Fouche? Corruption (Full Version)

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



Message

LaVean -> Fouche? Corruption (7/4/2005 11:47:50 PM)

Why is Fouche a diplomat? The coup concept is not real historical...perhaps Fouche would be better at controling Corruption. Clearly internal police was a factor at this time and could be added to the game with agents bought and stationed in provinces to help reduce corruption.



kerguelen -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:03:17 AM)

internal security is handled by the courts level.
The only personalities in the game are Generals and Diplomats (and the Name of the head of state), so Fouche woud have been excluded. Obviously the developers thought he is too interesting to do that, so they made him a diplomat.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:07:23 AM)

Maybe they should give him some Green Berets to help him with the coups he will engineer...that might be interesting too.



SLTxDarkknight -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:11:29 AM)

There is nothing wrong with leaving possibilities open, they werent trying to nail down exact history just an era...? why is there such venom in your posts?



Queeg -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:14:26 AM)

I'm reminded of a classic line from the Troubleshooting section of the Combat Mission manual: "The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:16:55 AM)

There is no venom...You have a game that is good on the military tactical but terrible reflecting the economy and personalities of the time. Instead of trying to work on a solution you attack personally. I mean it would be easy for me to ridicule your lack of knowledge on the subject but I don't...I was hoping for a game that included some attention to the Naval War...which is abstracted and the economy...after all the whole period was about economics and the continental blockade...your game does very little reflect the prevailing concern of the time.

You are the one who is venomous and launching personal attacks



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:22:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaVean
There is no venom...You have a game that is good on the military tactical but terrible reflecting the economy and personalities of the time. Instead of trying to work on a solution you attack personally.

There is no "solution" because the game is quite enjoyable for many, including me. Unfortunately it is not for you.

quote:

I mean it would be easy for me to ridicule your lack of knowledge on the subject but I don't...I was hoping for a game that included some attention to the Naval War...which is abstracted and the economy...after all the whole period was about economics and the continental blockade...your game does very little reflect the prevailing concern of the time.

"Your game?" Do you think you're talking to the designer or something? All of your posts have this feeling of trying to prove that you know something, rather than actually making suggestions. Some comments are quite snide. It seems much more like you have the personal agenda. There have been many games that I have purchased and not enjoyed but never have I gone onto the messageboards and tried to prove that I had more knowledge of some period than the designers.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:31:08 AM)

I started off by making suggestions...and then was attacked because I was apparently too stupid or lazy to read the rules...perhaps the problem is that we have read the rules and it still makes no sense. So perhaps in future don't start off by trying to pretend that you know more and that was the way it was or don't hide behind "you didn't read the rules". Be honest and admit that this game is very simplistic on the Naval and Economic aspects of the time period because you and others are not interested in those parts of history.

Don't attack personally those of us who find the economics more interesting...Napoleon did as well. I will offer my help in trying to fix this aspect of the game if there is an interest...but right now with an economy set up to explode with a 66% loss of income when you hit 18 provinces there is not a lot of incentive to play...because when you hit 18 provinces or above you will be bankrupt in short order...

And no the rules never once mention coruption and waste.



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:39:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaVean

Be honest and admit that this game is very simplistic on the Naval and Economic aspects of the time period because you and others are not interested in those parts of history.

I have no problem admitting that I am not so interested in these things in a game. I don't know what others think, I just speak for myself. My interests in gaming are mostly military, but my interests in history are not limited to this. I just don't enjoy economic simulation games so much. The fact that you are interested in these things doesn't make you any more or less intelligent than anyone - it simply means you have different interests. Unfortunately for you those interests are not so much reflected in this game.

There is plenty of room in this game for clarification and some patching. I doubt the game could be redesigned along the lines you suggest, simply because your objection is to the abstraction and that abstraction is an integral part of the game design.



kerguelen -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:44:41 AM)

I like economy in strategy games because it influencs the way I organize the military. No building stockpiles of troops anymore and than simply crushing all the other factions. Economical constraints improve the gameplay and strategy. (EUII and the other Paradox games did a good Job in this respect).



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:46:49 AM)

I agree with you - the economic constraints on the military are important, and in this game they're very clear. They are simply not detailed in a way that allows players to play a full-fledged economic simulation as well as a military one. I also agree that the Paradox games do this very well, but I like CoG (so far) more than the Paradox games I've played.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 1:55:29 AM)

I have a question...

