Finished PBEMs, what is not working, what is working - thread

[evwalt]

Ahh, I didn't know about Moore BUT I can almost guarentee that the French knew the APPROXIMATE location by the Brits (ie. the right province on our map).

On your example from your game, I seriously doubt the the fact you were moving a "medium sized army" COULD have been hidden at this time period. In RL, you would have to gather (impress?) merchants to carry the troops. Inform the captains of ALL the ships where you were going, etc. Easy for the word to get out.

As far as feudal level, I absolutely agree that the feudal LEVY system must be fixed. You are screwed now with the system working like it is.

[Anthropoid]

Agree with Kingmaker that the Milit Groups screen gives too much info and too reliable.

Have never tried to change Feudal level nor had it forced on me. The effects some guys are saying it has sound disastrous, and I find it hard to believe that those kinds of "changes" would ever have been forced on other nations in treaties.

[evwalt]

Perhaps I am just missing something when it comes to Military Groups. Are you guys talking about 'general location' or 'general strength'?

I know the 'general strength' varies widely. I have groups that show up under Military Groups as being very large in strength when they are in fact small and vice versa. Over the course of months I have had a military group go from small (ie. weak) to large (ie. strong) without any actual change in strength!

[Anthropoid]

Hmmm. Well I'm like Kingmaker in that I rarely even look at the thing. Didn't realize it was inaccurate.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Have a look at ‘the Chase’ bit and note the length of time it took to bring the opposing forces into action, and, “Nelson guessed”.

http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside1.html
http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/battle-of-trafalgar.html

I won’t reel out loads & loads of examples from history whereby opposing force met, ... or, failed to meet because no one knew where the Hell the opposition was; it could be blind ignorance, successful ruses or faulty Intel, that caused it (Arnhem being a classic eg of the later, British 1st Airborne dropped on top of 2 heavily armed SS Divs, and that with all the benefit of modern day communications!).

So to reiterate; my suggestion is not to do away with ‘Military Groups’ altogether but to introduce a ‘Toggle’ so that, with prior agreement of the players/majority vote, it can be switched off, then those players that wish to play (with Fog of War enacted) under more realistic settings can do so.

To fulfil Terjes Thread criteria more fully; as it is not unknown through history for Armies to bump into each other not knowing the other was anywhere near, ie not have a whole months worth of Game time to react, I think the ‘Military Groups’ is wrong because it negates the ‘Fog of War’ element, roughly, in Game play terms what you have in effect is

Player A moving his forces to point 1, the turns are then merged and returned.

Player 2 can now look at the ‘Military Groups’ see where and roughly how strong the enemy is at point 1 (ie, in a FoW area) and have a whole month in Game play terms to react, either attack, or run away to something he shouldn’t be able to see (Hence “Fog of War”, unless of course he has utilised his Cav for scouting purposes) therefore as suggested earlier the chance to pull of something like Marlborough’s ‘March to the Danube’ are none existent with Military Groups showing placements.

Wishful thinking maybe on my part but I feel that to have the option of a higher level of play is a “Goodthing”, and although it’s merely my opinion I do feel as though we could have that if there was a Toggle switch for ‘Military Groups’ made available.

All the Best
Peter

[Anthropoid]

It seems to me that info in the Military Groups screen is fine, as long as it is wrong and inaccurate most of the time (varying from month to month between 51% of the time and 99% of the time) and often just disappears for seemingly no good reason, except in instances where mitigating factors should come into play: favorable relations with the pop in the province where enemy is moving/lurking; diplomats in place, expenditure for espionage, trade routes, etc
 
You are of course totally correct to point out that often throughout history, militaries have had faulty, incomplete, or just plain non-existent information about the enemy. BUT, seeking to have such information and making use of it irrespective of whether it was fraught with error have also often been quite common throughout history. The Brits didn't just parachute a Bridge Too Far because they decided to just risk it, else they figured it was unlikely the Huns were there. They THOUGHT that they were NOT there, and they acted accordingly based on the erroneous premise.
 
A "total lack of iinformation" would not be "more realistic" than "constant and reasonably accurate information." Rather, "sometimes non-existent (and largely uncontrollable) and often probabilistically-useless if not totally misleading information" would be more realistic than either no information or constant and reasonable information [:D]
 
However, as Ericbabe has pointed out on numerous occasions: when the Devs have made changes to game mechanics that made the game more "realistic" (for example heinous attrition) it seems more often than not to have vexed players and produced lots of bitching which prompted the realism having been turned back "off" in subsequent patches.
 
While we as players can offer useful insights about the game, I think ultimately the game designers are in the best position to judge how far game mechanics can be shifted toward "realism" without making the game an un-entertaining experience.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

My point re the Overview negating FoW is that we don’t have the chance in PBEM CoG of even trying to emulate these Brilliant Commanders with the manoeuvre of our forces. No repeats of Marlboroughs classic ‘March to the Danube’ or Montroses Campaign in Scotland (1645) or the eg re Moore above.

I don't follow this. The turn cycle is a month long. Marlborough's march would be copied by somebody force marching from the Dutch Republic to Bavaria, something easily done in this engine with the proper leadership and the right initiative related conditions.

