What CoG Needs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What CoG Needs

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 >> Crown Of Glory Support >> What CoG Needs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What CoG Needs - 8/3/2006 7:16:38 AM

Rossj

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2004
Status: offline

1) more scenarios...1812, 1813, 1814
2) much greater difficulty in acquiring national provinces of major powers...France was intact in 1815...that's not likely if you start one of the earlier scenarios
3) ability to create protecorates from any province that isn't a national province in 1792
4) more leaders...in fact a leader of the appropriate rank for every corps and army must be assigned to every container unit...admirals too
5) leader experience and promotion
6) ability to disband container units and politicians
7) much greater difficulty for the turks to weild political power in Europe less the Balkans
8) much greater difficulty for noncatholic nations to influence the papacy
9) Poland as a playable faction
10) march attrition...in fact, the march logistics upgrades could reduce the effects of attrition
11) limits on the number of units that a protectorate can create

Post #: 1

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/4/2006 1:26:24 AM

Russian Guard

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

I think "needs" and "wants" are two different things. While I agree most of what you suggest here would be nice to include, I am currently hoping for something much simpler - a game that works TCP/IP.

Having said that, I'll take the liberty of responding to your suggestions:

1) Nice to add, but I prefer campaigns (1805, 1796, etc)
2) I'd change this by coding that you cannot take a province (via surrender) that isn't adjacent to one you already own...thus it's very unlikely that Sweden gets a Province in Spain, nor Turkey a province of Sweden, as examples.
3) no opinion
4) Agree non-French Nations need a few more leaders each, and there are plenty of historical figures to choose and add - don't like the "must be assigned" rule you suggest
5) Agreed would be nice
6) Agreed
7) Agreed
8) Agreed
9) I could see Poland playable in 1792 I guess...just don't see this as a big deal (sorry, Poles!)
10) Realistic but not necessary, IMO

11) ABSOLUTELY! This is the big one on your list for me. Cossacks too. As Spain, I get so many troops from the Italian levies that I scarcely need to ever build a Spanish Division. Cossack divisions should be limited to two times the number of Cossack provinces the Russian player currently controls (that would be 12, I believe, in 1805), and they should only levy each year, enough Divisions to replace any of the 12 that were lost the previous year.

Note that a couple of of your suggestions are moddable - for example, you can mod the Papacy such that their feeling toward whatever nations you choose (especially Turkey, for example) is much lower than it is currently. I believe Papacy starts with about -500 toward turkey...you could mod that to -5,000 if you wish.

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 2

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/8/2006 4:35:35 AM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

An 1812 scenario was one of the last things to get cut (an 1813 scenario was also hoped for at some point...we'd still like to do it sometime.)

If we had a chance to do things over, we would have done countries very differently--basically each province would need to be turned into a completely convertable object (i.e. they could be turned into countries and capitals and protectorates and traded among nations equally--or even turned into player nations, which would be a lot of fun. Especially Poland! As it stands, countries just can't do everything the fans want them to do. We feel kind of sad about this.)

We have some ideas for Turkey and historicism, based on popular demand, that might be included in a second edition, if we ever get the chance to do that.

More leaders, along with experience and promotion, is something we've added to Forge of Freedom! (plug plug plug) Also container disbanding (I think...)

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 3

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/8/2006 6:27:42 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Maybe one day we'll see a COG2, though I don't expect it any time soon. But I believe some of these items are slated for FoF and might one day make it into CoG.

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 4

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/8/2006 3:20:50 PM

ericbabe

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

We're considering a features patch for later this Autumn. For this, we have some ideas for forcing nations to act along more historical parameters: absolute troop limits, limits on protectorates and alliances, lists of provinces into which nations cannot move troops, etc.

An expansion pack for COG is also a possibility, so please keep posting your ideas.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 5

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/16/2006 3:15:39 AM

Rossj

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2004
Status: offline

This may be heresy for a player to state, but I think that that there should be a major downloadable uprade every year for a game like this. $10 and you get a new scenario or two, major player requested upgrades and game functionality/operating system improvements...an evolving CoG2...after a few years of this the CoG 1.0 wouldn't be recognizable and could be re-released as CoG2...this evolutionary approach would keep the game fresh for current gamers and there would be less risk in a substantial redesign of the game to the point that players loose interest...MOO2 to MOO3 is a case in point.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 6

RE: What CoG Needs - 8/16/2006 4:55:09 AM

Russian Guard

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rossj

This may be heresy for a player to state, but I think that that there should be a major downloadable uprade every year for a game like this. $10 and you get a new scenario or two, major player requested upgrades and game functionality/operating system improvements...an evolving CoG2...after a few years of this the CoG 1.0 wouldn't be recognizable and could be re-released as CoG2...this evolutionary approach would keep the game fresh for current gamers and there would be less risk in a substantial redesign of the game to the point that players loose interest...MOO2 to MOO3 is a case in point.

