RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (Full Version)

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



Message

Ralegh -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 3:36:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
2) Does Napoleon offer special bonuses for the French? He repeatedly destroyed larger armies than he had under his command time and time again, by attacking them separately. Is this modelled in the game?

3) What is modible in the game? What can the player himself change in the game files? Is there an editor?


Napoleon is awesome
- Napoleon provides an awesome initiative bonues to the army he is in: that makes it more likely they will be able to carry out the movement orders you give them on the strategic map, which is the precise implementation of this particular feature of Napoleon - his army is likely to move first and most precisely to hit enemy stacks before they combine.
- He has a fabulous impact on the division he accompanies in battle - more movement, easy to change formation, more morale recovered from rallying. The only thing he doesn't do is provide a special cav commander bonus.
- As a national commander (thats his rank) he helps all units on the battelfield to rally
- As an inspiring leader, he gives the nation +20 morale each month

The game is designed to be modible. (modable?) whatever
Quite a lot of stuff is in simple text files that can be readily understood. (Including some stuff about the AI's strategy!) - In particular, starting relationships, forces, locations, attributes of generals. Also game features: cost of units, unit capabilities, effects of terrain and weather. I believe things like icons used can be changed too, but I am not sure what is involved there.
I expect that information about this won't really come out with the game, but will be provided after launch.



Ralegh -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 3:57:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feralkoala
It appears that there is no penalty to having foreign armies (particularly two as rapacious historically as the Russians and Spanish) fight on your land--you might as well rent it out like an arena [8|]


That's not quite the case. Rapaciousness is configurable by the player - you can set your units to "plunder", which offsets some of their upkeep costs. You can actually do this in your own territory, as well as in enemy territory. In this case, neither of them did any plundering on my territory. So you could say they were on their best behaviour.

Russia got access because they were willing to ally with me during the fight against France - they probably hoped I would help against Spain too, but noone ever ASKED me to attack Spain, and I couldn't see any point.

When I originally gave Spain access, it was to get their colonies, which I really wanted. I didn't really think they would send so many troops up, or fight the Russians for so long. After the access term ended (it only goes for a year), I didn't give them another one (they weren't willing to pay me with anything I wanted). For a while they were violating my territory, but once my armies got back from France (late 1808), I issued an ultimatum every time they violated my territory, and they stayed out.

Now, it is true that I try to abuse game features (before Eric made it much harder, I was encouraging play testers to HIRE armies and fleets from AI countries) - so we end up with a better game. The question is:
- what should the affect be of having other countries march through (or have battles on) neutral territory? Is it simply that it makes foraging more difficult in the areas they are in? Or should there be some other penalty?
- although I didn't do it, I could have been providing depot supply to both armies! Should we make that impossible?
- perhaps my ally should gotten all huffy over me giving Spain access, and demanded that I either break my treaty with Spain, or break my alliance with them? We don't have that feature (which would be cool, so I will recommend it for the first patch), but even if we had, I think a good Russian player would have swallowed their angst and kept Prussia onside. (Remember, at that time, France had beaten Austria, and had Spain helping them against the remaining allies, Britain, Sweden and Russia.)



Naomi -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 4:09:12 AM)

Needless to say Ralegh was a master of everything, but that doesnt stop me feeling CoG's AI has proclivity to hand out victory to gamers fairly generously, at whichever level. The threads above said enough about the sum of not very clever (or flexible) decisions and strokes AI chose to make, coupled with its failure to stop Prussia getting to the top, let alone to SPOT her surge (more precisely, the incremental increase in her Glory Points over time, or more GPs she achieved in a turn than the other powers).

France, in the majority of AARs, came out in tatters. Appears to me that Nappy was really no threat. He shouldve been able to increase SUBSTANTIALLY the chances of winning a battle, even if he was leading a far smaller size of inferior, ragtag army against his foes. I vote for a tweak that will make Nappy a sure winner unless extremely overwhelmed.

Finally, about rally points for the allies.
Is it absolutely certain that the allies march to the rally point we chose for them?
Can we tell our allies WHEN to turn up at the rally point?
Would the allies tell us to do the same things, i.e tell us where to go and when to be there?



Ralegh -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 4:27:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naomi
Finally, about rally points for the allies.
Is it absolutely certain that the allies march to the rally point we chose for them?
Can we tell our allies WHEN to turn up at the rally point?
Would the allies tell us to do the same things, i.e tell us where to go and when to be there?


