RE: CoG and EiA

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: CoG and EiA

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: CoG and EiA

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 6:03:41 PM

carnifex

Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

I don't need a bug free game :) I suffered through Europa Universalis and it's 7 major patches (1.07 in my opinion is when the game was truly major bug free), and I still enjoyed the heck out of it. I do sofware QA for a living, so I know all about defects, and how impossible it is to clear every single one.

What I need is a manual that (a) contains every element of gameplay and (b) provides specific game mechanics, either as tables or formulas. Single player games I can stomach figuring out. But CoG and EiA to me are multiplayer games which require a considerable investment in time. So as far bugs go, they will affect all players nearly equally, and I don't really have any beef with that. But incomplete documentation means victory in a multiplayer game will likely go to the person who invests large amounts of time through trial and error experimentation to discover hidden game mechanics and arcane rules not described elsewhere.

JPFalcon brings up an important point about the developer writing the documentation, which I see played out in real life all the time. Many devs will simply assume the end user has familiarity with certain concepts and will neglect to document them. This is why, in my opinion, it's desirable to have the actual documentation written by a specialist who consults with the developer closely but who has not actually worked on the code. Of course with budgets and time constraints as they are it's very difficult to implement the ideal solution and compromises have to be made.

(in reply to Jordan)

Post #: 31

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 6:08:22 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

I find CoG quite enjoyable. As most games it can use (and will get) some work but is very playable as is. For those who need to know every detail before the first click of the mouse it will be a problem - but what games don't have a few problems with the manual?

Agreed that starting out as Britain or France may cause folks to take a step back in shock. However starting out as one of the lesser major powers gets you into the game nicely.

All of this must be tempered by the fact that I have played only solo games vs the AI. No online or PBEM yet - this is because of time constraints not playability (though I am not sure anyone has gotten enough folks together to play a full game online).

That being said, I am still looking forward to EiA (from the looks of things I have to look waaaaay forward by several months).

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 32

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 7:04:45 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

JPFalcon brings up an important point about the developer writing the documentation, which I see played out in real life all the time. Many devs will simply assume the end user has familiarity with certain concepts and will neglect to document them. This is why, in my opinion, it's desirable to have the actual documentation written by a specialist who consults with the developer closely but who has not actually worked on the code. Of course with budgets and time constraints as they are it's very difficult to implement the ideal solution and compromises have to be made.

You'd think given all the playtesting a game gets they'd playtest the manual at least once

Give an uninvolved person the manual and the game and let them give it a go.

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 33

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 7:34:28 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

I am not the only one having problems and why should I only use the quick battles?

You buy a product with the expectation it will work.

Small bugs and odd things I can cope with , take Civ3 for example. It was released and had plenty of bugs but the orginal version still works without major crashes, the patches just iron out the small faults.

COG could be a great game if they can sort out this error that myself and others are having.

The game does work...

I too am having the CTD with detailed battles but am still able to play and am having a lot of fun. The detailed battle ctd error is a minor bug imo. I can play games to completion using quick battles and can still get some detailed battles to work as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to 9thlegere)

Post #: 34

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 7:45:29 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

No cog isn't a bust...

You have to understand that some people are perpetual whiners that will complain about the smallest thing no matter what it is. Others are so anal retentive that they make my wife appear easy to get along with in comparison...

COG has some problems(never played a game that doesn't have them), but most of them can be worked around or figured out. The manual is more than adequate to get a person playing and understanding what is going on. Does it explain everything? Nope. Are some things left out? Yep. Will this leave you lost or unable to get the answers from the game developer? Nope.

This is an important point imo. The answers can be gotten and quite quickly too. The game developer or someone from matrix or another player can get you the answer to an issue or question you have.

_____________________________

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 35

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 8:34:55 PM

9thlegere

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Okay Reiryc, your right. The game does work. Just like a bike with no seat, that works too.

Everyone, please ignore any of the issues I have raised, apparently, if you complain you are a whiner. We should all just put up with any problems with games and not mention it on message boards.

Much more fun for people to pay the money and find out for themselves what is wrong with it.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 36

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 8:38:58 PM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

I'm also someone who was amused by CoG but am shelving it until it gets debugged.