In essence I agree with this, and suggested in a different thread that I'd pay another chunk of cash for a major downloadable "Expansion" (ala Starcraft:Brood War) that included the likes of what you (and Eric, above) suggest here.

Yeah, MOO3 - what a disaster...

< Message edited by Russian Guard -- 8/16/2006 4:56:48 AM >

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 7

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/14/2006 5:44:39 AM

Rossj

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2004
Status: offline

I wanted to expand on item 4...I think that if you have to put a leader in every container, you'd have to contend with assigning marginal leaders/those with negative attributes to a corps or army and make the best of it. I think that heads of nations had to contend with such issues for political reasons or to simply make use of who was available. It could indirectly limit the size of armies, because of leader availability.

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 8

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/14/2006 11:38:24 AM

pixelpusher

Posts: 689
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline

We've certainly talked about something where there is a 1:1 correspondence between the container and the general.

One thing I always felt was missing from Crown of Glory is a sense of the monarchy; how the state hinged upon the actual person of the king / emperor. That needs to come out more somehow, but I'm not sure how. Somehow with the generals, I suppose. Historic political events, like Murat becoming King of Naples, should be possible. A game that does convey a sense of the monarchs well, IMHO, is the strategic side of Medieval Total War. You spend a lot of time thinking about nobles-management, and it's reasonably fun.

Also more tension between republican revolution vs. the forces of monarchy in CoG would be good.

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 9

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/15/2006 2:19:39 AM

Russian Guard

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher

We've certainly talked about something where there is a 1:1 correspondence between the container and the general.

One thing I always felt was missing from Crown of Glory is a sense of the monarchy; how the state hinged upon the actual person of the king / emperor. That needs to come out more somehow, but I'm not sure how. Somehow with the generals, I suppose. Historic political events, like Murat becoming King of Naples, should be possible. A game that does convey a sense of the monarchs well, IMHO, is the strategic side of Medieval Total War. You spend a lot of time thinking about nobles-management, and it's reasonably fun.

Also more tension between republican revolution vs. the forces of monarchy in CoG would be good.

I agree that these kinds of things would make the game a richer, more fulfilling experience. Personally, i love these kinds of touches - but i know other, more "war-gaming" types, that would find these touches unnecessary.

But more to my point - with all respect, there are other more pressing issues to fix with this game, and I truly hope that everyone stays on top of fixing them first. I won't restate the bugs here, as they are all acknowledged and discussed in other threads.

(in reply to pixelpusher)

Post #: 10

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/19/2006 8:44:52 PM

NA97

Posts: 5
Joined: 9/16/2006
Status: offline

I hope this will be an option only.
Or will we be forced to recreate the historical "mistakes" also.
For me, much of the beauty of the game is the political ahistoricality possible within the technological framework. That is, as players, we don't have the capability to invent new weapons or tactics and we must live within the starting historical parameters. But then, as the head of one of the major nations, we get to make the political, military and social decisions and see what might have happened.
If we are coerced into making the same decisions that were made by the rulers of that time, we may as well be reading a history book. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I bought the game in order to see the alternate possibilities. I've already read the book.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 11

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/19/2006 9:12:46 PM

NA97

Posts: 5
Joined: 9/16/2006
Status: offline

How about making the generals "purchaseable", like the diplomats. The 1 stars would have to come from a province/city with a level 4 barracks, 2 stars, level 6, 3 stars, level 8 and 4 star (there could always be only one) from a level 10. Of course, they would have to cost increasingly larger amounts amounts of money and textiles - maybe the 4 star could cost as much as 125 textiles so you'd have to plan for it.

Their attributes would be random in a manner similar to those of the diplomat, with morale based on the level of culture, initiative based on the level of courts and tactical skill based on the number of guns in the province.

I'd give the containers a 2:1 ratio maximum - no minimum (but a container without a leader would be less effective). The only exception would be that the 4 star would not count in the ratio. He/she could be in any container for free.

Also, if a general was killed in battle, a replacement would rise from the ranks to take their place (one star less than the general killed but at least a 1 star minimum). The replacement general's attributes would be randomly based on the general who was killed and on the outcome of the battle. If the replacement general was on the winning side, their attributes would be more like the killed general. If the battle was lost, the replacement would be less like the killed general.

(in reply to pixelpusher)

Post #: 12

RE: What CoG Needs - 9/23/2006 7:45:27 PM

AvalonHillfan

Posts: 31
Joined: 8/21/2006
Status: offline

If there are any major rule changes, please keep them optional, with a radio button screen so that you can turn them on or off.

I think that neutralizing Turkey would be a nice option -- all Turkish areas are Frozen, but maybe diplomats can enter and do insurrection? Or the only treaty options with Turkey are: Cede Province and Raparitions, but no alliances, loans, loans of troops, removing generals, reducing defences, etc.

(in reply to NA97)

Post #: 13