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: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

 
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: Emperor's Edition >> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/25/2010 2:16:41 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I just thought I'd pop in here to thank everyone for their detailed comments. I'll continue to let Marshal Villars run the show, though, since he has my proxy in this discussion.

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 61
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/25/2010 4:15:25 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Something that I observed some time ago but forgot about, plundering a territory seems to lower morale in the participating units to 4.0 rather than raising it as the manual states.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 62
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 12:09:53 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I would like to see "violate neturality" of a major power have more effect. I have seen powers "violating neutrality" for over a year in PBEM with no effect.

First (and mentioned elsewhere): you should not be able to DoW any country if you have forces in that country (ie. violating neutrality). This should be the case even if the violator has a Pledge of Defense with another country.

Second, have the violating country lose GLORY each turn they are violating a country at the end of a movement. Not too much, perhaps - 5 glory each turn. There should be some cost for violating neutrality.

Third, the country being VIOLATED, if a major power, should also have a penalty to represent the fact the are doing nothing about the violation. Perhaps -1 NM a month, growing by -1 NM a month (ie. -1 NM, -2 NM, -3 NM....) up to a max of -20 NM per turn.

Fourth, a country being violated must ALWAYS have the OPTION to DoW a violator, even if under an 18 month enforced peace for end of a war or under a treaty obligation.

Also, I would like to see added to the diplomatic term choices one preventing one country from allying with another AND one required a country to break an alliance with another. I think 2 seperate clauses would be better.

In addition, I think that all clauses in a treaty must be activated within say, 5 years, of the treaty.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 63
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 9:05:21 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I like these suggestions concerning violation of neutrality evwalt. :)

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 64
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 11:36:06 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Eric as I understand it a Major in PBEM will go to war if it's territory is Violated provided it has its in game PBEM Policy set to 'Be aggresive' against the Violater, so I'm guessing that you have turned that off v's my Sweden in GA II

That said I agree with all your points and that there should be a high penalty for violations.

The same applies to 'Sneak attacks'; in 2 PBEM games I've been forced to take unwanted actions because of forces belonging to a known 'Sneak attacker' being close to sensitive stratigic areas/forces.

Personal opinion but I feel that there should be no 'sneak attacks against the 8 Major Powers, they all (except Poland, and this should be another reason why Poland should have a Diplo) have Diplomates & Diplomacy to work through; I suppose it could be argued that 'Sneak attacks' v's Minors is OK as those channels are not open but feel that in the main it's used in those cases to cercumvent the posibility of a Minor asking for Protectorate status of some other Power on a DoW by a Major, ie it's "Gamey".

The penelty for an ordinary DoW should also be raise substantially.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 65
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 3:11:04 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Kingmaker,

I am curious as to why the penalty for declaration of war should be raised? I would just like to hear your opinion on the matter, because of your experience in playing the game.

It would be nice if the penalty could be raised in cases where there is no casus belli, but it should really be close to zero in cases where the is a casus belli.

Don't know how we could differentiate between these two cases, although there are already some mechanics in the game which come close to doing this. For instance, invading a protectorate, etc.

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 66
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 5:18:57 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		Also, and this I would say is a must,
the documentation of how upgrades and doctrines affect QC must be released.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 67
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/27/2010 9:04:28 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		On DoW's, first in PBEM in my experience, a 'violating neutrality' will NOT result in a DoW, even if set on 'be aggressive.'  I don't believe you can ever DoW if within the 18 month enforced peace period after a war as well.

I do agree with Kingmaker that the cost of "sneak attacks" should be raised by quite a bit.  I think now they only cost about 5 more glory than a regular DoW.  Should be twice as much.

I also like the casus belli.  Perhaps if a country has a certain size army adjacent to your country, the cost for a DoW is 1/2?  I believe you already have the option to DoW a major power with large troop strength next to your country in SP.

I don't really agree that regular DoW should cost more.  Seems about right to me.  HOWEVER, DoW by treaty SHOULD cost glory (I think now such DoW are 'free').

