My wishes for COGII

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

My wishes for COGII

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 >> My wishes for COGII

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

My wishes for COGII - 1/2/2006 6:59:17 PM

Khornish

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

Eric,

First of all, thank you very much for a great Napoleonic game! It was well worth my money spent, unlike what passes for a "game" by many of the large publishing houses.

Secondly, I know you're hard at work fixing the various issues that remain on the bug list with COG and are also working on the next game using the COG engine.

So, what I have here is a list of things I'd like you to consider for third game in the series or at least when it is time to update the engine for a COG II.

1 Units based on Brigades, instead of Divisions.
2 Allow for Divisional containers, as well as Corps and Army. Divisional containers can have a maximum of 2 Brigades (+1 brigade with the appropriate upgrade).

Why brigades? Well, they were the basic building blocks of the Grand Armee and Napoleon's organizational style. Using brigades will also allow for "larger" battles to have a good grand tactical feel. Right now, it's a few blocks of troops vs a few blocks of troops in a meeting engagement set to start either too darn close together (my closest start to an enemy army has been 4 hexes) or not far enough away for manuever.

I understand your reasons behind the way you have COG designed, you wanted to keep the time down on the battles. But, by allowing players to toggle certain options, you'll give us the choice to have even more detailed battles or to go for the current level of detail.

3 Allow for Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army commanders/leaders. Rate each commander with abilities for each level of command.
4 Allow for leader ability to increase or decrease.

How about allowing leaders to earn experience for each battle? Each battle won is worth X and each battle lost is worth Y. Or, at the end of a battle, each leader takes a skill check, with a bonus if their side won. Each skill check would have one of three results, success, pass, failed. A success would mean the leader gained ability, a pass means they stay the same, and a fail means they lose ability.

You could also tie in leader casualty percentages to their assigned level of command. A brigade commander is going to be more apt to become a casualty than a corps commander, for example.

5 Allow infantry units to "defend" a village or fortress
6 Allow players to set up previous to starting a battle.
7 Allow for light cavalry and cavalry units to determine which player has set up initiative.

There's not much of a bonus for defending a village or fortress. It appears too easy to kick the enemy out, casualties are large (hundreds) when fired upon when it should require a charge attack to do large numbers of casualties for a defender.

Allowing players a chance to set up, or at least determine orders of march will give us more control over our troops. But, it will also allow us to attempt to avoid the current frustration of being set up too close to an enemy who then gets the first turn and charges our supply or artillery before we can even move to defend it.

I've lost several artillery units to a first turn charge because of the random placement rules. I could understand this somewhat if there was a provision for being out scouted and then working to not allow it to happen.

Which brings me to the off-battlefield role of cavalry and light cavalry. These units were used to screen your own troop's movements and to scout out the enemy's movements. We all know this, except we're not allowed an opportunity to actually USE this. Having the ability to set up our own battleline, and then being able to use scouting "factors" provided by light cavalry and cavalry units to influence set up and first turn initiative would be a boon to the tactically minded gamer. Having the ability to toggle this on or off will give players the choice over the matter instead of having the choice forced upon them.

8 Keep the provinces for the economic, political, and supply models, but make them "larger" for military purposes.

Build provinces out of hexes or better yet or nodal points. Allowing more detailed movement within a province provides players the ability to defend or force a river crossing, defend or force a mountain pass, etc. Right now, it's either easy or hard to move from one province to another depending on the color of the movement arrow. But this only handles province to province movement and has no real bearing on the combat itself.

You could take this to an even greater level of detail and place towns, villages, forts, mines, roads, etc., within the provinces and allow players to take or defend these areas.

9 Allow for nations to trade resources from their stockpiles.
10 Allow nations to take resources as payment within surrender terms.
11 In multiplayer games, allow for the option to have a player run an AI's army during a quick or detailed battle.
12 Remove garrisons from detailed battles as well as remove fortresses.
13 Allow for engineer units to be purchased which can then build hasty works and redoubts.
14 Allow players to influence the country that is a protectorate of another major power.

We should be able to charm or subsidize a protectorate of another nation instead of having to leave it to an insurrection die roll only.

15 Allow units to be "rested" or "trained" as an option each turn.

This would enable them to slowly (!!) increase unit quality or morale to a maximum level allowed. For example, each turn of training increases a unit's morale by .01 to a maximum morale level allowed to 6.00.

