CoG vs. EiA (Full Version)

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



Message

nukkxx5058 -> CoG vs. EiA (5/21/2005 4:10:14 PM)

Hi,
Who could list the main differences between those two games ?
thx



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/21/2005 5:27:34 PM)

Here is the main difference, in my opinion.

EiA is being strictly based upon an old & worn out boardgame.

CoG isn't.



sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/21/2005 6:33:38 PM)

EiA is more of a Grand Diplo/Strategic game suited much more toward playing with actual people; it would loose all of it's appeal if played solo imo. CoG is more like a standard Strategic/Operational wargame that I think will be excellently suited for solo play.



nukkxx5058 -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/21/2005 9:08:41 PM)

ok I see... in fact I never played EIA board game but what I read sounds good! not too "old or worn" .

I have a good idea of what will be CoG (a much more standard grand-strategy computer game I think).



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/22/2005 12:09:34 AM)

The word "standard" I believe should not apply to CoG. It appears to really be in depth Napoleonicly speaking. Far more than EiA.
[:)]



sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/22/2005 3:21:47 AM)

True, standard probably wasn't an appropriate word to describe CoG. I stand corrected. It certainly seems like it will be the most in-depth treatment of the Napoleonic Era on PC or in a board game. Highly anticipated; in a non-standard kind of way.[;)]



pasternakski -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/22/2005 4:13:26 AM)

Looks to me like some diddly little battle-sized game that tries to lard strategic mechanics on top.

I'm still waiting for EiA.



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/22/2005 7:08:21 PM)

To each their own, I always say.
[:)]



Uncle_Joe -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/22/2005 7:33:51 PM)

One major difference is that it appears that CoG might actually be released this century! ;)

I know I've almost given up on EiA. I started following it last spring. At that time, they were shooting for a later Summer/early Fall (04) release...then Thanksgiving...then Xmas...then January...now its 'whenever'.

I truly hope they finally get it together, but I'm now more looking forward to CoG and if EiA makes it out, great...then I'll look into it again then. But usually games with troubled development cycles like this end up cutting corners at the end or going so far over budget that there is little or no (much needed) post release support. In other words...games that are delayed and delayed often end up as bitter disappointments. I'm hoping that doesnt happen to EiA, but I'm now pinning my Napoleonic hopes on CoG (after having tried both Cossacks and Imperial Glory and not finding much with either).



2gaulle -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 1:20:46 AM)

quote:

It appears to really be in depth Napoleonicly speaking. Far more than EiA.


[:-]so far for what I have read about tactical battle (and I will not speack of those ridiculous uniform) COG look like very very far from Napoloenic area.

hopefully we will have at leat one good tactical game this year whis Black Powder Wars



Zap -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 2:10:55 AM)

I hope that is not the case.

I'm looking for the more in depth game faithful to Napoleanic era.
Most of the post I've seen seem to think this is the case with this game. That is, it will be in depth.



wodin -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 3:27:57 AM)

I can never understand why someone who doesnt like the look of a game in development would continue to post constantly on the forum on why they dont like it.

If I were todo that I'd be registered on every forum known to man and be moaning constantly until the day I fie.



Pippin -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 4:36:56 AM)

quote:

I'm hoping that doesnt happen to EiA, but I'm now pinning my Napoleonic hopes on CoG (after having tried both Cossacks and Imperial Glory and not finding much with either).


Cossacks was not interesting to me either.



nukkxx5058 -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 7:34:56 AM)

But cossaks is an arcade game. It's close to warcraft.
it has nothing to do with turn based historical grand-strategy games ..



nukkxx5058 -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 7:36:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I can never understand why someone who doesnt like the look of a game in development would continue to post constantly on the forum on why they dont like it.

If I were todo that I'd be registered on every forum known to man and be moaning constantly until the day I fie.


I tend to agree with that ...



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 3:41:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

so far for what I have read about tactical battle (and I will not speack of those ridiculous uniform) COG look like very very far from Napoloenic area.

hopefully we will have at leat one good tactical game this year whis Black Powder Wars



Yeah, the uniforms suck, but that is only a VERY small (almost tiny) part of this game. It shouldn't be shot down because of it. With the possibility of modding, it is almost non issue.

There is so much going for it. Check it out : http://www.west-civ.com/
[:)]



2gaulle -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 5:14:54 PM)

quote:

Yeah, the uniforms suck, but that is only a VERY small (almost tiny) part of this game. It shouldn't be shot down because of it. With the possibility of modding, it is almost non issue.


uniform is one but the biggest problem is the resolution of the tactical battle.

So far we know nothing, or so few, about the strategic/diplomatic part of the game and when we have some detail there is a lot od reason to be septic

the relation between the number of elite/guard and the overall army moral have nothing to do with napoleonic period, don't thing the austrian army had the best moral.





Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/23/2005 10:00:11 PM)


Have some patience 2gaulle. Please. [:)]

I am in certain that in time you will learn all you need to know. (We all will.) ----and then you can decide to buy it or not.
[:)]




Panzeh -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 3:50:07 AM)

I don't see where you got 'the austrian army had the best morale'.. I haven't seen that posted..



2gaulle -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 4:21:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

I don't see where you got 'the austrian army had the best morale'.. I haven't seen that posted..
quote:

I don't see where you got 'the austrian army had the best morale'.. I haven't seen that posted..


because an army without guard/elite have a better moral than other army as more you have guard/elite less your overall army have a good moral



Panzeh -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 4:26:55 PM)

Where did you read that?



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 4:49:25 PM)

I think he is just posting his opinion.



sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 6:03:56 PM)

I remember Ericbabe saying that when you recruit Guard/Elite units it slightly lowers the overall morale of your regular units, akin to skimming off the cream. This must be what degaulle is talking about. Of course it all depends on how it is implemented as to whether it works well or not, like all aspects of the game. I have no problem with this feature as regular officers/ncos throughout history have complained that "elite" forces always skim off the cream from the regular units and end up degrading the effectiveness of the overall regular force. This was true for the Imperial Guard, Waffen SS, Stosstruppen, and the Rangers, to name just a few examples.



Panzeh -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 6:19:48 PM)

That feature makes plenty of sense. It would also be interesting to see elite units becoming less effective as more of them are recruited in relation to regular units. If a French player only recruited old guard units, would these units still be elite, or as elite as normal?



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 7:16:39 PM)

If I may chime in here guys, I'd like to say that I agree with Arinvald to a point. The lowering of morale makes some sense. At the very least, it should be temporary. A one time recruitment of a Guard unit shouldn't keep an army permanently lowered. It wouldn't make sense.

As for elite units becoming less effective, that is a huge can of worms. The Russian Guard in 1805 existed with pretty boys from the aristocracy who didn't even train all that much. That was why the French handed them their hat at Austerlitz. I can see the Russian Guard's morale going down over time, for sure.

The French Imperial Guard is a totally different story altogether. They had very strict standards of service to even be a member. They had to serve in so many campaigns and also to have showed valor. They had more than one level of Guard status with different standards for each. Their morale, in my opinion couldn't possibly go down. Likewise, I think that the French having only Guard units is similarly silly.

I am not sure about other nation's standards, but the realities of the time must be observed and adhered to if this game is going to be any good, Napoleonicly speaking. The lack of that in regards to the uniform issue causes some concern for me.

The proof will be in the details of this game.

Lastly, while english is most likely a second language for 2gaulle, his insistence for high standards must be honored, even though his approach may not be all that refined.

Cheers,
[:)]



Panzeh -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 10:37:34 PM)

What I mean is, the more 'elite' units you field in relation to 'regular units', the less 'elite' these units will be.

I'm not saying elite units should have their morale go down merely by being there, but it should go down as more of them appear(due to lowering of standards).



sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 10:46:06 PM)

Ericbabe didn't go into any detail on how the whole Elite vs Regular recruitment would develope. I did ask him what would keep a player from making a huge number of Elite units and he said the system would self regulate because of the cost of those Elite units and the diminishing returns of large amounts of Elite units as it relates to the army as a whole. I took this to mean that a player could theoreticly create more than historical numbers of Elite units but would pay a huge economic cost and the Regular forces would become a hollow shell akin to militia, leaving you with an Elite core and a bunch of sub-standard units to flesh out your army. I imagine that after a certain tipping point is reached, the creation of more Elite units would start to decrease the overall effectiveness of those Elite units, as standards are lowered, and you would be returning to eventual parity to the Regular forces, as Elite now become the new Regular, all at a huge cost. Imagine if the US Army decided to send the entire Army to Airborne and Ranger school and thus bestow Elite status on the entire Army. Well, now Elite just doesn't mean so much and at what expense? This system might not have even been finalized when his statements were made so I figure he will be able to elaborate fairly soon.



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 11:13:24 PM)

I see what you mean Panzeh. [:)] It makes sense.



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/24/2005 11:16:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Ericbabe didn't go into any detail on how the whole Elite vs Regular recruitment would develope...........................................................This system might not have even been finalized when his statements were made so I figure he will be able to elaborate fairly soon.



Yes, we trying to be patient. Maybe we might get a Memorial Day update?? [;)]



Mr. Z -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/25/2005 5:58:34 PM)


quote:

Yes, we trying to be patient. Maybe we might get a Memorial Day update?? [;)]

We are very hard at work finalizing some things, but I think the weekend should bring some down time where we can post some screen shots or something.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25