Also, (if not mentioned elsewhere), secret treaties should remain secret.  Their should be NO notifications of most of their terms (ie. pledges of defense, access, and especially loans and money) until something happens that would reveal it (ie. a DoW that activates the pledge of defense should reveal the entire treaty).  That being said, perhaps a diplomatic mission to 'uncover secret treaties,' where success reveals one secret treaty of the target to the world? 

Also, I am not sure you can do this or not (never tried) but treaties ending a war (ie. "must accept as a result of a surrender") should NOT be allowed to be made secret.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 68
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 8/31/2010 3:27:38 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		More thoughts:

For replacements: the "target number" for replacements states in the game that it is draft + training pools.  This is NOT the case.  The game only looks at the training pool to determine if the target has been met.  Thus, you could have 100,000 trained replacements on a draft rate of '1' and the game would still keep drafting new Men as the number in the training pool dropped.  This should be fixed.

Also, if the draft rate is reduced to '0' a country loses ALL replacements (though ones already 'in the system' just become untrained again).  I think that no matter what your draft rate is, a country should ALWAYS receive the 'feudal levy' replacements, as these represent trained troops directly levied anyway.  How your draft rate is set shouldn't matter.

I have noticed in some of the 4v4 games that computer controlled protectorates still levy.  I have also noticed that these levies involve a LARGE number of specialized troops (ie. light infantry, light cavalry, etc.).  I would like to recommend (and I believe this is done to some extent), that the types of troops levied should be altered.  You could also develop several different levy percentages to give the countries more flavor.

Something like the below:
1) Determine the number of units to be levied by minors.
2) For each levied unit, determine the type:

If Portugal, German, Italy or any minor bordering the Baltic (outside of Finland)  country:
*5% of corps container
*40% regular infantry
*30% regular cavalry
*10% artillery
*5% light cavalry
*5% heavy cavalry
*5% light infantry

If Finland or North Africa/Middle East country
*5% corps container
*50% irregular cavalry
*15% regular cavalry
*20% regular infantry
*10% light cavalry

If Balkans country (including those to the east through Russia)
*5% corps container
*25% irregular cavalry
*40% regular infantry
*5% artillery
*15% regular cavalry
*10% light cavalry

If Poland or a Polish area minor
*5% corps container
*15% lancer
*15% jager
*35% regular infantry
*10% artillery
*10% regular cavalry
*5% heavy cavalry
*5% light cavalry

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 69
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/1/2010 8:29:56 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, even more 

For leaders, I have NEVER seen a leader killed or wounded in Quick Combat (and thus PBEM).  Obviously, there should be a chance for that to happen.  If it is determined a leader is injured/killed, you should then pick a leader at random BUT the chance of injury should be depended on the number of stars a general has.  In my opinion, a 1-star should have about a 55%, 2 star a 35%, 3 star a 9%, 4 star a 1%.

Also, I would like to see leader deaths introduced in naval combat, INDEPENDENT of if a ship is sunk or not.  If a leader is killed at sea, one ship in the battle loses either Nelson, either type of admiral, a legendary captain or surgeon (chosen at random).  The obvious example is Nelson, who died even though the Victory survived.

Addressing the problem with 'empty fleets', I think one of our games has come up with a solution. Treat all oceans (occupied or not) as enemy territory. Thus, in the same way as empty land containers can't move through enemy territory, no empty fleets could move to sea at all. This takes care of all the 'empty fleets blockading' problems. We have also discovered empty fleets can be used to draw off enemy fleets by activating their interception. Empty fleets can also be used to scout. All should be a 'no-no.'

Doing the above would create a problem. Fleet containers can currently be captured if a blockaded port is taken and now have no way to flee. Simply make fleet containers like land containers; they can NEVER be captured (though the ships in them could, of course). If a port with a fleet and ships fell while blockaded, all the ships would be captured. The now empty fleet container would be frozen in place until a ship could be placed in it (which would require the port to be liberated).

I never understood how fleet containers (representing command staff and supplies, etc.) could be captured anyway. What do they do, hold a pistol to the Admiral's head?