Why was anything with the economy to begin with? Since when you hit 18 provinces you are looking at 66% plus corruption your economy implodes.

Would not it have been more interesting from a military gamer point of view to have put in real logistics instead of abstracting them as well?

For example...

A player would have to anticipate production of certain types of units with uniform production, production of gunpowder which for the French is limited during the revolutionary period until the saltpetre problem is solved. How about training and quality of horses? Cavalry quality for the French was much worse in 1813 than in 1805 so there should be drafts of horses.

What about stockpiling cordage and tar in addition to wood?

I still believe that some generals are prone to throwing a battle or switching sides...like Brunswick at Valmy...Napoleon said anyone who studied Valmy knows it was not a real battle...and Brunswick had in his estate when he died jewelry whoose description was suspiciously like those of the missing crown jewels of France...what about Murat switching sides to keep his Kingdom as was the case with Bernadotte?

Marching should go better when there are depots available not just effect forage...back in the 70's when I was in ROTC I had a professor who made us perform na intersting exercise. He made us determine for a standard wagin during the 7 years how much fodder could it hold and then howmany days could the 2 horse pulling a wagon survive on the fodder they were pulling. That is the zero sum logistics game because obviously the wagon in this scenario has no payload.

So it is all fine and good to have another Tactical/Grand Tactical game with other stuff abstracted...however it could have been so much better if the logistics and/or the economy had been added in a way that was meaningful and less arbitrary.

As has been said the sinews of war are unlimited money...I think even Napoleon would agree that acheiving localized mass was "trick" of war. Certainly a robust economy provides more opportunities to achieve localized mass. Unfortunately with the abstrated systems we are back to a division level game which I have yet to play having only done the quick combat part.



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 2:11:40 AM)

This is where we part company. I would not find any of those things interesting. I do not want to have to plan for gunpowder production or have to check to see the quality of the horses. These things I do not find interesting.

Game design requires you to balance all the different things that can be included in a game against what makes for a playable and interesting product. Simply simulating all the factors that had an impact on a certain thing isn't good game design, just like simply describing every single event that happened in a period isn't good history. You have to evaluate what is interesting and what is burdensome, keeping in mind that you are not making a simulator for some research purpose, but a game, which needs to provide entertainment. Adding the things you describe would leave me less interested in playing the game, not more.

As you can see, even with all the abstraction in this game there is a lot of information. I think that adding even more information would make the game less enjoyable, especially since I have no particular interest in cordage and tar. Adding these things would simply be adding more buttons or sliders, and would not add any gameplay improvement for me. Others may feel otherwise.

You obviously have an interest in a product that tries to simulate the Napoleonic period in every detail. This game is not that product.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 2:19:46 AM)

I agree with you and think that detail for the sake of detail is pointless...I think it would improve this game if you had the option to turn the economy off completely...and just had the game give you a budget for troop production. As it is at 18 provinces corruption will make your economy very difficult to keep solvent and you will have no troop production.

Why 18 out 200 some odd? This reminds me of the movie Blade Runner in which "skin jobs" had an arbitrary shut off date....In this game ours is when we hit the arbitrary 18.

So what you do with the economy before makes little difference and what youdo after makes little difference...so shut off the economy and have a Strategic Level simulation.



Warpstorm -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 2:44:59 AM)

Unwarranted personal attack removed - I realize now that Mr. La Vean is only trying to make CoG a better product



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 2:53:29 AM)

Dear Warpstorm,

Thank you for you enlightening, albeit unoriginal, observations. Perhaps if you focused on the game instead of making juvenile comments people might actually design a better product.




LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 2:55:47 AM)

I have always been curious as to why when people are unable to answer legitmate questions they respond with personal attacks...warpstorm why don't you explain to us why personal attacks are an important part of your game discussion repetoire...



2gaulle -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 3:00:55 AM)

I disagree with most of the reaction again LaVean.
I would like to realy understand why it's not corect to want an historical game and to show "strange" point in a wargame?

what's wargame for some of us? it's not only a game with a little g but it's also a better way to understand history. It's a hobby between pleasure and Culture. it's never a good point to ask only for the minimun.

Now I must said also than I have a lot of fun with COG. Somewhere it's far superior for EIA rules and like with my horse I'm only satisfy with what I have, but only if I ask a lot of!





