RE: My current game and POW's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: My current game and POW's

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> RE: My current game and POW's

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 5:42:36 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I think you guys need to play the game more and see what happens

I reinvaded England, 3/4 of the troops in England were Mil, they weren't when I had captured them, England ended up losing the War, because there troops were hurt by being POW;s

half of the battles, before half of the troops got close to the line of battle, they broke and ran, there morale was too low, again, loss of Morale, due to being POW's

the game works as designed

now, if you wish to get Eric to make some more changes, fine, have fun, Eric has made many changes to the game, based on how the players feel

overall, I think the POW rules work well, but to my point of view, it is too easy to take POW's, not every battle is a disaster

_____________________________

(in reply to canuck64)

Post #: 31

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 3:27:33 PM

Khornish

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I reinvaded England, 3/4 of the troops in England were Mil, they weren't when I had captured them, England ended up losing the War, because there troops were hurt by being POW;s

Are you saying that you released infantry and cavalry units from POW status and they changed into militia units?

This has not been my experience at all and I've been paying very close attention to this, as you probably gathered, since the day after I purchased COG.

quote:

half of the battles, before half of the troops got close to the line of battle, they broke and ran, there morale was too low, again, loss of Morale, due to being POW's

These newly changed militia units broke and ran, you mean?

quote:

overall, I think the POW rules work well, but to my point of view, it is too easy to take POW's, not every battle is a disaster

I agree that units surrender quite easily in many instances. One particularly bothersome instance is where they rout past a static fortess and surrender to the garrison there.

I've not seen any regular units changed from POWs into militia, nor have I seen a significant drop in morale in those same units.

I think we can all agree that for the duration of a war POWs equate to KIAs for the purposes of not being available to the nation that produced them. This being the case, what is the purpose for the existence of these POW units in SP and MP?

I think they should exist, as this would be in line with historical reality, but there should be a cost vs benefit ratio here to each of the involved parties.

It is not readily apparent that when a unit surrenders it causes a NML hit against the nation.

The combat casualty report seems to not reflect the loss of surrendered units, so I ask whether or not these surrendered units even count towards the NML hit a nation _does_ take for a losing battle and the resulting casualties.

I am sure that it would be very easy to create a NML hit for each unit surrendering in the events log, but I am not sure that this one time hit would be a fair way to handle the issue. Reason being that the player gaining the POWs can currently just delete the unit and get rid of it.

In my view there should be offsetting reasons to keeping/releasing POWs for both SP and (most especially) for MP games.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 32

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 3:33:28 PM

Khornish

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64
Kornish, if you're challenging people's intellectual honesty, then you're right that you shouldn't have gone into politics (grin)....

Oh, I don't have any problem challenging anyone's intellectual honesty, especially in politicians.

It's the fact that I don't care about someone's opinion of me, that makes it good that I didn't enter into politics.

(in reply to canuck64)

Post #: 33

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 7:03:19 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

But Britain? I'd think after several trouncings of the fine British troops at the very least you'd have a serious morale issue-and it should augur badly for British efforts in Ireland and possibly colonial effects?

I'm not so sure I agree that Britian would have been more likely to surrender to Napoleon (or anyone else) if their Army had been trounced in an ill-advised land campaign. After all, Britains' Army was in essence destroyed in France in WWII - less what escaped at Dunkirk - and most of their equipment was abandoned there as well.

Britain didn't surrender, even under the blitz, as long as she felt she couldn't be invaded and would have a chance to rebuild her forces.

I understand that the times were different and perhaps there would be political implications to control of colonies and such, but the fundamental issue of surrender, no, IMO.

Now, destroying her navy? THAT, in my view, would have HUGE implications for a British surrender...

(in reply to canuck64)

Post #: 34

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 7:21:31 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

WEll, again to be honest, I think we are beating a dead horse right now, POW's to whatever extrent work some what how they were wanted to be worked

I would rather have Eric work on getting the AI to build what it needs, then to get a POW release system up and running and working

the AI does not want to build what it needs to stand any type of a chance in the game, it wants to build walls, guns and roads, it needs to build Art and Courts and barracks

it needs to use the system the player uses, it wants to upgrade a road ? , great 24 months later, it may be able to start building something else

as for you questons

yes, those Mil England was fighting with, were the POW's that were released to it, I didn't take Mil as POWs, I also took a Guard unit, England had no Guard unit during the 2nd attack

also, have you noticed any of your released POW's ever rebuild ?

the AI getting POWs back cripples it, it does not help it

_____________________________

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 35

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 7:33:10 PM

Khornish

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

I'm not so sure I agree that Britian would have been more likely to surrender to Napoleon (or anyone else) if their Army had been trounced in an ill-advised land campaign.

