunity to decline-which I did..



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/17/2010 6:33:03 AM)

Another little item has crept up in the same game.

Vienna is occupied by Russia-both the province and the city. The city is captured and there are no Austrian units in the province or near by. The Russian forces only amount to 33,000 instead of the required 40,000 in the province. This has resulted in Austria not taking the 250 point hit during the turn for having its capital occupied by an enemy.

A similar thing happened some turns ago. Austria drove out the enemy armies from the Vienna province, but I had inserted a division into the city. Austria had to attack the city on the following turn to recapture it. In this situation Austria did not take the moral hit either. I did not mention this at the time as it was debatable as to the ownership of the province due to the presence of the Austrian armies. However, the province was clearly shown on the map as being controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

In both the above cases Austria did take the moral hit during the preceding turns while large enemy forces were in the province.

Perhaps this is not a bug-it could be debated. However, it just does not seem right-if the province is shown as under enemy control and the citadel is also occupied by enemy forces it seems clear to me that it should suffer the moral hit for not controlling its capital. The minimum 40,000 (IIRC)seems like a reasonable number to insist on for causing the moral loss in an enemy capital, but only if the capital city is not under enemy control already.




evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/17/2010 11:24:07 PM)

I have been reading the AAR for this game (thanks btw!).  I THINK those glory/NM gain losses are right.

VERY strange that Turkey would get the option to accept/reject a limited surrender.  Seems like everyone should get that option or no one.

As far as capitol occupation, I have always thought that you should only lose funds if the capitol itself is occupied, not if there is an army in the area.  I would like to see the same for NM loss also.

Maybe if the area is occupied by an enemy container of at least 40,000, a country would lose 1/2 the NM it currently does and NO money (ie. still it gains full income).  If the city is occupied (ie. the enemy controls the province) then IRRESPECTIVE of the presence of any enemy containers, a country would lose all income and the full amount of NM loss (which I believe is 100 for France, 250 for everyone else but Russia, which is 75 each for Moscow and St. Petersburg).

With the above, you would see the garrison of the capitol become more important, as well as allowing a defender to be slightly more daring as he would not be as tied to the capitol.



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/17/2010 11:31:31 PM)

Have discovered another minor problem.  On the Development Screen, when money goes '5 digits' (ie. 10000 and above), the last digit is cut off.  (ie. 10000 would show as 0000).  It looks like a "space" needs to be removed as there is plenty of room for that digit.

Note: the money is always calculated correctly and there are plenty of places to see the proper amount, that darn space just always annoyed me.  [:@]  [:D]



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/18/2010 4:29:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: evwalt
I have been reading the AAR for this game (thanks btw!). 


You are quite welcome.


quote:


VERY strange that Turkey would get the option to accept/reject a limited surrender.  Seems like everyone should get that option or no one.


You think it is strange, I was shocked when I saw it in the game. Terje and I do a decent job at coordinating efforts-and then that?? What treachery [:D]. Anyway, I actually did receive the offer-as luck would have it I took a screen shot of it and posted it in the aar.

I would call what happened to Terje a "bug". Granted; with the optimum settings this may not have occurred (it didn't to me). However, it should not be possible at all. Limited surrenders are not supposed to be possible when there is an alliance. There is a requirement to surrender to everyone at one time-or at least I thought that is what the rules stated.



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/18/2010 4:51:31 AM)

Here are some snips of the rules. The rule of surrendering to "all" is in the "surrender" paragraph-not the "Offer Limited Surrender". So, perhaps it is suppose to be legal to accept a limited surrender even if in an alliance. However, the recipient of the offer should have an opportunity to decline. There is still the issue of there being 18 months of enforced peace rather than the 9 in accordance with a limited surrender.

5.4.2 Declaring War, Surrendering, Treaties, and Subsidies
• Surrender –
....A nation that surrenders to one enemy is also forced to surrender to all the allies of that enemy as well.


• Offer Limited Surrender – Similar to a normal surrender, but the nation who is
offered the surrender may choose to decline, and the surrendering nation
does not surrender to all enemies. If the surrender is accepted, the victor
earns only half the normal Victory Points. Only nine turns of enforced
peace follow.



