RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (Full Version)

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



Message

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/24/2005 4:04:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

GilR has an, uhm, <outre> sense of humor.



So he's the guy who designed CoG UI? LOL [:D]

O.



Gil R. -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/24/2005 9:37:51 PM)

No, I'm the one who told Eric to make COG a game about Cossack hordes sweeping through Europe. Didn't think he'd listen...

But seriously, I figured that some of you would instantly pick up on the "Backstroke of the West" reference, and the rest of you would be glad to know of it once it was explained. I was trying to share. Sorry about the confusion.



bresh -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 2:02:24 PM)

I prefer they fix pow, minor countries(including conq ones you wanna release to create a protectorate) etc, cossaks give them limit of range 1-2 zones from an army.



ericbabe -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 6:26:54 PM)


Would you give the limited range just to cossacks, or to any division? (Players can swarm with divisions other than cossacks -- it's simply that the AI chooses to use cossacks [and guerillas] in this way.)

What would happen when a division is no longer within the range? (Does it become stuck? Destroyed? Teleported?) Would this be enforced every movement sub phase, beginning of the movement phase, end of the movement phase?

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?





carburo -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 7:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


Would you give the limited range just to cossacks, or to any division? (Players can swarm with divisions other than cossacks -- it's simply that the AI chooses to use cossacks [and guerillas] in this way.)

What would happen when a division is no longer within the range? (Does it become stuck? Destroyed? Teleported?) Would this be enforced every movement sub phase, beginning of the movement phase, end of the movement phase?

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?





Eric,

I wouldn’t go with the movement restrictions. As you point out, it creates a lot of trouble. What I’d do is give any not-in-corps/army division a relatively high probability of “disolving” when in enemy territory and “disconnected” (more than 1 province away) from their parent army/home or controlled province. After all, local militias would probably harass and destroy any weak isolated unit. I’d also give them a very low ability to avoid combat/high probability of surrendering, and big combat penalties, so that they could be easily chase down by small forces.

Wandering units can be useful for disrupting unguarded enemy depots and scouting, and I think we should keep this option.
What I in particular find most annoying about wandering Cossacks is not their presence, but their endurance and ability to roam free for years avoiding everything I throw at them.



pixelpusher -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 8:02:48 PM)

quote:

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?


Maybe you could make them have a really severe penalty for being out of supply not in home turf. Like 10x normal foraging casualties, maybe. So, the player could do it if they wanted to, but it would pretty much burn up the Cossack in doing so. That way, players could still use the cossacks to chew at the edges of their territory, but couldn't make massive incursions deep into enemy turf. (casualties might represent desertions in this case) <just throwing out ideas, here>



ericbabe -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 8:06:00 PM)


Two things would be easily done then and may address the concerns.

(1) decrease the ability of units to avoid combat. My preference is to do this by allowing cavalry (of any sort except heavy) a much higher chance of forcing combat

(2) increase the surrender rate of unattached divisions that surrender into enemy territory

I'm not sure I would apply (2) to guerillas, or at least not to revolt guerillas and other guerillas that are operating in their home territory.




carburo -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/25/2005 8:42:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


Two things would be easily done then and may address the concerns.

(1) decrease the ability of units to avoid combat. My preference is to do this by allowing cavalry (of any sort except heavy) a much higher chance of forcing combat

(2) increase the surrender rate of unattached divisions that surrender into enemy territory

I'm not sure I would apply (2) to guerillas, or at least not to revolt guerillas and other guerillas that are operating in their home territory.





I think that would pretty much do, but I'd add a big combat penalty, so we don't need a Roaming Corps to chase down the now willing to fight Cossacks. I'm sure you'll see some heavy words here if in addition to wandering, Cossacks start finishing off our militias on a regular basis. My idea is that a couple of militia units should be enough to deal with them.



Ralegh -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (8/31/2005 7:07:33 AM)

Another one, spawned by comments on another thread:

Increase ways to develop strategic cooperation between human and AI players: for example, instead of only one rally point, somehow permit more fine grained cooperation (only between allies at war with the same foe). But how?

Perhaps a negotiation process similiar to the treaties, with the player and the AI proposing and counter proposing strategic plans over a map until agreement is reached? What should such a plan look like? Other ideas?
Then we could even get one side offering a treaty as a bribe to get their way in the strategic negotiation? Or is that silly?



Archinerd -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (9/18/2005 8:16:19 AM)

quote:

(Ralegh)
(2) We'd probably want to prevent people playing the battle multiple times before submitting a result, and yet allow them to save the battle to resume it later. Tricky. Perhaps a destructive read... hmmm.



Maybe it could be a mechanic not unlike Laser Squad Nemesis, where orders are submitted and players are able to get a good idea of how they will be resolved, but aren't actually resolved until after all orders are in...?