< Message edited by evwalt -- 9/1/2010 8:38:25 PM >

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 70
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/2/2010 10:08:58 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Okay. Thought I would let everyone know that Eric and I had a five hour meeting today to discuss just about everything in this thread (and then some). Will repeat in a week.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 71
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/14/2010 3:14:53 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		In a PBEM game, I had a leader CAPTURED (yes, captured) because it was moving through hostile territory that contained an enemy diplomat on "capture/expel."

At the end of our war, the captured leader was NOT returned, simply eliminated.  Also, I THINK that because I requested that my forces not be automatically withdrawn from the defeated country that all my POWs held by that country were also eliminated rather than being returned to me.  This needs to be fixed.

BTW--On that "not capturing empty fleet counters" suggestion above, if done, individual ships would need the ability to "violate neutrality" to retreve empty containers from neutral territory.

< Message edited by evwalt -- 9/14/2010 3:16:54 PM >

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 72
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/15/2010 2:15:37 PM   
bush

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline 		Marshal Villars,

Care to speculate on when a possible patch/upgrade would become available?


(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 73
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/15/2010 6:39:53 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Putting some more thought into inflation and its effect on textiles use....

1) As mentioned before, make use of textiles for increasing NM OPTIONAL (check a box) instead of required at a certain point. This would allow stockpiling of textiles for getting high textiles units at higher inflation levels.

2) For inflation, I believe now that "total spent" uses money only. This amount is reduced by a certain number (varying by country) each turn to produce the inflation rate. What if "total spent" was now money PLUS textiles spent on a unit. That would stop high textiles country from going crazy on their production. To help counteract this increase on "total spent" increase the "amount reduced each turn" by 10% or so for each country.

3) For inflation, I think eariler I recommended an upgrade that reduced "total spent" by a certain amount. Perhaps instead, an upgrade that increased the "amount reduced each turn" by say 10% or so. Perhaps with 2 levels? That would provide a benefit but not a radical 1 turn one.

4) I am not sure this is mentioned elsewhere, but with merchant ships no longer in combat, the Merchant Marine I & II upgrades are now useless unless naval combat is changed. These upgrades should either be removed OR you could change their benefit, perhaps each could give a 10% to merchant income.

5) I am fairly sure that merchant ships can 1) be placed in fleets and 2) still gain merchant income. I don't think merchant ships (which represents 100s of small ships constantly sailing the seas) should be able to be placed in fleets. If you allow them to do so, they should NOT be able gain income while in a fleet.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to bush)
Post #: 74
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/16/2010 6:48:11 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Lapse of war MUST be looked at.  The rules state that after 18 months, a war can lapse unless occupation or combat occurs.  Apparently (this just happened in a PBEM game), such combat or occupation doesn't restart the 18 month clock but only extends it a few turns.  In our game, Russia fought French troops helping to defend Constaninople approx 5 months ago.  The French troops then marched east, assaulted and captured Russian territory about 3 months ago before retreating back into Turkey.  Russia recaptured the province and then suddenly, our war lapsed in the mist of Russian troops marching to the Austrian front to help liberate Vienna.  VERY annoying.

My recommendations:
I do believe their should be lapses of war to prevent the easy pick-up of glory points from countries who rely on surrenders to their allies that their forces don't engage in (most likely in Prussian-Turkish Wars or Russian-Spanish Wars).

Reduce the "lapse of war" time to 1 year.  Have this year RESTART its countdown 1) upon any land battle involving both parties in which the combined casualties for those countries are over 10,000, 2) upon any land battle between the countries that results in the capture of a division of either country, 3) upon any capture (ie. occupation) of any territory by either country, 4)  upon any naval battle where combined casualties are over 100 involving both countries.  In addition, if any territory is occupied by an enemy forces, war can NOT lapse (even if at a year not having any of the above met) so if you don't meet any of the above, you can prevent a lapse of war by occupation.  It could immediately lapse if past the occupying forces were removed from the country (if no other conditions above met)

In addition, have the table that keeps track of turns at war (I know you can see it from the Treaties menu) keep track of 1) turns of enforced peace left (which it already does) and the number of turns remaining until a war can lapse (which it does not).

