frustration

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

frustration

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 >> The War Room >> frustration

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

frustration - 7/17/2005 7:35:13 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

This is probably the most frustrating strategy game I've ever played.

I give my ships orders and they simply refuse to move. And then any land units I have embarked in them get killed due to supply. This has happened loads of times to me now.

So what am I doing wrong?

Post #: 1

RE: frustration - 7/17/2005 7:50:07 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

...and the other question is

I keep levying vast quantities of militia, who then seem to bankrupt the nation.
How do I turn that off?

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 2

RE: frustration - 7/17/2005 10:47:10 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

This is probably the most frustrating strategy game I've ever played.

I give my ships orders and they simply refuse to move. And then any land units I have embarked in them get killed due to supply. This has happened loads of times to me now.

So what am I doing wrong?

This is all coz the current AI fails to predict how far a fleet is able to travel while taking orders to go to a destination, to take units on, and to go to another destination. My main problem is instead that I always failed to make an accurate plan about naval invasion so I either suffer a pre-laid (costly) network of depots (ahead of the time they are required) or failures to keep the men supplied if the fleets finally go beyond my supply line. I am kind of accustomed to my invasion attempts being doomed this way.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 3

RE: frustration - 7/17/2005 10:49:52 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...and the other question is

I keep levying vast quantities of militia, who then seem to bankrupt the nation.
How do I turn that off?

We need be able to "disband" them. Are you talking about spring levies from colonial regiments or feudalism?

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 4

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 3:30:25 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naomi

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

This is probably the most frustrating strategy game I've ever played.

I give my ships orders and they simply refuse to move. And then any land units I have embarked in them get killed due to supply. This has happened loads of times to me now.

So what am I doing wrong?

This is all coz the current AI fails to predict how far a fleet is able to travel while taking orders to go to a destination, to take units on, and to go to another destination. My main problem is instead that I always failed to make an accurate plan about naval invasion so I either suffer a pre-laid (costly) network of depots (ahead of the time they are required) or failures to keep the men supplied if the fleets finally go beyond my supply line. I am kind of accustomed to my invasion attempts being doomed this way.

Mm, it is very difficult. I've been playing Britain (of course) and getting to Holland is hard enough. Gibraltar, forget it.

The United States keeps declaring war on me as well the swine, and while they aren't all that powerful they keep needling at me where my navy isnt, its really annoying.

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 5

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 3:32:00 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naomi

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...and the other question is

I keep levying vast quantities of militia, who then seem to bankrupt the nation.
How do I turn that off?

We need be able to "disband" them. Are you talking about spring levies from colonial regiments or feudalism?

Yes, disband is very necessary!

I think its the spring levies. I've reduced the number of draftees significantly and thats cut down on the militia, though from my reading of the manual this means I've also cut down on my reinforcements for other units.

Never mind, just made France and Spain both lick my bootheel give me all their colonies.

I'm struck by how easy it is to wreck your economy in this game. I've had three restarts before I got it right I think. You can really self destruct easily.

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 6

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 3:57:08 AM

Reiryc

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

This is probably the most frustrating strategy game I've ever played.

I give my ships orders and they simply refuse to move. And then any land units I have embarked in them get killed due to supply. This has happened loads of times to me now.

So what am I doing wrong?

You need to put supply depots along the sea route to the invasion province. Make sure you start with a depot on your territory, like kent, first.

As for moving, not really sure why they aren't moving. Could be weather....

quote:

I keep levying vast quantities of militia, who then seem to bankrupt the nation.
How do I turn that off?

Lower feudalism, but beware the discontent it breeds as it could cause you to surrender in wars due to insurrectionists. So lower it very slowly until your people adjust to the changes.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 7

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 5:38:21 AM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

What I believe needs to change is that troops aboard ship are automatically in supply. In real life, every ship has provisions for those aboard. Perhaps there needs to be a way to pre-supply ships for this, like maybe a depot on board.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 8

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 6:53:29 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

On Naval Transport:

a) Put the troops on the ships one month, sail out of port the following month. The ships will obey you.
b) You can only count on your ships making about 2 sea areas per month while loaded with troops. In game mechanics terms, being laiden reduces their initiative significantly. Note that bad weather may prohibit the fleet moving at all - sail around any storms.
c) If you want to feed the guys, run a sea supply chain. Put a depot in the debarkation port, and then in each sea area you will sail through. Put 1 ship outside of any fleets in one of the sea zones. Now you have a sea supply chain, and the guys will be fed. [This simulates paying for hardtack, etc.]
d) At the other end, either order the corps/army to make a naval invasion, OR sail the ships into a friendly port and end turn. The next month the land units can just march away.