The interface is one of the problems for me. Target unit A (for any reason) and anywhere your mouse moves on the screen you get a movement arrow pointing to there. clicking anywhere else makes an irrevocable move order. Even clicking another unit will (if possible) make unit A march to unit B and join it. So even if you target a unit and want to then roll your mouse down to the interface at the bottom of the page, you are seeing big green arrows pointing at the bottom of the map. There is a constant fear that you will misclick and ruin your game. For me, at least.

Another thing I'm having problems with is the ahistorical results. On turn 2 of the 1805 scenario, Britain invariably lands in Brest, brushes aside any defense that can be put there and is in Paris in a couple of months. Likewise the Austrians hunker down in the Tyrol massing huge amounts of troops there knowing that the french can't fight them with their strength in the mountains. Then they blitz Switzerland and push units through the soft underbelly of France and on to Paris in a couple of months. Even moving the entire Army of Italy into Switzerland cannot prevent this and it happens even if Napoleon is besieging Vienna. Oh, and they have dropped a line of depots ahead of their attack, inside france, so there is no surprise even as to where they are going.

Defeated units run amok behind the lines. There seems to be no rules encouraging broken units to retreat toward supplies. Even if I can defend Paris and decisively defeat the English and Austrian armies in France, I know that I will then be forced to spend the next 6 months using disproportionately large numbers of troops trying to put an end to these forces.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 37

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 9:16:06 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Okay Reiryc, your right. The game does work. Just like a bike with no seat, that works too.

Everyone, please ignore any of the issues I have raised, apparently, if you complain you are a whiner. We should all just put up with any problems with games and not mention it on message boards.

Much more fun for people to pay the money and find out for themselves what is wrong with it.

Nah... you're over-exagerating again.

No one said it doesn't have problems, but it is playable. It's nowhere near a bike without a seat and you know it. One can easily get through the game using quick battles, which aren't as fun as detailed battles, but fully functional without crashes and still fun in their own right.

This is much different than sitting on a bike with no seat and you know it. This is what I'm talking about. The over-exageration that over-blows the problems of the game.

< Message edited by Reiryc -- 7/13/2005 9:52:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to 9thlegere)

Post #: 38

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 10:13:57 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Another thing I'm having problems with is the ahistorical results.

I think in any game you can come up with this sort of argument. The question is, given the type of game, is it feasible for this to happen at all historically? I would argue that it was possible but not probable for the british to land and march to an undefended paris.

Also, anytime you involve a computer AI that isn't scripted or a human, you're going to get ahistorical results. I don't know about you, but I personally haven't met a wargame yet, either on the board or on the computer where I haven't heard a charge of 'this game produces a-historical results'... I think what it comes down to is the individual's tolerance level for their own brand of acceptable abstractions.

quote:

Likewise the Austrians hunker down in the Tyrol massing huge amounts of troops there knowing that the french can't fight them with their strength in the mountains. Then they blitz Switzerland and push units through the soft underbelly of France and on to Paris in a couple of months. Even moving the entire Army of Italy into Switzerland cannot prevent this and it happens even if Napoleon is besieging Vienna. Oh, and they have dropped a line of depots ahead of their attack, inside france, so there is no surprise even as to where they are going.

I used to encounter the same problems with france after my first few games. Now the austrians usually get pummeled by me in either switerzland or tyrol and they all head back to styria as I march my armies straight for it. It's a function of how the AI works... they will try to push for your capital or defend it's own. If you occupy his capital first, then it's more than likely he will send his units back to defend it asap. If not, the AI is generally more aggressive and will push to your capital. It reminds me of the austrians in the 1796 italian campaign where they launched 4 offensives and each time were driven off, even though they took higher casualities over and over. After arcola, they scuried back to tyrol since they were sensitive to that area.

quote:

Defeated units run amok behind the lines. There seems to be no rules encouraging broken units to retreat toward supplies. Even if I can defend Paris and decisively defeat the English and Austrian armies in France, I know that I will then be forced to spend the next 6 months using disproportionately large numbers of troops trying to put an end to these forces.

Try a different strategy...

Surround the attacked province(il defrance) with single unit division/militia and what you'll usually get is the defenders to surrender. I will usually pull them out of the cities and this does the trick for me more often than not. If I have to fight the retreated units, then I use the call reinforcements button.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 39

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 10:24:57 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

Oh and just wanted to say...