16 Allow for "colonies" to be consolidated into named colonies.
17 Allow players to assign units to be sent to named colonies as garrison or assaulting forces, with a structure to the departure and arrival times.
18 Provide a structure for colonial battles to take place.

For example, India would become a colony of Britain. Prussia could attempt to take it over, and assign 1 corps of 6 brigades to take it from Britain. Prussian player drops the corps into the INDIA box and it will take 3-6 turns for the troops to arrive. It could be assigned that it would take Prussia 3 victories in a row to kick the British troops out and force a ceasefire resulting in India becoming a colony of Prussia. Prussia losing the first battle would result in their force being captured or returning home.

19 Allow for players to input battle results by hand.

This is purely for those of us who also play miniature wargaming. I think COG would be a great way to run a campaign and then fight the battles out in miniature with my local gaming group. This would definately open up a few more minds to purchasing the game amongst the people I know locally.

20 Allow players to play a game of a detailed battle, using the COG battle system.

For those of us who just wanna battle and don't have time to play a tcp/ip game.

Well, this is just a start. I am sure others have more wishes, probably in another, older, and quite dead thread. I have a number of others, but will post to this later on.

< Message edited by Khornish -- 1/3/2006 4:07:54 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/2/2006 7:21:02 PM

garoco

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline

I support these:
9 Allow for nations to trade resources from their stockpiles.
10 Allow nations to take resources as payment within surrender terms.
11 In multiplayer games, allow for the option to have a player run an AI's army during a quick or detailed battle

About of this
15 Allow units to be "rested" or "trained" as an option each turn

I thought that you refers existents units, because in the advisor Nation you can raise the trainning of you units before of that they will be appears in the game

< Message edited by garoco -- 1/2/2006 8:03:39 PM >

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 2

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/2/2006 9:12:20 PM

Khornish

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: garoco

About of this
15 Allow units to be "rested" or "trained" as an option each turn

I thought that you refers existents units, because in the advisor Nation you can raise the trainning of you units before of that they will be appears in the game

Yes, that basically allows them to start with a higher morale, but at a slower rate of training _before_ you get the units. I am talking about after the unit is produced.

This would take place of movement or combat, ie, the unit doesn't move but, in fact, trains instead.

My reason for the suggestion is that you could then have choices before you, as the player.

Currently, you can choose to crank out the training cadres faster, so their morale will be lower, but you'll have more troops from which to create your divisions early vs the fairly standard cranking out the troops slower, but with higher base morale.

My wish is for the ability to have an order for a slower (as in rate of morale gain) training method, that the player can choose to order the units in order to slowly improve them. If the base morale level that the unit has at the moment of creation was tied into the maximum morale level they could be trained to, then this would be an even better thing.

For example with draft age set to 20-30, and training size maxed, and training time set to 20 months, this gives us a base morale at unit creation around 5.00 (not including any other bonus). Now say that we take this as our higher bracket for my purposes and allow a unit created at this morale grade to further train (over time) to morale 6.50. Where the reverse would be a unit with base morale of 3.00 would only be able to train up to 5.00.

This would mainly be useful for militia, but could also be useful for other units as well. I could even see it leading to a slightly higher upkeep cost the during the month the unit is ordered to train.

As it stands right now, if the unit isn't moving or fighting, it isn't doing anything productive.

This would work better if unit quality and morale were two differently rated characteristics, but they currently aren't. But keep in mind, these wishes aren't for the current game engine they are for a later time, when hopefully, troop quality and morale would be separated.

Which, in a round about way, brings me to my next post...see below.

< Message edited by Khornish -- 1/2/2006 9:19:14 PM >

(in reply to garoco)

Post #: 3

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/2/2006 9:39:15 PM

Khornish

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

21 Allow NML to affect the base morale for all troops.

Give a morale bonus ( no higher than .50) for very high NML, and a morale penalty (no worse than -1.00) for every single division in a nation's military. Higher quality troops will still have a higher base level than everyone else, but the "mood" of the army would better fit with what is going on geopolitically as well as militarily.

22 Provide for a NML loss when allied troops are marching through your home provinces.

I'd say -1 for every 2 divisions. Just read the complaints the Austrians had about the Russian's behavior during 1804.

Right now, there's no real reason to say no to a free passage agreement, there's no real negative to saying yes.

Armies were hard enough on their own people as they marched through, but having your allies behave worse is bound to cause problems.

