Surrender Issues...

[barbarossa2]

I am slightly concerned about the practice of immediately removing all of an attacker's armies when a defending nation surrenders to them.

For instance, in a game I had going last night, I was playing as France. My ally Sweden was at war with Russia. France was at war with Russia and Prussia. The fighting was occurring mostly along the southern Baltic shore (Pomerania/ Mecklenburg/ Brandenburg). Prussia's morale began to drop precipitously after Berlin fell and suddenly Prussia had surrendered to France. I, being France, however, wanted to continue to help my Swedish allies in their struggle against Russia!!! No such luck. My French forces in Prussia were picked up and moved to Hanover, leaving my allies out on a limb. Now, I know I could have violated Prussian neutrality, and marched back in, but I shouldn't have had to leave my allies in the lurch like that.

I doubt if in a critical situation with an ally at risk if anyone would leave a country immediately just because one nation surrendered.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Anyone?

P.S. On top of this, I really think you should be allowed to pick a separate region to evacuate each formation to. It is always disappointing to launch a two pronged French attack on Austria (one through Bavaria and one through Italy) and then have to evacuate ALL of your troops to ONE location, leaving either Germany of Italy bare.

[Hard Sarge]

hmmm, don't want to get into what we have talked about

but in the long run, the idea this is set up to fix, works well, and is better then how it was handled in the older game

and I agree, at times, it works against what you are trying to do or get done

[dude]

I agree with barbarossa2, it’s very annoying to have your forces withdrawn via magically teleporting to someplace else on the map. I’ve had his problem where I’ve been forced to pull my troops out of North Africa and Italy just because Spain surrendered, now I have to spend month reposistioning my troops.

… plus this one: Launching an attack against France while his forces where deep in Russia, only to have them magically appear back in France the next turn because Russia surrendered. I’d at least like to have a couple of turns to run amok in France before they trickle back since it took them more than a month to march to Moscow in the first place.

I think a good solution would have been just to give the victor a couple of months of access and if the troops are still present then automatically switch to “violating neutrality” and assessing some penalty just like breaking any other treaty.

Why the magic teleporting act anyways? Who’s supplying the airlift?[:D]

[barbarossa2]

Dude, I like what you have to say.  It has emboldened me to suggest the following: [:)]

I don't see any reason to "export" troops by airlift from a war torn, defeated nation.  It should be enough to lock out possible conflict between the winner and loser and perhaps bar the winner from entering the cities of the loser.  These magic airlifts can really screw things up strategically (as Dude's example points out well).  Why not simply let players know that as soon as someone surrenders to them that they are violating neutral territory and they will be penalized for it as they would be normally during the course of any game.  So, the victor's units would stay where they are and could continue to move and fight normally.  This would prevent many, many, many unrealistic situations which have popped up.

What really makes all of this confusing to me is that in the game as it is now, I can be kicked out following a surrender, and then march right back in by checking "violate neutrality". What is the point of even kicking me out and inflicting all of these unrealistic burdens (stiffing allies, placing all units in one region--even if they really are needed in two).

I would be curious to know from a designer why the "magic airlift" solution was used, as I am guessing at some point it solved some other uncomfortable problem.

Anyway, CoG:EE is still a solid 8/10 game and fixing this would be just additional icing on the cake. [&o]

[dude]

Thanks... I'm glad you started the thread... this is really the one "abstract" that bugs me the most... I love to lay out a good strategy and have my troops deployed to take advantage of a situation... but then to get screwed by magically teleporting armies is really annoying...
 
Is there some limitation in coding the game that is prevents coding it to allow the forces to remain in place and just force a "violate neutrality" at some point...?  Once peace is accepted you can't attack the surrendered forces anyways and as barbarossa2 points out you're just going to "violate" it again anyways.
 

[ptan54]

Agree with Barbarossa2 except the -1200 treaty point loss. Too much. You've run roughshod over them, you can very well continue to do so even after you've dictated terms. In fact I think the victor should not even have to ask for a short period of military access (say 2-3 months), i.e. no need to ask for access via treaty but instead have it as a game mechanic. Beyond this 2-3 month period, the victor should get hit by the violate neutrality penalty (whatever it is) and maybe some glory loss.

Imagine after Jena-Auerstadt Prussia "surrenders" because Berlin is occupied. The Grande Armee magically teleports back to Paris, and it is another 4 months before they get to East Prussia to fight the Russians.....huh??!?!?!?!?

[Anthropoid]

Yeah, teleporting is a pretty serious breach of realism.

[barbarossa2]

ptan54, I just deleted the suggestion with the 1200 points above, because I feel the only real solution is to let us stay and penalize us as if we were violating neutrality.  Just as you probably do.

[Mus]

I dont understand what the problem was that the instantly teleporting armies was intended to fix.

Would be great if somebody could tell us what it was. I never understood why it was in original COG, and even with some of the EE changes that make it less destructive (cant get random massive attrition with it anymore, cant plunder yourself, etc.) I still dont understand its purpose.

[barbarossa2]

Usually my postings attract a decided split in opinion.  But this one hasn't attracted any negative comments yet. 
 