I'm not trying to be argumentative just for arguments sake. I just think that some of the issues raised by some, not all, can be resolved either through greater understanding of the game through gameplay hours(similar to witp) or by altering what a person's expectations are to what the game designers tried to implement and judging the game in that way. An example was a review posted wherein the reviewer criticized the main map for looking like a board game. Well of course, it was meant to look more like a board game map! However, the reviewer, with his own expectations didn't review that graphical feature on whether or not the game designer achieved what he set out to do, but rather injected his obvious dislike of the boardgame look.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 40

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 10:27:42 PM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

Fair enough Reiryc but I'd contend that your solution reinforces my problems with the game rather than appease them.

Its not that the British land and march on an undefended paris. Its that a Corps of British can land in Brest in 1805, defeat 30, 000 Frenchmen waiting for them there and then march directly on Paris with no thought to requiring a seaport.... consistently. Its like the designers bought into all the hype of the British at Waterloo and made them a high quality army and then gave them that army in 1805.

If the solution to the fight against Austria sees hundreds of thousands of troops on both armies fighting decisive battles in Switzerland and the Tyrol, there is something fundamentally flawed with the design. Campaigning in the mountains was a way for a small force to totally frustrate a larger force and rarely produced decisive results. Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Also, if the way to defeat an enemy force in France is to order all of my National Guard units to leave their fortresses and wait in the open while the main army fought an indecisive engagement, why was this tactic never adopted? No, provincial strongpoints are situated such that they do block access routes. As well, surrounding armies was simply not viable at the scale this game suggests. I should not need to order my Flanders garrison units into the field to cut off units fighting a few miles west of Paris. Even the entire Ulm encirclement campaign would, at this scale, exist entirely in the space of a single province. Army destruction has to be the rsult of local tactics rather than grand strategic.

EDIT: It should be noted that I am not saying this to bash CoG. I'm discussing it in the context of what may be the difference between EiA and CoG. EiA, as a boardgame, enforced fairly realistic results in my opinion.

< Message edited by malcolm_mccallum -- 7/13/2005 10:31:56 PM >

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 41

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 10:58:40 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Its not that the British land and march on an undefended paris. Its that a Corps of British can land in Brest in 1805, defeat 30, 000 Frenchmen waiting for them there and then march directly on Paris with no thought to requiring a seaport.... consistently.

Doesn't brest have a port in this game? I'm pretty certain it does and therefore this requirement is fulfilled, no?

However, the concept of supplies is an abstraction in this game. The game wasn't created with a serious treatment on supplies and supply routes. What does try to do is require that atleast some interest be paid to lines of communication but not in a detailed manner. I think it accomplishes this result.

quote:

If the solution to the fight against Austria sees hundreds of thousands of troops on both armies fighting decisive battles in Switzerland and the Tyrol, there is something fundamentally flawed with the design.

I guess we disagree here. My view is that these 'provinces' in the game represent very large tracts of land that include the flatter valleys and approaches to the mountains. I could see the switzerland province being an issue, but not so much that special code needed to be written for that province. Again, this is a matter of what constitutes acceptable abstraction for game purposes.

quote:

. Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Was it designed to reflect that? Is it needed to reflect that given what the game is trying to portray? I would argue that it is beyond the scope and not necessary.

We can quibble over numerous rules in EiA, CoG, etc etc over whether or not they produce historical results and what we will come to learn at the end of such discussions is, that one person prefers this kind of historical abstraction and another person prefers another.

quote:

Also, if the way to defeat an enemy force in France is to order all of my National Guard units to leave their fortresses and wait in the open while the main army fought an indecisive engagement, why was this tactic never adopted?

I think you phrase the question incorrectly to produce your desired view. I would argue that what happens is that reinforcements are rushed to the front in an attempt to hit the rear of an army and cause disruption to his lines of communication and morale. Causing in the end his surrender.

Due to the game having large provinces, this is an abstraction. Did the battle happen along the 'border' of 2 provinces where this would work or did it happen in the middle of said province and thus wouldn't be likely? In this game we deal with the abstraction of quite large provinces.