Hmm - you have put your finger on an issue I have raised for fix/enhancement. - Got any ideas how it should work?

At the moment, allies obey the rally point command unless their national morale goes below a threshold - even if it is silly (I once accidentally left a Russian army at Malmo to defend Sweden for a year or two after the relevent war stopped!). They do keep an army or a few corps for home defence, and if at war may keep some units to prosecute other battles, but in general all of their spare armies march.

We can't set WHEN they should appear - they often dawdle. Allies may refuse to violate neutral territory and hence not come. Allies willnot use naval transport to respond to the rally point - so when you set one for Britain, you are waiting for the AI to decide to move the army to europe and THEN respond to the rally point.

AI allies donot set such points for us. If a human ally set a rally point for us, there is no indicator on the map that this has happened. Although you can see this in the military screen



Naomi -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 4:51:12 AM)

Most important is to enable the allies to employ ALL the possible ways (especially naval transport) and choose the SHORTEST route to meet a rally request. We never need their final arrival when the war is over.



sol_invictus -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 5:34:55 AM)

I see your point as you made the effort to retain a solid alliance; however, I feel that your warmongering and territorial aggrandisement should have steadily erroded the alliance. Maybe not fast enough to cause war, but war should have been the eventual outcome if the game had continued long enough. Its a tough call and I'm sure it's hard to get it just right. Overall, the AI seems competent and the game stunning.[&o]



dpazuk -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:35:37 AM)

quote:


c) I don't want to brag, but I am the most experienced tester - Eric (the designer) concedes that I might have actually played more games than he has!.... All of that said, at Napoleon level even if I try my very hardest, I don't always win. And that is WITHOUT using the handicapping feature!


Whoa! That indeed says alot about the capability of the A.I.

I look forward to your tip sheets. I am going to need them [:D]



Feralkoala -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 5:18:43 PM)

quote:

Now, it is true that I try to abuse game features (before Eric made it much harder, I was encouraging play testers to HIRE armies and fleets from AI countries) - so we end up with a better game. The question is:
- what should the affect be of having other countries march through (or have battles on) neutral territory? Is it simply that it makes foraging more difficult in the areas they are in? Or should there be some other penalty?
- although I didn't do it, I could have been providing depot supply to both armies! Should we make that impossible?
- perhaps my ally should gotten all huffy over me giving Spain access, and demanded that I either break my treaty with Spain, or break my alliance with them? We don't have that feature (which would be cool, so I will recommend it for the first patch), but even if we had, I think a good Russian player would have swallowed their angst and kept Prussia onside. (Remember, at that time, France had beaten Austria, and had Spain helping them against the remaining allies, Britain, Sweden and Russia.)


I didn't really intend to be snippy about how you played: rather, it was a concern on my part from AI behavior I had observed in other AARs, as well.

Right now, I have 2 problems with the way this played out, one AI related, one not:
1) The non-AI one is simply having these armies campaign through your most prosperous lands for months on end should lower the value and productivity of your provinces. This should be true all of the time, of course. Depots might negate some of this, but looting and pillaging were going to happen no matter who comes to visit. Historically, the Russians and Spaniards had very poor track records in this regard, which is why I found it ironic that your provinces were prosperous and growing despite a qurter million enemy soldiers campaigning through them. While it was (and still is) considered a plus to have enemies and potential enemies fighting amongst themselves, I think very few people would agree that the best place for them to do it is on your own land [;)]

2) The AI problem. While Spain and Russia begin at war as members of coalitions, what impels them to stay at war when their allies are no longer fighting? In situations like this, the AI needs to be able to adjust and let the war lapse.

In any event, poking holes in things are what testers should be doing....sounds like you have been doing good work [:)] This game does sound very impressive and is on my 'must buy' list. [8D]



sol_invictus -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 5:31:41 PM)

I completely agree, there should be strong disincentives for having armies fighting over your territory. Production and tax revenue should plummet in those provinces that are traversed by armies and if enough provinces are devestated in such a matter, National Morale should start to suffer. The government; you; are not performing the priciple function of effective government; protecting the lives, property, and prosperity of your citizens. If this condition persists, revolts should break out. I also agree that after the Principles in a war conclude peace, the allies of said principles should conclude peace as well.