This would work best if each province's morale was rated separately, we could even have the Vende problem for France actually _be_ a problem in the game.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 4

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 3:55:40 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Those all sound nice; especially the Brigade organization; since I am sure that "The Wars of Frederick the Great" is to be the next subject. Please make it so.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 5

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 4:20:34 AM

Khornish

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

since I am sure that "The Wars of Frederick the Great" is to be the next subject. Please make it so.

Not to step on your toes, but I sure hope Frederick's wars aren't next. The armies and nations are way too similar to be of any real difference for the player compared to COG.

I'd rather see TYW than anything 1730-1791. At least with TYW you'd have the dynamic between pike and shot and a somewhat weak cavalry arm backed by battlefield artillery in its infancy.

I'd prefer to see the next game asr ACW, Ancients, or Feudal Japan.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 6

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 6:35:17 AM

Kevan

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: Brandon, MB, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish

1 Units based on Brigades, instead of Divisions.
2 Allow for Divisional containers, as well as Corps and Army. Divisional containers can have a maximum of 2 Brigades (+1 brigade with the appropriate upgrade).

I like this idea, and it's one that has been going through my mind for a while. Besides the reasons expressed by Khornish, which I agree with, I think this would be a good reason to eliminate the "divisional artillery" long-range attacks. With well-developed barracks and the right upgrades, I find that battles in later years are often artillery duels by infantry divisions. With the current division system, I think infantry ranges need to be reduced to something more in scale with the hexmap.

quote:

3 Allow for Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army commanders/leaders. Rate each commander with abilities for each level of command.
4 Allow for leader ability to increase or decrease.

I'd like to see some chance for movement of skills too, but I don't see a really great need for a separate skill at each level. While I understand the logic, and we probably all know of commanders that could function well at a certain level of command but not at others, I think the current, abstracted command ability is okay.

quote:

5 Allow infantry units to "defend" a village or fortress

This I would really like to see. I would gladly trade multiple fortifications on a map for a single fort centrally located within (or near) the defender's starting setup, size dependant on the levels of guns/walls. That way, it could be a significant element in forming an initial line of battle. In most battles, it would play an immediate role. Currently, I'm more likely to use the guns of these garrisons to harrass maneuvring enemy supply and cavalry, and the computer will detach 3-4 divisions to take care of a fortress when these really should be committed to the real battle, as there is no reason to engage most garrisons.

quote:

6 Allow players to set up previous to starting a battle.
7 Allow for light cavalry and cavalry units to determine which player has set up initiative.

I think that some of the recent tweaks have had an effect on the exposed supply caisons. Either that or I'm getting luckier. Light units should definitely have an effect on initiative.

quote:

8 Keep the provinces for the economic, political, and supply models, but make them "larger" for military purposes.

I have to admit to liking how battle terrain was implemented in Rome: Total War, but I'm not sure it's a huge improvement over the random terrain generation. After all, a national commander can order armies to a location, but it's up to the commanders to actually get them there. I could want my commanders to set up textbook ambushes in Switzerland's mountain passes, but the commander could let it be drawn out into a more open field. Plus, this could be a level of micromanagement that could detract from the playability of the game.

quote:

9 Allow for nations to trade resources from their stockpiles.
10 Allow nations to take resources as payment within surrender terms.

I seem to remember some discussion of the first item above. Both are generally good ideas.

quote:

11 In multiplayer games, allow for the option to have a player run an AI's army during a quick or detailed battle.

Again, I seem to remember some discussion of this for the future.

quote:

12 Remove garrisons from detailed battles as well as remove fortresses.

See my comments on 5 above.

quote:

13 Allow for engineer units to be purchased which can then build hasty works and redoubts.

It would probably be easier to alter the current engineering corps upgrade or add a second level that would have some similar effects.

quote:

14 Allow players to influence the country that is a protectorate of another major power.

I think this can currently be done through the 'Country' menu that's reached through the button in the 'Relationships' tab of the Diplomacy screen.

quote:

15 Allow units to be "rested" or "trained" as an option each turn.
16 Allow for "colonies" to be consolidated into named colonies.
17 Allow players to assign units to be sent to named colonies as garrison or assaulting forces, with a structure to the departure and arrival times.
18 Provide a structure for colonial battles to take place.
19 Allow for players to input battle results by hand.
20 Allow players to play a game of a detailed battle, using the COG battle system.

Can't say that any of these are on my wish list. I've heard that the input of battle results is an option on the EiA game that's been in development for a while.