No, but they most likely would have asked for a ceasefire and hopefully a prisoner exchange, which Napoleon probably would have accepted.

Even with POWs causing NML penalty Britain would remain in good shape, even with a large negative modifier. Since Eric confirmed that Britain, in effect, gets a bonus against surrender die rolls, Britain would have to be losing in a lot of different ways to get her NML into dangerous territory.

Combining the loss of 3/4s of her navy, and 9/10's of her army, and the fact that France was besieging Plymouth and London, I don't feel lasting 7 turns at -987 NML was well balanced.

I've yet to have the AI ask me for a ceasefire, so I'm not sure it ever does. If it _does_ it's sure a rare event.

quote:

After all, Britains' Army was in essence destroyed in France in WWII - less what escaped at Dunkirk - and most of their equipment was abandoned there as well.

They had an air force and a navy to give them enough time to recover from their losses.

quote:

Britain didn't surrender, even under the blitz, as long as she felt she couldn't be invaded and would have a chance to rebuild her forces.

I don't believe the NML (to make the comparison) suffered much even under the darkest days of the Blitz. Had the RAF been demolished, then it would have been a different story, even with the British Navy. They would have learned early on what later events proved, that naval forces can't long stand up under attack by land based air.

quote:

Now, destroying her navy? THAT, in my view, would have HUGE implications for a British surrender...

I don't think COG yet takes this into account. I believe it should, as an offset to the difficulty of getting Britain to surrender, even when besieging London for months in a row.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 36

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 7:42:25 PM

Khornish

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I would rather have Eric work on getting the AI to build what it needs, then to get a POW release system up and running and working.

As long as these minor issues are eventually addressed, I would heartily agree.

quote:

the AI does not want to build what it needs to stand any type of a chance in the game, it wants to build walls, guns and roads, it needs to build Art and Courts and barracks.

Which is why I'd like to see this modifiable by players.

quote:

yes, those Mil England was fighting with, were the POW's that were released to it, I didn't take Mil as POWs, I also took a Guard unit, England had no Guard unit during the 2nd attack

Do you still have those saved games? I'd sure like to see the before and after. In the game that I based this thread on, Sweden got her POWs back as exactly the same types of units as they were before I'd captured them.

quote:

also, have you noticed any of your released POW's ever rebuild ?

As in receive replacements? Yes.

quote:

the AI getting POWs back cripples it, it does not help it

I think it may partly depend on the economy of the owning nation at the time. If the released units can't be supplied or maintained, they suffer later forage losses enough to force them to disband. This eventually happend in my game, to Sweden, as I'd left her with but 2 provinces to support this huge army. Had I not be as successful as I was though, or had I to cut my war off sooner due to other threats, then I don't believe it would have been as much a problem for Sweden to reabsorb all the units.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 37

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 8:09:19 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

WEll, again to be honest, I think we are beating a dead horse right now, POW's to whatever extrent work some what how they were wanted to be worked

I agree completely, and don't think the POW issue is an important one. My comments were more for discussion than any petition to actually make changes to the game. There are - IMO - far more important issues to address.

Khornish - just FYI, I have seen England surrender a number of times in my solo campaigns, even to Spain - but it has been rare indeed.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 38

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 8:10:22 PM

canuck64

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

Just to make it clear, I wasn't arguing specifically for surrender in the event of massive POW's. I was arguing for the idea that this would/should cause most of the powers to want to come to the peace table more willingly.

As stated, the loss of Britain's navy would be another matter altogether. There we're limited to the loss of Glory that such battles accrue. I doubt there would be massive POW's in that event-apples to oranges to an extent.

But in general, while the concern for the average soldier was minimal at best in the Nappy armies of the day, I'm wondering if there'd be a way to implement it easily. Most important would be the relationship of numbers of POW's to draftable population to begin with....yes?

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 39

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 8:23:57 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

Khornish - just FYI, I have seen England surrender a number of times in my solo campaigns, even to Spain - but it has been rare indeed.

LOL
I have seen England Surrender in every game I have ever played (except when I was England)

(and not just to me)

of course, as a tester, I have a hassle of never getting to see the end of a game

Strange Knornish, maybe we play a different style, most times I see POW's go back, they never get a chance to rebuild, that is why you see Armies of 35,000 men and 7-8 Divs in them

no, don't have any saved games, I got 3 save game folders filled with testing games

LOL to be honest, I have not played the Real game since right after I bought it

_____________________________

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 40

RE: My current game and POW's - 1/5/2006 8:27:57 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

I should add that I have never tried to compel England to surrender, myself. I never play France and so have usually ended up Allied to them for the most part, and they never threatened to win as AI England.

Also - I have seen England surrender to other AI powers, but mostly in non-1805 campaigns. It seems that the earlier the campaign, the more likely that will happen.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 41