As far as why wasn't it done historically? Probably because we are dealing with game counters, computerized sprites representing men, an artificial opponent and so on. Many will do a-historical moves with games because they aren't dealing with real human beings. I've taken low strength corps that had no business attempting a stand up fight against some of my opponents in eia due to their strength but still went forward with it anyways. Why? Because they weren't real men. There wasn't a real inhibitor such as dealing with men's lives.

quote:

As well, surrounding armies was simply not viable at the scale this game suggests. I should not need to order my Flanders garrison units into the field to cut off units fighting a few miles west of Paris. Even the entire Ulm encirclement campaign would, at this scale, exist entirely in the space of a single province. Army destruction has to be the rsult of local tactics rather than grand strategic.

This is an example of they type of discussion that produces the acceptable abstraction needed to reflect what happened historically.

quote:

EDIT: It should be noted that I am not saying this to bash CoG. I'm discussing it in the context of what may be the difference between EiA and CoG. EiA, as a boardgame, enforced fairly realistic results in my opinion.

It did cause some fairly realistic results to be sure. But believe me, I had things done to myself and did to others quite a few ahistorical situations in the game against my opponents where there were cries of 'that would never have happened! That's so un-historical!!' I still remember one guy arguing that there should have been loss rates on the march due to drop out from dysentry. While undoubtedly this did happen, is it really necessary that this must be included in eia? I would argue no, that this abstraction didn't need to be included and that even without it, the game still wasn't 'ahistorical' because they weren't included directly.

In the end, my point of view is that some people get so bogged down in certain details that they miss the forrest through the trees.

_____________________________

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 42

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/13/2005 11:38:41 PM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

For myself, the whole point of playing and enjoying 'serious' wargames is to allow the players to try to solve problems that presented historical commanders, with the tools available to the hisotical commanders. Alot can be learned from this.

For example, when playing Campaigns on the Danube recently there was a Eureka moment when I realised that in fact the Ulm maneuver was NOT a strategic wheel maneuver as Chandler had described it and others had repeated ever since. It was fundamentally another example of the 'central reserve' doctrine that Napoleon favoured. When you get down to details and look at all the roads system, supply demands, and communications requirements, you see that the solution to destroying the Austrians at Ulm is not about doing some cool wheel but instead using simple tactical principles and this results in the appearance of a 'wheel' to a casual onlooker.

More generally though, the solution to wargame problems need to follow the principles of Sun Tzu.

quote:

I would argue that what happens is that reinforcements are rushed to the front in an attempt to hit the rear of an army and cause disruption to his lines of communication and morale. Causing in the end his surrender.

No general would ever have advocated sending militia units in piecemeal and unled to randomly and desperately attack organized enemy formations which you are advocating as a solution. It would not result in an enemy's surrender, but just the destruction of your manpower base. Maybe you are imagining something like the Bayern scenario but I assure you that this was done on a tactical level and the armies that forced the French surrender were not unled and random rabbles.

Every time I have to turn my mind to solutions such as this I am solving them as a gamer rather than as an armchair general. That may make for a great game but it makes for a horrible wargame. Chess, Axis and Allies, and Risk are not wargames, they are games. Empire in Arms is a wargame.

The best way to understand a good wargame is to understand war and history. When War and history are irrelevent to understanding a wargame then it is simply a bad wargame.

EDIT:

quote:

quote:

Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Was it designed to reflect that? Is it needed to reflect that given what the game is trying to portray? I would argue that it is beyond the scope and not necessary.

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

< Message edited by malcolm_mccallum -- 7/13/2005 11:44:20 PM >

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 43

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 12:04:05 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Chess, Axis and Allies, and Risk are not wargames, they are games. Empire in Arms is a wargame.

This is fundamentally where we disagree....

I find empire in arms to be no more or less of a wargame than the others you describe with the exception of chess. The difference is in the abstraction of the details. If we really want to get picky about the definition, all of those games, including chess fit under the definition of a wargame.

quote:

For myself, the whole point of playing and enjoying 'serious' wargames is to allow the players to try to solve problems that presented historical commanders, with the tools available to the hisotical commanders. Alot can be learned from this.

This all comes down to the level of abstraction one is seeking to deal with or in some combination.

quote:

No general would ever have advocated sending militia units in piecemeal and unled to randomly and desperately attack organized enemy formations which you are advocating as a solution.