That's my $.02. I was actually planning on posting regarding a couple of these points, but decided to just comment on these instead.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 7

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 8:10:45 AM

Khornish

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

quote:

14 Allow players to influence the country that is a protectorate of another major power.

I think this can currently be done through the 'Country' menu that's reached through the button in the 'Relationships' tab of the Diplomacy screen.

You can subsidize protectorates of your own through this screen, but not protectorates of another nation.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 8

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 12:32:58 PM

garoco

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline

6 Allow players to set up previous to starting a battle.

Now that I remember, certainly this is funny, I was intent remember the old software where place my units and yes, I support this idea too, a system similar L�Empereur of KOEI

(in reply to Kevan)

Post #: 9

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 4:22:08 PM

TexHorns

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Currently, I'm more likely to use the guns of these garrisons to harrass maneuvring enemy supply and cavalry, and the computer will detach 3-4 divisions to take care of a fortress when these really should be committed to the real battle, as there is no reason to engage most garrisons.

I agree somewhat that the AI should be tweaked regarding attacks on fortresses and castles. However, the garrison units I would assume are considered a part of the army and thus their morale is included in the Armies overall morale. If you can get them to rout, they count against the number of routed divisions the army has when determining if the army wavers and sound the retreat. You also don't want them firing into your flank if fighting near them. THey are also useful for surrounding a retreating army. So I don't see them as useless.

In regard to the fortresses themselves, fortifications of a city were actually a series of fortified points or forts. It wasn't a big wall surrounding the city. So the placement of fortifications on the map, in my opinion is accurate. Except for the really big fortified cities like Paris, you can avoid proximity to them if you choose and just fight the battle on open field.

In regard to the unit level, I agree that on the tactical map brigades are a more appropriate unit scale. However, once the battle is joined I'm not really thinking whether they are brigades or divisions. In fact during the battle I utilize them more as brigades than divisions because of the lack of ZOC.

_____________________________

We're gonna dance with who brung us.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 10

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 4:47:28 PM

Khornish

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexHorns
In regard to the fortresses themselves, fortifications of a city were actually a series of fortified points or forts. It wasn't a big wall surrounding the city. So the placement of fortifications on the map, in my opinion is accurate. Except for the really big fortified cities like Paris, you can avoid proximity to them if you choose and just fight the battle on open field.

If, the battle maps were based on a more detailed provincial map (and I am not asking for a RTW map system) then fortresses on the detailed battle would be placed only in battles where a fortress would exist.

Removing fortresses from most all battles would be more in like with historical realities.

quote:

In regard to the unit level, I agree that on the tactical map brigades are a more appropriate unit scale. However, once the battle is joined I'm not really thinking whether they are brigades or divisions. In fact during the battle I utilize them more as brigades than divisions because of the lack of ZOC.

The idea is to promote a more detailed tactical level of play. Taken all together as a whole, this wouldn't be a bad thing.

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 11

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 5:25:43 PM

Khornish

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

Okay, as my Tcp/Ip game with Garaco crashed, and as I can't seem to rejoin it (he probably doesn't realize we lost connection) I'll add a bit more to the last.

I would like to see brigade level organization for several reasons.

Not only would tactical combat take place at a greater level of detail, but combat itself could be tweaked a bit in favor of more realistic outcomes.

I definately believe that, currently, artillery is vastly overpowered, especially when all the upgrades are taken into consideration. I am constantly 1 shotting divisions of 10,000 men. They advance in column, I fire, they die to a man.

Do I think this needs to be changed in COG, not really, the artillery is highly vulnerable to first turn charges by the AI and they get shot at by infantry at extreme ranges, when this just wouldn't be the case in reality. So, I believe this to be a wash.

Right now, in many regards, the detailed maps make little sense when considering terrain placement, and the initial deployment. Going with a greater level of detail, we can create better maps, with more finely tuned features and adding an option for players to determine initial deployment we'd end up getting a much greater gaming experience and level of involvement for the player.

Since this thread is meant for a future, improved or new, COGII engine, then having a desire for more detail isn't out of the question.

Artillery could very well be produced as batteries, instead of divisions, if the infantry and cavalry units were at brigade sizes. Thus, the combat power could be toned down to be more in line with reality.

Having a brigade slot for engineers, and you've now got the ability for the independent brigade to build bridges, support sieges, create hasty works, etc.

Oops. Garaco is back.. time to go.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 12

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 6:16:03 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Hey, easy on the toes there Khornish.

