quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Well, we're under secrecy clauses in our contract with Matrix, so even if we wanted to we can't announce what our next project will be.

I can say a bit about what we're trying to do with the engine...

* Simplify the economics without ruining the flexibility of the current system. Trying to eliminate the need for players who want to predict what their economy is going to do over the long run from having to solve differential equations.

* Change the supply rules. Shift the complexity around a bit. Make some aspects more automatic than in COG: e.g., no need to build depot chains, I think; more fixed costs of supplying units, as the widely varying costs of supply in COG seems to drive some players nuts. But now to keep track of "strategic supply" -- instead of being "in-supply/out-of-supply", units on the strategic map will have a supply level, will use extra supply while on the move, and similar. Need to have LOC to be re-supplied. Harder to resupply when farther along LOC, when in mountains or swamps, during winter. Penalty for running out of supply completely will be harsher than being out-of-supply in COG. Re-supply is propagated from provincial developments built by the nation, but a limited amount can come from successful sieges and foraging.

* More customization of the units. Considering some attributes of corps/armies that will affect how well units attached to them move, fight, and respond to C&C issues, so that corps/armies will seem like more than empty containers. Considering adding unit special abilities, so we could do things like, say, have a division that represents the Gordon Highlanders and give them a special ability accordingly. Depending on which era we're doing, could keep track of unit weapon types, whether they have engineers attached, that sort of thing. Presently units only have one morale (quality) number to distinguish them from other units of their type. We'd like to add several new dimensions to units.

* Changes specific to each era. We'd like to give particular emphasis to some part of the game for each era that we do. Some eras naturally have more focus on the military, less on trade and diplomacy, for instance. In other eras, military research and national morale might be more important. In short, we don't want players playing the sequels to feel as though they're just playing COG with a different map, yet we can't completely change the engine for each sequel: our compromise is to pick one or two areas of the engine to emphasize for each era.


Detailed Combat Changes We're Considering
-----------------------------------------
* Add group movements to detailed combat and add more C&C type rules. Allow players, for instance, to give an order to an entire corps by picking a setup area and a general instruction (hold your ground, move to engage, etc.) Depending on the C&C ratings of the nation, its units, and its commanders, players will then be able to micromanage orders only for a particular number of individual units each turn. Also perhaps track aggregate morale at the corps/army level.

* Allow some pre-battle setup based on opposed C&C checks.

* Add victory locations to detailed combat to make them more finite and give clearer goals to players.

The goal is to make detailed combat faster to fight which would allow us to let the player control more units (perhaps at the brigade level) over a larger area without increasing the time required to complete a detailed combat. The group rules could force players to think more in terms of their armies/corps/divisions, and could encourage more linear tactics, more army/corps cohesion. (Personally, I think C&C rules are the most interesting thing about gaming in the Napoleonic era, and in the gunpowder era in general, and I would like to add more of this to satisfy my own aesthetic.)