Jordan -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:01:37 PM)

quote:

I have been very outspoken with the idea that very strong allies should be quite happy for you to win (historical) - especially if they have no chance (gameplayer). Remember that I was the main trading partner for both of them, had fought on their side against France, had provided access/supply/etc, had active treaties with them where I promised not to attack them


quote:

Arnivald's response: I see your point as you made the effort to retain a solid alliance; however, I feel that your warmongering and territorial aggrandisement should have steadily erroded the alliance. Maybe not fast enough to cause war, but war should have been the eventual outcome if the game had continued long enough. Its a tough call and I'm sure it's hard to get it just right


I bet programming a diplomatic AI is one of the toughest parts of the job: so many variables and so many relative considerations. Prussia's warmongering and territorial aggrandising would probably mean different things to Russia and Austria depending on who's being mongered and aggrandized. If Prussia was becoming powerful and taking Poland and eastern europe then Russia would probably be a little concerned no matter how much Rhenish wine they were obtaining via trade - even more so if Prussia's other threats - France and Austria - were no longer threats (potential Russian allies to keep Prussia in check). And I can't see Austria thinking Prussia is a "good" ally when Prussia has taken key Austirian provinces (provinces like Bohemia that Maria Theresa vowed to regain and then protect if it cost her every last soldier) or has undermined Austria's position of German leadership. If Prussia controls Bohemia then Austria should be losing major points...no way for Austria to win unless they take it back.

So I think relative considerations based on national interests need to figure high in the algorithm (much higher than trade) and that should be combined with general rule inherent in the "Europe is alarmed" concept (which I like a lot) that acts as a check on any one nation that acts with "Napoleonic" ambitions.



Jordan -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:03:29 PM)

quote:

....there should be strong disincentives for having armies fighting over your territory. Production and tax revenue should plummet in those provinces that are traversed by armies and if enough provinces are devestated in such a matter, National Morale should start to suffer. The government; you; are not performing the priciple function of effective government; protecting the lives, property, and prosperity of your citizens. If this condition persists, revolts should break out. I also agree that after the Principles in a war conclude peace, the allies of said principles should conclude peace as well.


Agree. If production plummets then the forage value of the province should plummet as well.



Jordan -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:13:08 PM)

Apologies for being so long-winded.

Part of the great fun of games of this period is working out the dilemma of competing national interests among the allies in the face of French aggression, especially against a wily French player. Because, you as Prussia, would really like to help Austria (but you would really like to win as well).



Warfare1 -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:19:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
2) Does Napoleon offer special bonuses for the French? He repeatedly destroyed larger armies than he had under his command time and time again, by attacking them separately. Is this modelled in the game?

3) What is modible in the game? What can the player himself change in the game files? Is there an editor?


Napoleon is awesome
- Napoleon provides an awesome initiative bonues to the army he is in: that makes it more likely they will be able to carry out the movement orders you give them on the strategic map, which is the precise implementation of this particular feature of Napoleon - his army is likely to move first and most precisely to hit enemy stacks before they combine.
- He has a fabulous impact on the division he accompanies in battle - more movement, easy to change formation, more morale recovered from rallying. The only thing he doesn't do is provide a special cav commander bonus.
- As a national commander (thats his rank) he helps all units on the battelfield to rally
- As an inspiring leader, he gives the nation +20 morale each month

The game is designed to be modible. (modable?) whatever
Quite a lot of stuff is in simple text files that can be readily understood. (Including some stuff about the AI's strategy!) - In particular, starting relationships, forces, locations, attributes of generals. Also game features: cost of units, unit capabilities, effects of terrain and weather. I believe things like icons used can be changed too, but I am not sure what is involved there.
I expect that information about this won't really come out with the game, but will be provided after launch.


Thank you very much for that detailed answer :)

So, once a person becomes familiar with the game files, then he could "create" his own scenario by:

* selecting a country (for this example I'll pick Prussia)
* tweaking variables in several of the game files to create an extremely tough challenge for Prussia

If I understand it correctly, there would be many ways to increase this challenge for playing as Prussia...

If I am correct in my understanding, then the ability to tweak the game files would essentially allow for unlimited replayability (since the game could be made more and more difficult for the human player).



Becket -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:30:43 PM)

I wonder if we're being overly hard on the game, suggesting it needs to be toughened up based solely on beta reports. My experience posting AARs for W@W leads me to believe that we, the non-testing public, tend to overemphasize things.

