RE: CoG vs. EiA (Full Version)

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



Message

sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/25/2005 7:57:55 PM)

That would be most appreciated![&o]



ericbabe -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/25/2005 10:17:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald
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


Unit morale is on a scale from 1-10.

Infantry below 1.7 morale are considered to be militia. They don't get to use the nation's upgrades (so, for instance, the upgrade "Bayonet Practice" which gives infantry +10% charge damage is not applied to charging militia units.)

Infantry with morale greater than or equal to 8.0 are considered guard units. Regular infantry can gain morale as a result of winning battles, but they cannot become guard this way (they max out at 7.5 morale). When a new guard unit is built it strips .66 morale from every non-guard infantry owned by the player. In addition to having a higher morale, guard have the special ability of bolstering the morale of nearby units in detailed combat (and abstractly doing the same, in quick combat). However, the effects are not cumulative for multiple guard units, so that having multiple guards is often a simple redundancy in regard to this effect. Well-trained regular infantry units can approach the morale levels of newly created guard units (maximum of 7.5 for a regular infantry, 8.0 for a new guard) so I hope the system is self-regulating.

Infantry units in the range 1.7-3.9 have some distinct performance penalties in comparison with infantry in the range 4.0-7.9. Although most game effects for which units are rated by morale use the morale linearly in their calculations, there is a jump in quality at 4.0 for such things as involution into line formation, forming an impromptu square, and similar.

I've always had the concern that players would produce disproportionate numbers of guard units and thought to address the issue with a more absolute rule limiting the number of guard. But the beta testers haven't complained about this and their saved games that I've looked over don't seem to have disproportionate numbers of elite units, so I have let the current system stand. If we release the game and it becomes an issue with players, I can patch in the new rule with only a few lines of code.

Thanks very much for your interest.

Best,
Eric





Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/26/2005 3:19:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

.................for such things as involution into line formation, forming an impromptu square, and similar......................

Thanks very much for your interest.

Best,
Eric



I was under the impression that the units were divisions. In your example above, are you referring to an entire division going into line formation or an impromptu square?

Thanks for the clarification Eric.

Rick



sol_invictus -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/26/2005 4:55:19 AM)

Thanks for fleshing out the whole Guard vs Regular recruitment question. Sounds like it would simply be a waste of resources to produce to many Guard units.



ericbabe -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/27/2005 6:20:57 AM)

quote:


I was under the impression that the units were divisions. In your example above, are you referring to an entire division going into line formation or an impromptu square?


Units are divisions. The formations which they assume can be taken to be the preponderate formation of the battalions that compose them; assumption of impromptu square the preponderate response of the battalions to a cavalry charge, etc.


Eric



Le Tondu -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/27/2005 7:17:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Units are divisions. The formations which they assume can be taken to be the preponderate formation of the battalions that compose them; assumption of impromptu square the preponderate response of the battalions to a cavalry charge, etc.


Eric



Eric,

I see. It seems very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this is a part of the game that shows combat at the "operational level" as opposed to what could be called a "tactical level."

The operational level deals with Corps & divisions while the tactical level deals with infantry battalions & infantry companies, or gun batteries & gun sections (2 guns), or cavalry regiments & cavalry squadrons.

It seems easy to confuse the two words when one thinks of the "tactical map." Perhaps I added to this confusion in earlier posts when I called it the "tactical map."

Rick



ericbabe -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (5/27/2005 8:13:16 PM)

quote:

I see. It seems very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this is a part of the game that shows combat at the "operational level" as opposed to what could be called a "tactical level."


You are quite right. I reckon when I speak this way I simply have a sort of spectrum in mind, with "strategic" at one end and "tactical" at the other. But you are very correct that I should use operational level.


Eric



hlj -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (6/12/2005 10:00:29 PM)


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.



Well I cant se why you shouldnt post if you dont like the look of the game. As long as you point out what you dont like about it.
That way you get:

1. A chance to show the developers how you would like the game.

2. A forum that don't look like an adverticement for the game, and give hopefull gamers a chance to make up their own mind.

On the other hand. If you like the look of a game you have exactly the same reasons for posting what you like about it. ^_^



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (6/23/2005 6:22:48 PM)

New isn't always better. But I think COG will be a fine game. [:D] Matrix tag! So it should be good.[;)]



Hanal -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (6/23/2005 8:11:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

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.






Were you a beta tester for CoG?....I am only asking because of your Avatar.......



Erik Rutins -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (6/23/2005 8:18:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon
Were you a beta tester for CoG?....I am only asking because of your Avatar.......


Yes, but when he posted that he was not yet on the testing team - he was speaking as a possible customer who had not seen the game, just the forum posts.

Regards,

- Erik



SLTxDarkknight -> RE: CoG vs. EiA (6/23/2005 8:20:02 PM)

The game offers alot and is quite enveloping in its scope. No game will be everything to everyone but CoG is perfect at this time for us Nappy fans:-) or haters lol



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625