This is precisely the kind of forrest through the trees type comment I refer to. Who said they are unled? Who said they are desperate? Who said the enemy was organized at this point? It very well could have been a co-ordinated attack along the 'border' of a province in which it was a hammer and anvil type fight of which the militia unit was but one part. It's an abstraction and rightfully so with provinces of this size in this game.

quote:

The best way to understand a good wargame is to understand war and history. When War and history are irrelevent to understanding a wargame then it is simply a bad wargame.

I find the best way to understand a good wargame is to understand the mechanics of the game. I've never found a wargame yet where anything more than a cursory knowledge of the history represented was required for good understanding--and even that was only to speed in learning how to play. When in college one of the guys in the wargaming club could care less about the history of the games we played... whether it was squad leader, diplomacy, eia, A3R or whatever we played, he had a great understanding of the mechanics of the games and was an excellent player.

_____________________________

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 44

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 12:09:25 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

How do you know that these large provinces do not contain flatter terrain in them? No, I think the reality is that I am looking at the forrest through the trees because I do see the abstraction of the provinces in question and that they cover vast stretches of landmass that contain more than just one terrain type. Take a look at the game map and you'll see flat areas represented as part of the provinces that also contain part mountain ranges.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 45

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 12:36:03 AM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

How do you know that these large provinces do not contain flatter terrain in them? No, I think the reality is that I am looking at the forrest through the trees because I do see the abstraction of the provinces in question and that they cover vast stretches of landmass that contain more than just one terrain type. Take a look at the game map and you'll see flat areas represented as part of the provinces that also contain part mountain ranges.

Then riddle me this: Why historically did the Austrians never try to mass a 150, 000 man army in the Tyrol and dare the French to attack them? Why were the 1805 and 1809 campaigns fought almost entirely in the Danube valley? Why were all the Italian campaigns fought in the northern plains and the only role of Tyrolia in any of these campaigns was to control the ability to shift troops from one theater to the other?

Even Suvarov's campaign only went into the mountains when he was trying to move to support the Rhineland.

Did Napoleon, Charles and Suvarov all just not get it? Were they horrible players who didn't understand the uses of mountains? Did they not see that they could just fight in the 'plains of Tyrolia' and ignore the mountains?

Switzerland has not been free from war these many years because it was neutral. It is free from war because it is near impregnable and is not even a good route to anywhere else. Mountains are things that armies avoid.

As to the argument that Tyrolia is not all mountainous, doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that the provincial borders on the game map are set as they are precisely because they are terrain based, rather than political or culturally based?

Its a moot point. In my opinion, you said it quite clearly that you are not a wargamer when you tried arguing that Risk is a wargame. Sure, if Risk is a wargame then CoG can be one too. I certainly hope though that EiA continues to push to be something alot better and to offer something more to the Grognards.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 46

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 12:52:54 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Then riddle me this: Why historically did the Austrians never try to mass a 150, 000 man army in the Tyrol and dare the French to attack them? Why were the 1805 and 1809 campaigns fought almost entirely in the Danube valley? Why were all the Italian campaigns fought in the northern plains and the only role of Tyrolia in any of these campaigns was to control the ability to shift troops from one theater to the other?

Ok I give... you're right, the provinces only contain one type of terrain and aren't large land masses with a variety of terrain. And that the province in the game is of the exact same dimensions and contains the exact same geographical features of tyrol.

quote:

As to the argument that Tyrolia is not all mountainous, doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that the provincial borders on the game map are set as they are precisely because they are terrain based, rather than political or culturally based?

Uh no... take a look at the flanders province. Are you saying the area covered by the flanders province is all of one terrain?

quote:

Its a moot point. In my opinion, you said it quite clearly that you are not a wargamer when you tried arguing that Risk is a wargame. Sure, if Risk is a wargame then CoG can be one too. I certainly hope though that EiA continues to push to be something alot better and to offer something more to the Grognards.

Hahaha! Yes, how dare anyone say that risk could be a wargame! Clearly anyone doing so can't be a wargamer... they aren't worthy!

Yes, I'm a wargamer but no, I'm not an elitest.

< Message edited by Reiryc -- 7/14/2005 12:55:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 47

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 1:34:02 AM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

Not 'elitist'. Say instead 'specifist'.