The above will put a little more realism on lapse of war.  It makes the time shorter but basically any combat outside of skirmishes would RESTART the clock.  It is restarting the 1 year clock that would be the most important.  That and giving players notice of how much time was remaining until war lapsed.

Note: for the combat: if involved in combat involving more than two countries (for example Turkey and France vs. Russia), you would compare countries individually.  Fight the battle, then look at Turkey+Russia losses.  Are they over 10,000 total?  If yes, then 1 year clock between Russia and Turkey starts again.  Go to France+Russia losses.  Are those losses over 10,000?  If yes, then 1 year clock between Russia and France starts again.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 75
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/18/2010 2:58:28 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Marshal Villars,

Care to speculate on when a possible patch/upgrade would become available?


I'll field that one: Eric, our programmer and thus the only one who can handle such things, still has to complete work on some deadline projects. We are painfully aware of the need to address some of these issues, but especially since one of those projects involves a contractual deadline there's no alternative to delaying a bit longer. Again, we very much regret this.

(in reply to bush)
Post #: 76
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/18/2010 11:06:14 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I need to add that work is beginning and we have had almost 10 hours of meetings on the COGEE patch in the last two weeks.

But of course, I can't control Eric's schedule--and won't try. But something is-a-rumbling.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 77
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/18/2010 3:06:04 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Edit.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/18/2010 3:28:43 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 78
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/19/2010 3:26:43 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		Would like to see the defender bonus getting reworked as well (not sure if mentioned in here before and atm I am too lazy to read all the posts in this thread).

I think the defender should be considered the current province occupier, not the original owner of the province.
Even better still would be that an enemy army in one of my provinces should still be the defender even if he does not control the province since my armeis are basically arriving to attack the enemy positions to drive him back.


Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 79
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/19/2010 3:56:22 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I think that whoever controls the province should be the defender. However, I do NOT think that occupation of a province should make someone the defender.

It is one thing to be fighting in a province where you would have cities to rally to, etc. (ie. control of a province). It is totally another when there are no friendly areas in which a defeated army to rally.



_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 80
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/19/2010 6:47:56 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

I think both Terje & Eric have the right of it. ie the defender is not the owner, but who controls the province as Eric suggests.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 81
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/19/2010 7:18:24 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Who is Eric? Is Eric = Evwalt?

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 82
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/19/2010 8:42:57 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, evwalt=Eric
I tend to avoid using people's names (ie. Peter=Kingmaker) on the forums because people aren't sure who is who. 

Some more suggestions:
I believe earlier I suggested that all cossacks and irregular cavalry should be on 0.5 mobilization.  Thinking of it some more, I believe EXTRA militia (ie. militia above the 1 free militia for each province owned) should ALSO be 0.5 mob limit.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 83
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/20/2010 5:06:55 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		At least no one in this thread is confusing Eric Babe (= WCS programmer) and Erik Rutins (Matrix high-ranking official). That happens far too often. (How hard is it to tell the name Eric from Erik, especially when the two play such different roles?!?)

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 84
RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... - 9/21/2010 4:30:48 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Just thought I would toss in a few responses and ideas also.

I don't think foraging abitiltiy is out of line. If a player wants to expend points on this ability, then the counter is for his enemies to leave a reserve back home to counter these interlopers, plus buy an upgrade to improve their combat ability that gives an edge to them! I believe Kingmaker pointed out that foraging is so effective, because players tend to ingnore having a reserve to protect their homeland! That foraging unit if fighting out of supply vs an opponent in supply is going to lose!

In large battles: I fought a battle with an ally, involving about 300K+ troops on both sides. All I had was one corp. Yet due to my being on the losing side I lost the same amount of morale points(500) as did my ally? Was this the intention of the designer? Seems unequitable!

In regards to blockades, I think it works ok. There was no 100% chance that a blockade would prevent a fleet from escaping. Thus, a good reason to keep the intercept mode on your fleet also! Likewise a reserve in your home nation to prevent surprise invasions that sneak by!