I agree that SYW is very similar so the odds are slight that this will be the next subject. I would be as happy with Punic Wars or Wars of German Unification if that is deemed to be more commercially viable. TYW doesn't do as much for me but I would slavishly buy it of course.

Whatever the subject, I hope that a more historical limit is placed on total numbers of men in uniform. This bugged me to no end in EU2 as well. Wonder if there is a way to mod a soft cap on army totals in COG?

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 13

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 7:29:55 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Thank you Khornish, and everybody else, for the great ideas here.

I can hint that some of them are almost exactly the very things we're trying to do with the sequel. In particular, we're going to try to implement brigade-level management -- hopefully it won't prove too cumbersome for players to have so many more units to organize. To make detailed battles go more quickly (with the larger number of units) we're planning to add some group-movement commands.

We are also hopefully planning to implement some sort of setup rules for detailed combat. The plans are still tentative, but we're looking at making some sort of cavalry vs. cavalry and general vs. general check, and then allowing each side to choose the starting locations of groups of units based on the relative success of these checks... possibly even getting to set up on an enemy's flank (or rear!) if the check is made well enough.

Arinvald, I agree that the numbers of men in uniform are greater than historical, but I view this is a game-balancing issue more than anything else. In a complicated game like CoG, we can only make the AI so competitive -- without a large material bonus the AI doesn't present much of a challenge to experienced players. We then have one of the options: (1) make the AI's units tougher, (2) make them more numerous, (3) place greater limits on the quantity of the players' units. I don't like (1) because it would mean making Turkish militia comparable to French guard units (more or less...), and I'd rather keep the disparity between unit quality. We tried some of (2) and (3) in the initial version of the game, but players really protested our severe waste rules, our mechanism for providing tight limits on the size of players' armies. In order to get AI that is competitive with more experienced players, this really only leaves (2) as an option. I personally think tighter economic games are more enjoyable, but the majority of the feedback we've received seems to indicate that most players don't like large restrictions on their economic growth.

For the sequel, I'm trying to make more of the economic parameters moddable by the players -- hopefully this will allow players who are interested to tinker with the economy more effectively.

In COG, I've calculated that the parameter most important to the rate of long-term economic growth is the rate of food production. To create a tighter long-term economic game, we could try lowering the food-production values of the provinces. This doesn't affect protectorate/feudal troops though, which are a large part of the troop-inflation problem in longer games.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 14

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/3/2006 9:04:23 PM

Khornish

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

quote:

In COG, I've calculated that the parameter most important to the rate of long-term economic growth is the rate of food production. To create a tighter long-term economic game, we could try lowering the food-production values of the provinces. This doesn't affect protectorate/feudal troops though, which are a large part of the troop-inflation problem in longer games.

Eric, the issue, for me, with too many units is based in historical realities, aside from the game balance side of things.

For a country to draft a significant portion of its population, even 5%, has a large economic impact as the portion of the population drafted is the very same portion needed to produce the goods and services required to maintain the society, military, and the nation as a whole. Seeing Britain with about 12% of its population in the army is really breaking the suspension of reality for me.

Instead of setting an artifical limit to military size, can you not instead cause economic penalties to appear when certain thresholds are reached with regards to the absolute numbers that have been drafted?

This could also have a negative impact on NML due to the additional burdens a severely strained economy would impose upon the populace and government.

If so, England would have a real problem arming a large enough force to face France on her own, same as the historical situation. France, having the a much larger population would have an inherent advantage in available manpower, also according to the historical situation.

It would be up to the players as how best to overcome the dynamic. Should they take over minor countries in order to increase their economic output or keep them as protectorates in order to take over their armies.

At any rate, I wouldn't turn down an offer to betatest the next COG based game, nope, not even the threat of an economic embargo would cause me to turn it down.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 15

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/4/2006 9:35:28 PM

Khornish

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

23 Allow protectors to emphasize a strategic policy for protectorates.

Providing a toggle for Economic vs Military development would enable players to "guide" their protectorates into being more viable entities.

Perhaps tying an economic cost to the Protector when making a toggle change would be a balancing mechanism.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 16

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/5/2006 3:58:26 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

eric, I'm sure setting realistic recruiting limits is a real sticky problem. I don't really know the solution.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 17

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/5/2006 9:08:16 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish
Instead of setting an artifical limit to military size, can you not instead cause economic penalties to appear when certain thresholds are reached with regards to the absolute numbers that have been drafted?