There is gaming and there is wargaming. Both have their uses and their advantages.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 48

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 1:53:28 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Not 'elitist'. Say instead 'specifist'.

There is gaming and there is wargaming. Both have their uses and their advantages.

I'm curious... what is your definition of wargame?

edit: Oh and specifist and elitist are not mutually exclusive....

< Message edited by Reiryc -- 7/14/2005 1:54:10 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 49

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 2:51:58 AM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

Off the cuff general definition of a wargame:

A wargame is a game where the principles of warfare are consistently relevent. A wargame is more sim than 'game'.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 50

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 3:04:15 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Off the cuff general definition of a wargame:

A wargame is a game where the principles of warfare are consistently relevent. A wargame is more sim than 'game'.

How did you come by this definition?

I also agree it's more sim than game, but what is being simulated can vary greatly.

_____________________________

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 51

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 5:21:53 AM

jchastain

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I also agree...

It took almost 2 full pages, but you two FINALLY found something you agree on?

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 52

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 6:41:50 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I also agree...

It took almost 2 full pages, but you two FINALLY found something you agree on?

I'm getting easier to get along with as I age I see...

_____________________________

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 53

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 6:59:16 AM

carnifex

Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

Reiryc from Palomides?

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 54

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 8:12:11 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Reiryc from Palomides?

Yes... Didn't I ask you before if you played on palo?

_____________________________

(in reply to carnifex)

Post #: 55

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 4:37:03 PM

carnifex

Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

Sorry, I must have been deeply absorbed constructing an inappropriate and offensive rant

and missed seeing it.

Small world, heh.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 56

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 4:50:10 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

^^ LOL - Alb/Galahad here.....

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 57

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/14/2005 6:22:23 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

^^ LOL - Alb/Galahad here.....

boo albs! g-d lemmings!

Although I haven't played in a couple years now so it might be different.

_____________________________

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 58

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/15/2005 12:44:59 AM

9thlegere

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Nah... you're over-exagerating again.

No one said it doesn't have problems, but it is playable. It's nowhere near a bike without a seat and you know it. One can easily get through the game using quick battles, which aren't as fun as detailed battles, but fully functional without crashes and still fun in their own right.

This is much different than sitting on a bike with no seat and you know it. This is what I'm talking about. The over-exageration that over-blows the problems of the game.

Well, after a few tactical battle crashes and other random Plato errors that bike with no seat might be less painfull. Your right, the fact it annoys me that it crashes like this is really just me over exagerating.

Did you help write the code for this game or do you have shares in it? You seem to be defending it quite strongly.

Hopefully it will all be a moot point soon as it appears they are well on the way to resolving it in two ways. Firstly, by allowing tactical battles to be saved and secondly by fixing the problem itself.

I stand by my comments, the game was advertised with the tactical part as a important part of the game so if it does not work then I don't know how you can claim that the game is "playable" without some reservations. Well a bike without a seat is still rideable but it is not really what you would go out and buy now is it?

Now if I seem to be a whiner or exagerating then Matrix games have a very good customer in you. I have a few things lying about the house that don't quite work as well as I would want them to, do you want to buy them?

Also malcolm_mccallum had a point about the switzerland thing. I think it could have done with a few more penalties for movment supply to make it less inviting. It was not really a campaign theatre from 1805 onwards. There was a good reason for that.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 59

RE: CoG and EiA - 7/15/2005 2:26:01 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Did you help write the code for this game or do you have shares in it? You seem to be defending it quite strongly.

No I just personally don't like it when people over-exagerate a problem. I have no problem speaking out against those kinds of 'problems'.

quote:

I stand by my comments, the game was advertised with the tactical part as a important part of the game so if it does not work then I don't know how you can claim that the game is "playable" without some reservations. Well a bike without a seat is still rideable but it is not really what you would go out and buy now is it?

Because the game still is playable. You can get through the game from start to end by using quick combat. I think it's more a bike with an uncomfortable seat as opposed to one with no seat. I tried riding a bike without a seat once... couldn't do it. My tush needed more cushion.

quote:

Now if I seem to be a whiner or exagerating then Matrix games have a very good customer in you. I have a few things lying about the house that don't quite work as well as I would want them to, do you want to buy them?

Depends... what are they?

_____________________________

(in reply to 9thlegere)

Post #: 60