Marshal Villars -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/18/2010 5:16:21 AM)

Discussions are being noted here. :) Thanks. :) Keep it up.



terje439 -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/18/2010 7:37:35 PM)

Just for laughs I started a new game vs the AI.
Is there any chance to look at how the nations act in vs AI games?
What I would like to see is that the different nations make more "realistic" DoWs on minors.

Turn 1.
Russia DoW Georgia (fine)
Britain DoW Denmark (fine)
Sweden DoW Georgia (????)
Spain DoW Denmark (????)

Turn 2.
Preussia DoW Georgia (????)
Ottoman Empire DoW Netherlands (????)

Turn 3.
Sweden DoW Transylvania (????)

They issue DoW on minors way beyond their sphere of influence, and do not really do anything about it.
Seems odd to me.

Terje



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/18/2010 7:46:02 PM)

Maybe the way surrenders are done should be changed.  Leave normal (ie. unconditional) surrenders the same, involving the use of surrender points, full NM and glory losses, etc.  This type of surrender (if voluntary instead of forced by NM loss) is done by right clicking an enemy and offering to surrender.  Forced surrender due to low NM is kept the same.  Note: this type of surrender can also be done through a treaty term, though I have never figured out why someone would do that rather than a "right click."

For Limited (what I would consider a conditional surrender), have this done by treaty ONLY.  A country can offer a conditional surrender containing whatever terms are desired.  If accepted by the other party, the normal 1/2 NM and penalty loss are applied to the surrendering party (with gains to the accepting part(ies) of course).  If rejected, nothing happens.  NOTE: There would be NO surrender points involved in this surrender.  I guess you could track somewhere how much each term would cost in surrender points (for determining if the computer would accept surrender) but there would be nothing to prevent a country from taking more or less surrender points than they could have received normally.

If doing the above, then limited surrenders COULD be done without surrendering to all allies.  Since the players have the option to reject it though, I don't think that would matter much.



Anthropoid -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/21/2010 12:30:01 AM)

My settings were like Maestros: Be Aggressive, Do Not Trade, Do Not Receive Alliance. But then, I don't think Matto ever offered me the Limited Surrender. Of course I would've never agreed to such a cowardly and underhanded betrayal of my beloved alliance brothers, Franch and Turkly . . .

I like that there is a possibility for an alliance to be "picked apart" by the Limited Surrender thing, and do not agree that Limited Surrender should blanket to the entire alliance the way full surrender does.

I frankly also like that the engine seems to pool the spoils for alliance members who stick it out for the full surrender.

Being in an alliance (particularly in PBEM) should not be fool proof; it should be fragile (see vulnerability to having alliance members taken out of the war by Limited Surrender) and it should also involve some degree of reciprocal division (see spoils being pooled, not calculated separately among all nations), meaning that a relatively latecomer nation can to some extent exploit his allies by joining an alliance after they have taken most of the punishment in a war, but then expecting to receive roughly equal spoils for having helped to win it. That seems entirely in line with how real life international relations worked. IMO, things are working just fine with this part of the game and I don't see any need for any changes.

Having the "Receive Allliance" clicky box function to determine how the AI handles this in PBEM is, I agree, an ambiguous way for the player to indicate that they will accept a Limited Surrender, but I think there should be a way. Also, I think it is better for it to be a setting than for it to be something exchanged diplomatically between humans. Each turn is a month. A Limited Surender where one ally drops out of a war will tend to change things in a war, and I think having a full turn warning where the offer is made then the agreement is made would kill this dimension of it. I think it is better that their be a tick box that a player can tick or un-tick that determines how his nation will respond in the event a Limited Surrender is offered. I agree that "Receive Alliance" is a weird one (I would've thought it was the "Be Aggresive" clicky) but now we know what it is.

So what does "Be Aggressive" do?



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/21/2010 10:31:39 PM)

There is a situation of depot sharing treaties disappearing-without notice. I have seen this happen in two different games involving 4 nations. If it is a "feature" it needs to be explained. As it is I will try to make a habit of making a new treaty every year to be safe.