Warpstorm -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 3:03:53 AM)

I apologize, I should not have reacted personally.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 3:12:30 AM)

Thank you for the apology

I wanted what the game said it was going to be. As it turns out it is not. However that does not mean it is not an enjoyable way to pass some time...but historical...I am sorry but it is not. I will certainly be very supportive of anyones efforts to write games and books in this time period...

Those that know me know I am supportive but morally as well as financially of those developing material in this time period..however...there is room for improvement in this game and I have pointed out areas that I felt need some work.



sol_invictus -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 4:21:58 AM)

I would probably love the game you want this game to be LaVean; but it's not. It's not going to ever be that game. If you restrict your suggestions to reasonable parameters, you might actually have an impact on a patch, expansion, or on the next game. Carping that the game doesn't model the wear and tear on French soldiers shoes; yes I'm exagerating some, is more likely to get you ignored by the Devs. This is not only a game but a business product that is meant to generate a profit. While you , maybe me, and many others might like what you are imaginging, the people who put up the capital and effort to make the game obviously decided that the game that was made was the correct economic decision that would generate the most profit. Maybe you could advance them some capital for their next project and see what happens.[;)]



kerguelen -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 4:41:58 AM)

I have to agree with Arinvald. I would certainly like a game modelling a state as you suggest. But as far as I know e.g. Paradox didn't have good sales with Victoria (which I liked), whereas HOI is their cashcow.
Taking that into account I am surprised that CoG still has a lot of economic options, while the trend in the industry obviously is against such depth in a strategy game.
So I think the development team did a great job - it's difficult to find such a game nowadays (beside Paradox, but I fear they might go mainstream), and I am sure that they will consider input from the forum and improvee the game on many issues we raised with reasonable effort. (A lot of things can even be done by accessing the txt files.



Kushan04 -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 4:53:55 AM)

Just a quick question. I havent purchased CoG yet, but this 18 provinc3e limit sounds interesting, what happens after it? Do you just stop conquering? and just play a defensive warfare? or do you do raids into enemy provinces, hurts the enemy then retreat?

Kushan



sol_invictus -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 4:59:01 AM)

It just gets more difficult to hold your expansive empire together because of massive corruption. I agree with there being a system that causes large empires to start to experience stress; I just wish it was expanded a bit and made more subtle.



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 5:04:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan

Just a quick question. I havent purchased CoG yet, but this 18 provinc3e limit sounds interesting, what happens after it? Do you just stop conquering?

No - you keep growing. It's not a limit that is going to radically change the way you play. It is simply something that you have to deal with. Depending on the nation, you'll often have an empire much larger than this. In a current game with France I have over 40 provinces and the economy is still solvent.



LaVean -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 5:18:10 AM)

There is no doubt you can limp along with more than 18 but you have to be very creative. I gave away provinces so I could get money to build banks everywhere trying to really push cash...I gave Aragon to Russia for example. But it makes you do kind of strange things...like making prisoners starve so they don't tax your economy either.

It seems to be tied to the tax rate as well...



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 5:24:28 AM)

I know at one point it was discussed that perhaps Courthouses could limit Waste. I'm not sure if it was ever implemented or not, but it is a possible direction to take.

Personally I dont think the game goes long enough for some of the upgrades to truly pay for themselves. But that is another topic and one that should probably wait until we have the full detailed econ breakdown that is being worked on.



bluemonday -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 5:35:05 AM)

You can do a lot more than just limp along - I've had several games where France was an economic powerhouse relative to the rest of the nations, and its province count was in the high-30s. It's not the case that gaining provinces loses you more income in waste than the province generates, so growing in provinces still grows your empire's output. Although diminishing returns may come into effect here.

I do agree with Uncle J that everything in the game is very expensive, and you can easily go from being cash-rich to being a pauper just by buying several improvments and military units. In that sense you never really are "cash-rich" although maybe on the lower difficulty levels it can be so. At some point it would be worth calculating the cost/benefit of some of these things quantitatively.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 5:46:01 AM)

I would hope that the impact of courts would aid the control of corruption and it will be interesting to see what tweaks occur as a broader audience runs into issues.



Kushan04 -> RE: Fouche? Corruption (7/5/2005 6:53:49 AM)

Gonna go ahead and buy CoG then. thanks.

Kushan



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375