Anyone?  Anyone?
 
WCS, can we consider getting this changed?

[dude]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Usually my postings attract a decided split in opinion.  But this one hasn't attracted any negative comments yet. 

Anyone?  Anyone?

WCS, can we consider getting this changed?

... because the beta testers haven't chimed in yet on why it's the way it is... [;)][:D]

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Usually my postings attract a decided split in opinion.  But this one hasn't attracted any negative comments yet. 

I've just started getting the hang of this game, and didn't know this happens when someone surrenders to you. This doesn't sound logical at all. So what happens? Does the conquered territory become a "no man's land" immediately after the surrender?

[barbarossa2]

Slick Welhelm, if you are France and you are at war with Prussia, if Prussia is forced to surrender to you, the game will ask you to which ONE region you would like to evacutate your troops to.  You are then presented with a list of regions which you control and you may choose ONE of them.  Immediately all of your troops in Prussia will be transported to that location (generally close to your home country and which you have complete control of). 

This may be the nightmare scenario: Lets say you are France and are at war with both Prussia AND Russia and much of your fighting is centered around the eastern border of Prussia (near Russia). Because of the action, half of your units are in Prussia and the other half are in Russia...and then Prussia surrenders to you. This Prussian surrender could suddenly be the worst thing that could happen to you. In fact, I can see a Prussian surrender being used as a weapon to destroy the French, because suddenly the half of your French army on Prussian soil will be magically transported back through Prussia to some provence wholly controlled by you (say for example, Baden)...and away from the other half of your army which is still desperately fighting the Russians and on Russian soil. This could royally screw you. This is what I am "lobbying against" by just allowing units to stay where they are and automatically entering a "violating neutrality status" and leaving it up to the winning player to decide on if he should evacuate or not.

Slick, interestingly, the game already allows you to march right back in my checking "violate neutrality". But by then the damage is already done.

Don't get me wrong. CoG:EE is still a fun GAME about Napoleonic Europe. But until some issues are addressed, it is not a simulation. Which is okay. The developer here has made a choice (a sound choice) not to develop a simulation, but a game so that he can appeal to a larger base. Indeed, if he hadn't made this choice we might not even have a CoG:EE (CoG2) to play. So, I agree with EricBabe's decision to not turn it into a total simulation. However, I feel a little work can still be done to cater to both groups of fans a little more. For instance, he has already catered to hard core "elite" fans by including a basic and advanced economy. He can easily do the same with the supply issue I am bringing up for discussion in another thread.

[Hard Sarge]

I wish you guys would stop dreaming up things that could happen, and play the game and see what can and does happen

which most of the posts are about what bad can happen, you seem to forget what good can happen also

as to why it was done, go play CoG, the complaints about surrender in that game is what brought on this set up, is it perfect? no, not even close, but it does solve alot of the complaints about the old game

War with Prussia and Russia, depending on the campaign, you should already have some or most of the provinces close to Prussia, and most times you will already have parts of Ossiteland, and Prussia is not large, they surrender, your troops are still going to be pretty close to Prussia, and it is a short trip across there border to join up with the brothers in Russia, they already were not of use to you, while in Prussia, so don't see how that hurts you

(most times, when I get this to happen, I just use to the next turn, to reorder my troops, shift Corps around, add divs to my Corps and Armees, that I can't do during the fighting

[barbarossa2]

Hard Sarge, CoG:EE is still a great game   Which I enjoy playing tremendously.  Which is the only reason I post in here.  It is also why I give it an 8/10 and still think it is the best Napoleonic grand strategy game out there. I hope it isn't seen as a bad thing to lobby for things we would like to see considered for change. [:D]

I have been playing the game almost non-stop for 2 weeks. If I didn't like CoG:EE, I can promise you I wouldn't be posting in this forum, but would be in another forum and would have forgotten about CoG:EE last week. As it is, you have a game here which has me almost spellbound which I would love to see go into two or three or even four more releases . Indeed, I have even told my girlfriend that I am worried that it may not happen because of the screen resolution issues and would find it a disaster if WCS would abandon the game/engine just because of this 2-4 years down the road when the old 1024x768 resolution is viewed as a totally archaic dinosaur which garners nothing but howels from the gaming community. The resolution issue is not a small one, because the "elites" (see also: 30+ grognards) which ericbabe referred to are also probably the only ones who won't care about resolution. But the other "non-elites" who he is also catering to (and rightly so) are the ones who probably WILL care about the resolution. Anyway, that's for another thread.

Having said all of that, I presented one nightmare scenario above (the French conflict with Prussia and Russia) and you seemed to indicate that I should not dwell on such scenarios. However, just about everytime I get kicked out of a country in a victory, there is a strategic issue which develops because of the evacuation of my troops. It happens over and over again as France when invading Austria from Italy and Germany. Forcing an evacuation to one single location results in leaving either Italy or Germany virtually bare and three or four months of scrambling to set everything in balance again.

I will see if I can find some of the old CoG postings on this surrender issue so that I can better inform myself as to the issues.