I've seen before that when I establish depot agreements, sometimes they don't work. Then my allies have to establish another one to make it work. That seems to be a bug.

Empty containers can act as decoys, causing fleets to intercept them. Likewise it might be good to make the intercepting fleet attempt to automatically intercept the largest fleet, vs a container having just 1 ship in it. To further examine this issue, perhaps make troop transport fleets a priority in the "interception" category for who you try to intercept first!

I agree with Kingmaker that fog of war is not effective enough. I've seen a tactic where players don't move their forces out of a nation that has defeated them. Thus that gives them the capability to spy on their victors, to pass on info to their allies!
It is very easy to find out the exact strength, morale and advancements your opponent has in his individual divisions. This is probably too effective, and defeats the fog of war. Perhaps make it harder to discern strengths, than it is now. Maybe the advancment of "Scouting" could allow you to find out that information. Otherwise, I almost never see anyone purchase it as an advancment. If it would help with "spying" out your enemy forces, it would be worth purchasing!

The cost to remove leaders should be increased. I'm not sure it should be based on his stars. To me it's more important to base it on his capabilities. I'd rather have a crappy 4 start general removed than an outstanding 1 star General that I can eventually get promoted!

I want to know how the advancements will affect my forces, so I'm not wasting my points. Clarify and make sure the "colonial troops" advancement is working!


It does'nt bother me that Irregulars have high morale. If you purchase them at the barracks then you should get the benefits. Those irregulars with low morale are levies, and thus should be low. Remember, irregulars are'nt going to fight as effectively as regular cavalry.

Glory costs for breaking agreements/treaties/enforece peace agreements, etc should be higher. Likewise make the glory costs of sneak attacks higher! As a side note to this, by dow, and violating one's neutrality so as to move into your opponents territory: won't that allow the effect of a sneak attack without the glory point loss?


Make insurrections much less effective, or better yet just eliminate them. Even if you make them less effective, by several nations ganging up on one guy, if you're able to get 10 diplomats in the minor you want to effect, eventually it will happen!

So, perhaps lower the effectiveness of insurrection/coup, PLUS only allow 1 attempt per turn by all attempting nations! After, all how could there be more than 1 attempted coup at a time, and if there is who is that nation going to go with!

In regards to Patriotism advancment? I presume it works even when someone else controls the province, right?

Also, in regards to UCI! The manual states the uci will go down every turn by 1. This is'nt how it works. It goes down by 1 every other turn. This makes it very hard to get your uci under control, especially those nations who have a high uci to start with! In one game that I'm playing France, I've been at war for a long time, and had to build many units. Now the uci is so high, it's unrealistice to think I'll be able to build more Guard or Diplomats. I think this could be corrected by making the uci work as the manual states! To go down by one every turn. That should also be going down by one, even if you build a unit also!

You should be allowed to "disband" diplomats as you can other divisions/armies/corps/fleets etc. Some diplomats are so crappy thats it's real annoying to have to spend $35 to maintain them. Esecially for poor nations like Prussia and Sweden!

Thats all I can think of right now, but will add more to this message as I think of them!











< Message edited by montesaurus -- 9/21/2010 5:26:09 PM >

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 85
RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... - 9/22/2010 1:47:16 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Some things I must disagree with Monte on....forging IS overpowered (though I agree about people failing to leave reserves at home). Simply put, if you have forger under current rules and are sitting in a desert/swamp/whatever with no supply lines, you take NO losses! What do they do, grow their own food? Again, my recommendation is that forger reduce forging losses by 50% (ie. equal to cossacks). Have 'organized forging' reduce forging losses by 50% also. Have these be cumlative with one antoerh (and cossack natural ability). Also, you might consider giving everyone's irregular cavalry the cossack natural ability of 50% reduction.

Good point about the morale loss. I thought currently only the "army commander" (which appears to be randomly chosen from the involved powers) took the NM morale losses. I think the country with the most soldiers should be the "army commander" and gain (or lose) the full amount of NM and glory. Have any allied powers gain/lose NM and morale based upon the % the made up the forces.