On militia:

If you increase your recruiting standards, the feudals wont be quite so worthless. However, if you play a country that generates lots of feudals you are expected to use them - fight some wars, or reduce your feudal level. One nice trick - put lots of militia into a spare army, and rent it out to someone - then they can pay the upkeep and supply on the divisions!

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to rich12545)

Post #: 9

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 7:24:14 AM

jchastain

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

My biggest wish is that if a ship doesn't complete its move, I wish it would remember it next turn so I didn't have to keep repeating myself. Of course, without "undo" and "movement history arrows" that likely would be unworkable, but once both of those enhancements are added, perhaps orders can be remembered from one turn to the next with people able to undo them if they are no longer valid. I think that would save a lot of work over the current re-do them scheme.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 10

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 10:20:20 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

My biggest wish is that if a ship doesn't complete its move, I wish it would remember it next turn so I didn't have to keep repeating myself. Of course, without "undo" and "movement history arrows" that likely would be unworkable, but once both of those enhancements are added, perhaps orders can be remembered from one turn to the next with people able to undo them if they are no longer valid. I think that would save a lot of work over the current re-do them scheme.

I agree. Thats one of the frustrating things - you give orders, but you have to constantly keep giving them again, which gives you the impression that you are constantly battling the interface rather than the enemy.

WITP is complex and time consuming but at least when you give an order you know that, eventually, it will be carried out without you having to check up on it every turn.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 11

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 8:53:17 PM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

Put a depot in the debarkation port, and then in each sea area you will sail through.

Personally I think this is too expensive for a sea voyage. Maybe a depot in debarkation and then every so many (3-4) sea areas but every one is too many. Or maybe one on each ship would even be a better representation of reality.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 12

RE: frustration - 7/18/2005 10:50:39 PM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

c) If you want to feed the guys, run a sea supply chain. Put a depot in the debarkation port, and then in each sea area you will sail through.

Isn't forage checked at the end of the turn, though? Meaning it is onl;y necessary to have a depot adjacent to the sea area you will end up in? Subject to "chain" rules of course.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 13

RE: frustration - 7/19/2005 6:08:03 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
c) If you want to feed the guys, run a sea supply chain. Put a depot in the debarkation port, and then in each sea area you will sail through.

Isn't forage checked at the end of the turn, though? Meaning it is onl;y necessary to have a depot adjacent to the sea area you will end up in? Subject to "chain" rules of course.

Yes, BlueMonday, you are right, so sometimes you can make the chain shorted by supplying from elsewhere. But given the uncertainties of naval movement, the only way to be SURE that they get supplied is to run supply to each sea area they might be in at the end of the turn!

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 14

RE: frustration - 7/19/2005 6:12:11 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
My biggest wish is that if a ship doesn't complete its move, I wish it would remember it next turn so I didn't have to keep repeating myself. Of course, without "undo" and "movement history arrows" that likely would be unworkable, but once both of those enhancements are added, perhaps orders can be remembered from one turn to the next with people able to undo them if they are no longer valid. I think that would save a lot of work over the current re-do them scheme.

Look at how divisions/generals 'remember' a destination - any city, corps or army. So in game mechanics terms, the capability is already there. I would love it extended to armys, corps and fleets. Then we could add an alternative - flash up the minimap and let the player click on the desired destination.

Views?

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 15

RE: frustration - 7/19/2005 8:02:35 AM

jchastain

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
My biggest wish is that if a ship doesn't complete its move, I wish it would remember it next turn so I didn't have to keep repeating myself. Of course, without "undo" and "movement history arrows" that likely would be unworkable, but once both of those enhancements are added, perhaps orders can be remembered from one turn to the next with people able to undo them if they are no longer valid. I think that would save a lot of work over the current re-do them scheme.

Look at how divisions/generals 'remember' a destination - any city, corps or army. So in game mechanics terms, the capability is already there. I would love it extended to armys, corps and fleets. Then we could add an alternative - flash up the minimap and let the player click on the desired destination.

Views?

I agree Ralegh (though the minimap is just a way of scrolling the main map - the real oreders are still given on the main map). As discussed before, I don't think any of the is workable without the undo command (so that you can cancel order that no longer make sense based on events during the last turn) and the movement arrows (so at the beginning of a turn you can differentiate which units are actually in a location and which are simply moving to a location and can therefore know where each unit really is as well as where it is going). With those 2 enhancements though, it opens the ability to provide orders that span multiple turns and eliminate some of the tedium and I think that is a solid move forward that many players would appreciate. For me, it has more practicality in the naval area than on land (as things are less apt to change) but there is no reason not to apply it across the board (sic).