Something new has just come up in the 109 game. Units belonging to victorious nations did not redeploy to their respective home territories after a surrender. This involves the same surrender in which the "limited surrender" seemed to be bugged-at least in regards to time of enforced peace. I have not seen forces not auto redeploy before-something special going on here. If someone wanted to see a save that could be arranged.



IronWarrior -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 1:24:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

There is a situation of depot sharing treaties disappearing-without notice. I have seen this happen in two different games involving 4 nations. If it is a "feature" it needs to be explained. As it is I will try to make a habit of making a new treaty every year to be safe.

Something new has just come up in the 109 game. Units belonging to victorious nations did not redeploy to their respective home territories after a surrender. This involves the same surrender in which the "limited surrender" seemed to be bugged-at least in regards to time of enforced peace. I have not seen forces not auto redeploy before-something special going on here. If someone wanted to see a save that could be arranged.



+1 on the depot sharing treaty. My ally is noticing problems with it as well.

The redeploy isn't a bug. After a surrender you have the option to teleport out (redeploy) or not. We had voted to not use the redeploy in pbem 109 as I wanted some consistency there and not redo turns etc.



Anthropoid -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 1:34:27 AM)

So can we supply our forces while they are still inside the defeated enemy?



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 6:12:46 AM)

Just curious for you guys in 109 (apparently no re-deploy).  Has there been any problem getting back POW's after a surrender?  Where do they appear?

In a game I am in (GoingAgain), Turkey surrendered to Russia.  Turkey had a general and a few Russian divisions POW.  Due to an ongoing war in Austria, Russia asked for no re-deployment out of Turkey.

The result, all Russians held by the Turks simply disappeared.  I was trying to figure out if this was a 1 time thing or consistant for treatment of POWs when you don't redeploy out of a country after surrender.



Anthropoid -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 1:41:29 PM)

It appears that we can supply our forces inside the defeated enemy. Not sure why my depots disappared after the turn where the surrender went through, but they stuck in place this last turn.

Have not noticed anything about PoWs that I can recall for certain. In the first war early in the game, it seems like Russian PoWs appeared back in Russia, and the British and Prussian PoWs same thing.



06 Maestro -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 5:50:25 PM)

I just had a situation of Otto PoW's being released in Prussia after Austria's (their capturer) surrendered. I could not order the Turks to do anything-they were stuck. Terje suggested I use the "violate neutrality"-and it worked instantly. I was able to march then right out. That is, right out into the blizzards of central Europe 1000 km from home.



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/22/2010 8:03:22 PM)

Most of the time, (outside of the Russian POWs disappearing), return of POWs do see to work fine.

I did observe the strange release Maestro commented on. Prussian POWs were released by France into Spanish controlled Naples! A strange bug that only seems to appear once in awhile.



evwalt -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/23/2010 3:28:32 AM)

I thought that in the interest of having everything possible covered, we should make a master list of upgrades and which work/don't work.

First, I think everyone wants to know 1) what effect upgrades have in QC (for offense, defense and morale) and whether specialized upgrades only work in certain conditions (ie. in QC, do the bonuses for desert fighting only count in the desert or anywhere).

Upgrades that don't work/have problems:
Massed Artillery 1-3: Each actually increases the strength by +500, not 20%
Krumper System: As there is no limit to labor strorage, this does nothing
Levee in Mass: Strength per population factor doesn't increase by 50%

Naval Upgrades that don't work/have problems:
Colonial Regiments 1 & 2: Do nothing
Naval Academies 1 & 2: Do nothing (and you can get 2 before you get 1)
Merchant Marine 1 & 2: I am 99% sure these do nothing since merchants no longer fight in combat normally (and you can get 2 before you get 1)
Letters of Marque 1 & 2: I am 99% sure these do nothing since privateers no longer fight combat normally (and you can get 2 before you get 1)

Does anyone else have anything to add to the list?





Marshal Villars -> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? (10/24/2010 6:44:23 AM)

Great comments. I am reading them all with interest and making notes of them.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.314453