I don't think I have EVER seen a fleet intercepted by a blockading fleet but I may be wrong. I believe that during this period, a method to blockade WAS worked out to prevent fleets from escaping (year round blockades). However, I do think it was DEVELOPED during this period. Perhaps a 50/50 chance to avoid combat when running a blockade? A naval upgrade to increase that to 90%? If you do attempt to 'run the blockade' and are intercepted AND defeated, perhaps a 50% chance of returning to port and a 50% chance of fleeing to sea?

I assume that Monte is talking about learning the specifics about enemy forces from allies not involved in the war. I think this is fairly realistic. I don't think during this period forces would be preventing neutral parties from entering their camps.

I have to disagree on the removing of leaders. A '4 star' represents a leader of a nation. It should cost a great deal more to remove him than a '1 star' division commander, even if that '1 star' is Napoleon. As I think I have mentioned earlier, there should be a way to return removed leaders (after a year?) for the cost of glory.

I disagree on the 'irregular cavalry.' I believe these represent semi-regular groups of horsemen (like Finns, Mamelukes, and most all cavalry from North Africa) not any kind of regular army units. Thus, I don't think they should get any increase of morale.

Monte brings up an EXCELLENT point about Patriotism and the defender in a province. If the game is changed so that the defender is who CONTROLS a province; Patriotism should be based upon who OWNS the province, independent of control (ie. always of benefit in home country even if the attacker).

UCI is reduced by a set amount each turn and divided by a number to give the inflation. I think I already mentioned my recommendations for 'fixing' UCI re: textiles.

Agree about dispanding diplomats. Maybe with a small glory hit to represent canning some government officials?



_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 86
RE: Top COGEE Bugs/Rules Problems... - 9/22/2010 7:05:26 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline 		I'd really like to see a significant Glory penalty for DoW on someone with whom you have good relations. This would make diplomatic efforts etc when not in war time much more valuable. Right now in PBEM, who care is my diplomat is building a good relationship with France if the French player can turn around and DoW on me.

_____________________________


(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 87
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/22/2010 7:23:25 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

At least no one in this thread is confusing Eric Babe (= WCS programmer) and Erik Rutins (Matrix high-ranking official). That happens far too often. (How hard is it to tell the name Eric from Erik, especially when the two play such different roles?!?)

I've heard that Eric Rutins is a babe, hence the confusion.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 88
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/25/2010 4:01:05 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline 		Good to know that CoGEE is eventually going to get another comprehensive patch, and that so many great minds are contributing to it.

So are we talking about a patch? A DLC? What sort of end product is this work that Marshal is proxying on going to result in? Just curious?

Also, are we talking Jan 2011 ish?

One other thing I'd like to suggest, and I know it is a dreadful one to contemplate: the rules book(s). It would be nice if the portions of the manual or whatever it is that deals with game mechanics could be updated to reflect the changes in the next patch/upgrade. As it is, it seems to me there are so many ambiguities if not incongruities b/w rulebook and game play that reading the rulebook just seems like a waste of time. Is that an unfair conclusion?

I see CoGEE as a legacy to computer strategy gaming in general, and assuming the next patch/upgrade is penultimate if not ultimate, it would be a good thing in the short- and long-term if there was a thorough, accurate, clear and detailed version of the rules that addressed all changes, as well as incongruities and open questions.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 89
RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? - 9/26/2010 5:33:35 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Another recommendation:

For mob limits: I think I might have mentioned earlier but would like mob limits to be in either 0.0 or 0.00 instead of whole numbers, as some units cost less mob limits than 1.

Also, it would be nice to have someplace where you could tell how militia was affecting mob limits.  Perhaps a militia mob limit?  This could show the "number of militia/number of provinces" so that a player could easily tell how many more militia he could build "for free" (ie. not affecting mob limits) or how many extra militia he had (and thus how many mob points it was costing him).

As a more simple alternative, break Militia out of Infantry on the Maintenance report and give them their own line.  At least that way, a player could look at the numberof militia in play and compare to provinces controlled.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> RE: Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453