[Hard Sarge]

Barb
no hassle mate, and I hope my post didn't come across that way, I am not as good a writer as you, so my intent may not come across as I mean it

for your end statement, not to be rude, but overall, I would say, part of the issue is, planning

to be honest, you are setting yourself up, to get what you get (again, depending on the campaign you are playing)

the southern troops, really there is only one goal for them (in 92) and that is Ventio, once taken, they do not need to go deeper into Ossiteland

the Grands, are going to be defending France if the Ossites get across the border, once stopped, they are your driving force (you should have some forces up around Hamburg (I like to send the small Corps to join them as they have a Arty with them, they will keep the Prussians honest), the Bavarian troops will more then likely defeat the Ossites who come at them, by the 2nd month, one of the Grands should be close enough to offer support, if the Russians show up, from there it is a short drive into Vienna, and the war is over

Victory, allows you to shift those forces in Ossiteland up to Prussia, while the forces in Ventio can now clean up Italy (Ventio becomes yours when you take it, so those troops don't shift out, only if they enter Ossiteland)

I think, the difference in my statements vs yours, I already know what my Armies and corps can do, and how much support is going to be needed for them, you don't need to mass everything you got, all the time

one idea with the combined arms Corps, is once a Army is on the move, it can always break down into corps, and each corps is just a mini Army

and really, I am glad you are enjoying it

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I wish you guys would stop dreaming up things that could happen, and play the game and see what can and does happen

which most of the posts are about what bad can happen, you seem to forget what good can happen also

as to why it was done, go play CoG, the complaints about surrender in that game is what brought on this set up, is it perfect? no, not even close, but it does solve alot of the complaints about the old game

I’ll try not to be too rude… (I’m trying not to come off that way so I apologize in advance…)

I don't think what's happened to my forces far has been a dream… they get magically teleported hundreds of miles (or across the Med Sea) from where they were for no reason. I do see what happens… and it’s not to my liking (and as can be seen by other not to their’s). So it’s not unreasonable for us to post these comments…

I’ve played both CoG and CoGEE… but right now I could care less what CoG does… I’m playing CoGEE now and I’m posting about what IT does. I mean you are either looking for feedback from us other users or else just post a big notice at the top of the forums that say “Don’t post comments since the Beta Testers have said it all already…”

Telling us to go play CoG to see what it does is not really a valid argument… We are telling what we don’t like in CoGEE… and we are offering some suggestions on this game. If our suggestions can’t be coded fine… say that. If the Beta Testers discussed it… that’s nice but we aren’t privy to those discussions so please bear with us if we want to discuss it now.

Secondly… they way you play the game may not be the way anyone else does… so telling us a specific strategy that we must follow to make it work is bogus. We all play differently and try different things. I shouldn’t have to take province A, B, then C… like you do. What you are basically saying is that you’ve figured out how to get around the limitations and we have to play like you. You’ve taken the fun out of the game if we have to play it the same way every time because of some strange limitation on surrenders and magically teleporting armies.

Respectfully,[:)]

Dude

btw... I really do love this game and it is without a doubt the best war game I've played in the past 25 years on a computer. And I really do respect and enjoy the advice from the advanced players... but I still like to try other strategies.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

as to why it was done, go play CoG, the complaints about surrender in that game is what brought on this set up...

Or you could just save us the time and tell us.

As I recall there was teleporting in COG as well, just you now get to choose where you get to teleport to and you dont take massive attritional damage and plunder yourself accidently in COG:EE.

When I do a forum search about teleporting in original COG I see complaints about teleporting, and still no explanation as to why its in the game.

So Im back to the start:

What issue is the magical teleportation meant to fix?

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I wish you guys would stop dreaming up things that could happen, and play the game and see what can and does happen

You cant expect people not to complain about features of the game they dont like if nobody from the developer will explain why its that way.

If theres a big exploit and teleporting was the only fix that could be implemented explain what the exploit was and how teleporting fixes it.

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

which most of the posts are about what bad can happen, you seem to forget what good can happen also

Like barb said, if we werent fans of the game we wouldnt be posting here.

[Anthropoid]

What exactly was the problem in COG?

[barbarossa2]

I guess, that is the most important question.  As Dr. Evil put it, "What exactly was the problem in COG?" 

And, perhaps more importantly, why does removing units after a surrender make the game more realistic?  It seems more code was added to make it less realistic, if you could just leave the units where they are and immediately penalize for violating neutrality. 

I don't even understand the advantages of removing the units.  Can anyone explain? I do think it might be a useful tool in a game that has wars between only two nations (A and B), but because of the complexity of international relations (B surrenders to A while A is still fighting C and is still worried about issues with D and E) and the multiplicity of situations that can arise in a game like CoG:EE, it is best to leave these units in place IMHO. And interestingly, seemingly in the opinion of every non-Beta tester who has chimed in on this topic.

I hadn't even considered the possibility that if Turkey surrenders to France that French units would magically teleport from Egypt to Marseille--instead of perhaps dying a slow death if there was no naval transport.

Would be really nice to get a comment on this from Gil R., Mr. Z, or the oracle, Ericbabe