The enemy thought the army was in the Dutch Republic, next turn it pops up in Bavaria. This is already possible.

The example you gave of your troops being visible to the entire world I agree was stupid. Some kind of adjustment is necessary, but I think in *most* circumstances it makes sense to know the rough location of your enemy's largest armies and fleets.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

... as long as it is wrong and inaccurate most of the time (varying from month to month between 51% of the time and 99% of the time)

Seamus, where on earth do these figures come from? thin air, or have you been reading Chicken entrails again!? [:)]

I may well be very wrong on this but as I understand it the inaccuracies re ‘Military Groups’ is a programming fault ie it’s not WaD, hence all the, ‘Bug’, stuff in the 1st game etc.

Mus, unfortunately I am not blessed with your proper leadership and the right initiative related conditions Skills, however it would seem to me that the rough idea behind a ‘Secret march’ is to produce a, “Surprise”, element for when the action actually takes place.

Now, as I see it, the secret March would be tried in the month long turn 1, the “Surprise” element should be played out the following turn eg jumping unsuspecting forces; however all the second player has to do is look at the ‘Military Groups’ screen see he’s about to get jumped and piss off at a great rate of knots, fine if it’s in an area he can see, ie adjacent province or because he has Cav out looking for this very thing, but, if the secret moves end in a FoW province (ready to produce the “Surprise” the turn after the Secret march) then it’s all been a bit of a waste of time doing the Secret march in the 1st place ... IMO.

All the Best
Peter

[Marshal Villars]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

Very briefly I’ll raise again a suggestion I made in an earlier discussion on this topic, that to more realistically replicate Intel gathering, ‘Land Merchants’ are introduced to the game, working along similar lines to Diplomats, ie with Skills, but cheaper, their lack of complete reliability could even open up greater use of the ‘Rumours’ tag whereby Nations could plant false rumours with regard to Army placement etc to lure Mechant/spys to an area sort of thing, Just a thought.

I like the land merchants idea. I have considered it myself, but I think seeing it here has convinced me that they need to be in.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

Mus, unfortunately I am not blessed with your proper leadership and the right initiative related conditions Skills, however it would seem to me that the rough idea behind a ‘Secret march’ is to produce a, “Surprise”, element for when the action actually takes place.

Well force marching, particularly with leaders that give a boost in initiative and the Rapid March upgrade, I have seen armies move 3-4 spaces in 1 turn.

I view the "surprise" to have been pulled off when you move the 3-4 spaces and land right on top of the enemy at the end of the turn, resulting in an unavoidable battle.

If you fail to produce that I don't see why anyone wouldn't know the location of your army particularly after a month.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

... as long as it is wrong and inaccurate most of the time (varying from month to month between 51% of the time and 99% of the time)

Seamus, where on earth do these figures come from? thin air, or have you been reading Chicken entrails again!? [:)]

My point quite simply is that: what would be more realistic is: more-or-less constantly available information, synthesized in the Military Groups window, which was prone to inaccuracies, imprecisions, and unreliability. These shortcomings in the information should be moderated by factors over which the player has some limited control: merchants, espionage, diplomacy, scouting, alliances, trade routes, etc

Maybe this is already the way it works? i.e., maybe the info in the Milit Groups windows is not so accurate as you might think Kingmaker?

Related to this, I think the game very much needs an "intercept/avoid" command for units.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Related to this, I think the game very much needs an "intercept/avoid" command for units.

Agreed on the military groups aspect. It should be fluctuating information as to the size and location of various forces, sometimes almost entirely accurate, sometimes completely devoid of factual basis, usually somewhere in the middle.

As far as the intercept/avoid expansion, I would actually like greatly detailed seek/avoid commands where I could striotly define what circumstances in which a fleet army or corps is to engage or avoid.

Beyond that land interception has also been discussed and I would like to be able to specify what sea and land forces would intercept and allow to pass by, and in the case of sea units whether or not blockading or intercepting takes priority.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

'Secret Treaties', may not be WaD, ie in some cases they just don't remain "Secret" but are shown to everybody.

But, another issue with Secret treaties has just come up whereby only the 2 signatories to the Treaty were advised; so, 2 nations set up a 'Secret treaty' to DoW so they then have no Glory penalty against them, (the DoW also apears to be enacted instantainiously), this all adds up in my eyes to makeing the process a 'Sneak attack' without any penalty, here's a link to the descussion in case anyone is interested in fixing some these PBEM anomalies.

tm.asp?m=2253567&mpage=13

As a fair amount of the PBEM community seems to think 4 human v 4 AI is a good way to play CoG EE, it might be nice to have an answer to the question posted on Tech support & the MB re only france being able to act as a Set up nation.

All the Best
Peter

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Just a thought for the Patch really, is there any reason why when Surrendered Cavalry are returned at the end of a War they can't be "Refitted" as Cavalry (if sufficent 'Horses' are available), say at double the cast or somesuch as the number of horses lost when orriginally Captured/Surrendered.

My thinking is that trained Cavalrymen would in those days be almost certainly reassigned back into the Cavalry arm rather than go as Infantry, they were after all Trained Horsemen with experiance of Cavalry tactics etc.

All the Best
Peter