We sort of already have a mechanism that does half of that: The way the economy works, as population levels are put into the military, the nation experiences a natural loss of economy. Food production restores available population and, as mentioned, is the most critical factor in the rate of long-term growth of a nation. By slowing the rate of food production the game will place much tighter restrictions on the normal sorts of units a nation can build.

The majority of feedback I have received, however, seems to show that most players prefer to be able to support larger armies and don't like dealing with harsh economic restrictions. Perhaps in a future patch I can make more of the economic parameters moddable by players, so that players who prefer tighter economies and fewer troops can modify the game accordingly.

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 18

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/6/2006 2:48:20 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I would greatly appreciate that. I hate seeing ahistoricly large armies. I think that nations should really start to suffer some ill effects once their amies exceed what were historicly realistic limits.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 19

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/6/2006 6:18:48 PM

Khornish

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

24 Prohibit friendly supply wagons from moving into proximity to enemy units.
25 Do not give player control to captured cavalry or infantry units during a detailed battle.

It seems as though supply wagons and captured units are being used to help surround and force an enemy unit to surrender.

This is really an exploit instead of proper behavior.

Supply units should not be allowed to move to within 2 hexes of an enemy unit. I am not saying they should rout in proximity, but rather they should be prohibited from moving into a hex within 2 hexes of an enemy unit. Let the supply remain in place or exit the 2 hex ZOC of the enemy, but dont let them get any closer.

Surrendered units should be moved by the AI towards the controller's map edge. I'd say let the unit surrender and not give the player any control over the unit at all during the detailed battle. Players are using captured units to close off escape routes to other enemy units and this is unrealistic and gamey.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 20

RE: My wishes for COGII - 1/6/2006 7:27:57 PM

garoco

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline

Who�s using this ugly tricks?

(in reply to Khornish)

Post #: 21

RE: My wishes for COGII - 2/21/2006 8:02:17 AM

benpark

Posts: 3884
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline

I think the Brigade idea is terrific.

I would like to see a few more formations added(attack column for keeping lower morale troops in order, etc.)

I would also wish for a graphic toggle that goes from counter to a graphical representation of the thousands of men from birds eye view(tiny men). The single man"giant" representations didn't appeal to me(though the counters are great).

_____________________________

"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey

(in reply to garoco)

Post #: 22

RE: My wishes for COGII - 2/22/2006 6:21:48 PM

malthaussen

Posts: 112
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline

For CoG II, in addition to many of the suggestions already given, I'd like to see a bit more involvement for engineers in beseiging cities, not just in effecting the tactical battles. Most of the time in tactical battles I ignore the on-map fortifications anyway, unless they are in my way. An engineering corps should make seiges more cost-effective and quick (or, conversely, a lack of an engineering corps should make seiges less cost-effective and slower), and should also effect strategic movement over rivers, etc... although the movement system at present is sufficiently abstract that this is not really a pressing issue.

Engineers should also have an impact on reconaissance (topographical engineers help reduce fog of war).

I would really like a greater strategic role for light cavalry, also. I've never played a strategic or operational computer game yet where the light cavalry was really useful in its proper role. Recon and screening are very important (or should be), and should effect, e.g., what sort of information on troop strength and organization we get when we click on somebody else's army.

-- Mal

_____________________________

"Of two choices, I always take the third."

(in reply to benpark)

Post #: 23

RE: My wishes for COGII - 2/22/2006 9:34:33 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I would really like a greater strategic role for light cavalry, also. I've never played a strategic or operational computer game yet where the light cavalry was really useful in its proper role. Recon and screening are very important (or should be), and should effect, e.g., what sort of information on troop strength and organization we get when we click on somebody else's army.

-- Mal

Actually there is exactly such a strategic role, already in the game. All units have a "Scout Chance" (see chart pg 28) which is basically the odds of being able to cut thru FOW and see into additional provinces on the map. Light Cav has one of the highest ratings in the game at 55.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to malthaussen)

Post #: 24

RE: My wishes for COGII - 2/24/2006 3:02:40 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

since I am sure that "The Wars of Frederick the Great" is to be the next subject. Please make it so.

Not to step on your toes, but I sure hope Frederick's wars aren't next. The armies and nations are way too similar to be of any real difference for the player compared to COG.

I'd rather see TYW than anything 1730-1791. At least with TYW you'd have the dynamic between pike and shot and a somewhat weak cavalry arm backed by battlefield artillery in its infancy.

I'd prefer to see the next game asr ACW, Ancients, or Feudal Japan.