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 16

RE: frustration - 7/19/2005 9:46:28 AM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

On Naval Transport:

a) Put the troops on the ships one month, sail out of port the following month. The ships will obey you.
b) You can only count on your ships making about 2 sea areas per month while loaded with troops. In game mechanics terms, being laiden reduces their initiative significantly. Note that bad weather may prohibit the fleet moving at all - sail around any storms.
c) If you want to feed the guys, run a sea supply chain. Put a depot in the debarkation port, and then in each sea area you will sail through. Put 1 ship outside of any fleets in one of the sea zones. Now you have a sea supply chain, and the guys will be fed. [This simulates paying for hardtack, etc.]
d) At the other end, either order the corps/army to make a naval invasion, OR sail the ships into a friendly port and end turn. The next month the land units can just march away.

It's admittedly a very useful guide about naval travel. However, I prefer the fastest possible way of moving my troops by sea and tried a lot. I found fleets could go as far as 4 sea areas, as long as they are mostly made of transport boats or frigates (they are ships of light weight, right?), in which case the fleets can get a boost of "initiative". A thumb rule of mine is to let units in transit suffer from hunger for the first month, that won't really hurt much, as long as not in winter months. My mil divisions go on even two food-less months. Remember that depots may probably vanish in the exact turn your troops draw on supply even if they are well guarded. That's why I would rather let hunger eat into my troops' strength, than run down my gold reserves trying to keep them in full supply.

Navally dependable nations had better defend their outposts and even fight for new ones, like Gibraltar, Sardinia, Malta, Sicily (AI named this islet as Naples when it begged for protection, a bug?) and Corfu. Playing Britain, I have my ambition always on even Portugal (though necessarily with Spaniards' aquiescence) and Morocco (a good alternative to Gibraltar).

As a side note, recently a bug set me back by cancelling my DOW on a host of minors including Algeria at each turn (for which I had to make a renewed DOW on them in each month). That frustrated me so much that I had to call it and bring my imperialist ambition to a sad conclusion.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 17

RE: frustration - 7/19/2005 5:52:51 PM

Mr. Z

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

quote:

Look at how divisions/generals 'remember' a destination - any city, corps or army. So in game mechanics terms, the capability is already there. I would love it extended to armys, corps and fleets. Then we could add an alternative - flash up the minimap and let the player click on the desired destination.

Views?

Personally, I would like it if we added this capability to container units.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 18

RE: frustration - 7/20/2005 10:26:50 PM

Feralkoala

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/10/2003
From: Troy, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Sicily (AI named this islet as Naples when it begged for protection, a bug?)

Sicily and Naples were part of the same kingdom (the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), so it likely is not a bug.

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 19

RE: frustration - 7/22/2005 5:15:53 AM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feralkoala

quote:

Sicily (AI named this islet as Naples when it begged for protection, a bug?)

Sicily and Naples were part of the same kingdom (the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), so it likely is not a bug.

When Sicily begged for and came under protection from Turkey, the other provinces of the "Kingdom" were still on their own way. If so, it will lead to something like misunderstanding when it is reported: "Naples becomes protectorate of Turkey" but you see Naples and Calabrica yet under, say, Spanish control.

(in reply to Feralkoala)

Post #: 20

RE: frustration - 7/23/2005 9:18:52 PM

vonkohlmann

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline

Historically wasn't sea travel MUCH faster than land travel? When I see armies bookin' through Europe while I barely make it out of port it's frustrating. I understand it's a design decision, but it seems too harsh.

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 21

RE: frustration - 7/23/2005 11:23:58 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonkohlmann

Historically wasn't sea travel MUCH faster than land travel? When I see armies bookin' through Europe while I barely make it out of port it's frustrating. I understand it's a design decision, but it seems too harsh.

I desire faster troops-loaded ships too.

(in reply to vonkohlmann)

Post #: 22

RE: frustration - 7/25/2005 11:44:42 PM

Squamry

Posts: 94
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

I'm struck by how easy it is to wreck your economy in this game. I've had three restarts before I got it right I think. You can really self destruct easily.

That's the thing that's been getting me. If you start as either Britain, France, Austria or Russia (even Turkey) you must take action you will lose money at an alarming rate. This seems odd that without massive tinkering with the economy that these countries can't afford to wage the war they're in for very long at all.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 23

RE: frustration - 7/26/2005 2:19:20 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squamry

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

I'm struck by how easy it is to wreck your economy in this game. I've had three restarts before I got it right I think. You can really self destruct easily.

That's the thing that's been getting me. If you start as either Britain, France, Austria or Russia (even Turkey) you must take action you will lose money at an alarming rate. This seems odd that without massive tinkering with the economy that these countries can't afford to wage the war they're in for very long at all.

golly - thats well put squamry - i think that counts as a BUG. Initial settings for the countries at war should be at least remotely sensible.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Squamry)

Post #: 24