Also, most of the upgrades listed above look good. I think one of the most important tho is making the UI more user friendly. Tooltips, 'find' tools, and more intuitive navigation through the various windows. A zoom function on the world map would also be nice.



Peever -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (9/19/2005 6:04:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
WCS are always thinking about features to put into patches, and what might be suitable for a sequel or to be built into other games based on the same game engine.


I would love to see a sequal or a whole new game using this engine to cover the whole world from 1800-1900. Paradox's Victoria was a huge dissapointment for me and I so want a global strategy game during that timeframe.

Or use the same timeframe and add the Atlantic and North America. This way the War of 1812 could be included and the European powers could fight over the Caribbean colonies.



silber -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/24/2006 11:33:56 PM)

I would like to see more single-campaign scenarios, such as 1806, 1809, 1812, and 1813.

In terms of future games, or sequels, or add-on packs, the logical one (from my mind at least) would be Frederick the Great, either his entire career, or at least the 7-years war. In terms of the basic engine, the warfare was very similar. Artillery would be slower, and the cost of foraging greater. (And the army size much smaller.)



benway9 -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/25/2006 3:12:36 AM)

i think this game would be perfect for the American Civil War. i cannot for the life of me remember any game about the ACW that didnt have to do with a specific major battle. i'd like to be able to control the naval action, and have to deal with the economic pressure. there could be politics dealing the european recognition of the CSA. the unit scale could be along the brigade lines. regiments might be a bit too detailed for such a large game.

i dont know if this is a possibility, but i've been searching for a game like this for a long long time.



Kevan -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/25/2006 10:17:55 AM)

First of all, I didn't have time to review all the other replies. In general, I couldn't be more impressed that these are being considered. I would definitely pull out the wallet again if these were available in an addition, either as a patch or stand-alone.

1. Enhance Multiplayer

Sounds good.

2. Enhance naval combat

Again, sounds good.

3. Supe up strategic AI
4. Supe up detailed battle tactical AI

These would both be greatly appreciated. After a couple of months of playing, the current AI can get fairly predictable.


5. Super enhance supply system

I would absolutely love this, being someone who loves micro-managing to this level of detail. I think perhaps the greatest impact is preventing situations where massive armies are cut off from their home nation, but kept in supply by a single conquered country. Finally, we could re-create Napoleon's Russia campaign. I think at least part of this system would need to be optional though, as I know many players don't enjoy micro-managing in the same way that I do.

6. Permit battle resolution at the demi-brigade level

Oh great glorious Gods of COG! I think I just started salivating. This is my personal #1 wish. I think that a slightly re-scaled map would accommodate this very well, and could open up possibilities for more realistic terrain/fortification effects.

7. Supe up leaders
8. Supe up trade
9. Supe up Minors

These would all be appreciated, and add to the game experience.

10. Army/corps/fleet orders:

I really like the defensive possibilities that the army interception order would create.

11. Refine treaties/surrenders:

These changes sounds like they would fix pretty much every complaint I have about what is, in general, a well-designed treaty system.

12. Option to fight quick battles using a EIA-style tactical chit selection, and just be given the result. (super quick?)

I think this would appeal to many players.

13. Pre-game treaties, trade routes, units under construction etc

Would help round out the scenarios, add a level of historical detail that would be appreciated.

14. UI Enhancements:
15. End of game review and keepsake

Icing on the cake.



malthaussen -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/25/2006 12:28:59 PM)

Actually, there is a very good (but very dated) strategic ACW simulation -- Hunter's Sumter to Appomatox. Since Hunter is now affiliated with Matrix, perhaps there is an update in the works... if not, why not?:)

-- Mal



sol_invictus -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/25/2006 6:21:46 PM)

Frank Hunter is suppose to be working on an update to Sumpter to Appomatox. Of course, this is after he has finished work on Battles of Napoleon and Guns of August. At the rate he is going, it should only take until 2015.[:(]



malthaussen -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/28/2006 4:38:37 PM)

Something to look forward to, then.[:D]

-- Mal



Fänrik Stål -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/28/2006 11:18:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

30 Years War!


Seconded![8D]



sol_invictus -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/29/2006 2:55:28 AM)

I am still trying to figure out "The Backstroke of the West". I would be happy with a Rise of Rome, Thirty Years War, Seven Years War, or a Wars of German Unification.



TheOx -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/31/2006 4:25:41 PM)

For the life of me I still haven't seen a good grand strategy American Civil War game with both strategic and tactical maps. I think the CoG engine would be fantastic for such a game. Perhaps a total conversion mod is in order!

Edit: spelling



Diagoras -> RE: Ideas/Votes for Sequel (1/31/2006 8:57:06 PM)

Have to scale it down from division to brigade size units, but yeah... it'd be a swell mod.

*chuckle* Eric &c won't like mod-- New Title with fat paychecks for All! Either way is good for us. Just let me play it.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375