In order to correct this, we need to play for ourselves, so, I suggest that we spend our time harrassing Matrix for an early release. [:D]



Jordan -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:43:02 PM)

Drats!! Foiled again by reason.

You're right, of course.



Warfare1 -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:44:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Becket

I wonder if we're being overly hard on the game, suggesting it needs to be toughened up based solely on beta reports. My experience posting AARs for W@W leads me to believe that we, the non-testing public, tend to overemphasize things.

In order to correct this, we need to play for ourselves, so, I suggest that we spend our time harrassing Matrix for an early release. [:D]


From what I have read I am pleased that the initial game will be quite a challenge for some time.

However, it's always been my experience that once players become good at playing a game that they then want an increased challenge.

Knowing that the game files can be tweaked to increase this challenge only makes the game more desirable since there will be no end to creating tough challenges for the player.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 7:49:08 PM)

Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.

I know there are things I would've liked to have seen make the cut, but they didnt for various reasons, as did every other tester (and even the designers!). 'Scope Creep' can be deadly to a game and at some point, lines have to be drawn.

The good news is that they appear to be commited to supporting the game down the line (something Matrix has a very good track record for). So, if there are a number of common problems or suggestions, you can pretty much rest assured that they will be looked at long and hard. Already there are ideas being batted around for patches for things that just couldnt make it into the release.

So, my opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved. If a majority consensus arises and the ideas are feasible, I wouldnt be surprised to see them implemented or at least accounted for in post release support.




Becket -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 8:37:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
My opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved.


My point is that some things have to be played before you know whether they need to be improved. Some certainly don't, but my view is that when you see an experienced tester pull off a strategy that you don't like in a single AAR, the immediate assumption should not be to kill off the strategy.



Cyrano -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 8:39:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.


THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM...HONESTLY, IT ISN"T...

But I was struck by the phrase "things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games." How many of these have their been? (on the PC, anyway?) I mean, you can't swing a member of the Hundred and Worst Airborne (Eighty-Deuce, now and always) without finding somebody coming out with some new WWII RTS/FPS/Grand Strat., etc., but yer Nappy games have been pretty thin on the ground.

EUII doesn't count because it isn't really ABOUT the Napoleonic era.

IG doesn't count 'cuz if it's a Napoleonic strat game then RISK is a Napoleonic strat game.

I'm just really glad for CoG. Looking forward to it in a big way.

See you all in the field.

Regards,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)



Uncle_Joe -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 9:24:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Becket

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
My opinion would be to definately post the things that you would like to see improved.


My point is that some things have to be played before you know whether they need to be improved. Some certainly don't, but my view is that when you see an experienced tester pull off a strategy that you don't like in a single AAR, the immediate assumption should not be to kill off the strategy.


Absolutely. I think the same thing...play the game, keep a list of things you'd like to see as you go. Look for like-minded ideas and support them. Thats what I've done through the late beta process.



SLTxDarkknight -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/29/2005 11:08:01 PM)

Though the release is eminent we are still giving input and Eric has requested our continued assistance with things that simply didnt make the cut w/in the time frame he had. Play it enjoy it and help make this the game you want through valued input.



sol_invictus -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/30/2005 5:02:02 AM)

I have some small peeves before even playing the game,[:-] but I am blown away by the many things that seem to be implemented in an intelligent way. I am also confident that the Devs will listen to and consider any input that the players supply.



Hanal -> RE: AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia (6/30/2005 5:10:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cyrano

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well, for one thing, the game is never going to be everything to everyone. There are always going to be bones to pick and everyone has their pet peeves for things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games.


THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM...HONESTLY, IT ISN"T...

But I was struck by the phrase "things they want to see in their Strategic level Nappy games." How many of these have their been? (on the PC, anyway?) I mean, you can't swing a member of the Hundred and Worst Airborne (Eighty-Deuce, now and always) without finding somebody coming out with some new WWII RTS/FPS/Grand Strat., etc., but yer Nappy games have been pretty thin on the ground.

EUII doesn't count because it isn't really ABOUT the Napoleonic era.

IG doesn't count 'cuz if it's a Napoleonic strat game then RISK is a Napoleonic strat game.

I'm just really glad for CoG. Looking forward to it in a big way.

See you all in the field.

Regards,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)




There is always Le Emperuer from Koei... at least if you still have the 8 bit Nintendo system...or a DOS machine.....[;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875