Surrender Issues...

[ptan54]

I believe the British launched an attack on neutral Denmark in 1801 and 1807 to destroy their fleet. So there is historical precedent for barging into neutral ports...whether WCS want to/are able to code this is another matter.

ORIGINAL: dude

Ditto... no offense taken here HS... I write and test software at my office so I know the limits and how busy people are.  I would just describe it as frustrating and leave it at that… [:)]

... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)

To me the simple solution would be to allow fleets to enter ports to pick up troops... just don't know what this takes for coding or how historical this was?

[Mus]

The Royal Navy lifted a Spanish Corps that was serving with the French right out from under Nappys nose when he invaded Spain.  Ships dont necessarily have to sail into a port to take off troops.  They can come as close to the shore as possible and bring parties on board with small boats.

One thing that would simulate that and be a balanced game mechanic is just allowing embarking troops to fleets in adjacent sea zones that started the turn there. This would prevent trapped troops and also wouldnt be exploitable to do driveby sealifts.

[barbarossa2]

That idea about allowing fleets to pick up units if they are in an adjacent sea zone is interesting Mus.

I wonder if there are any other problems which "surrender teleporting" solved, or if this is the only one?

Look, in principle, I don't mind "strategic movement" either.  But the rules which CoG:EE applies are very, very odd.  The ONLY time we get to use strategic movement in CoG:EE is after a surrender.  And then, sometimes the armies and units using it would have to cross hostile territory (what if France is at war with Russia, and Prussia AND Austria are at war with France--HOW do these French troops in Russia get home immediately?)  Normally, we can't even use strategic movement on our interiror lines as France.  Sometimes it can take months to march back and forth from our Spanish front to Germany.

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: dude

... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)

Ah so! Thanks for explaining this, dude. I didn't know this was the case, and since in my first game I'm playing as England, this is very good to know!

[ptan54]

If anyone has played Hearts of Iron by Paradox, that has a great strat redeploy engine. Need to have an uninterrupted zone of control back to your country to redeploy. But I would guess that kind of a change, with a force pool concept, is too much to be done in a patch.

If naval pickup rules are changed to allow troops to board ships in an adjacent seazone, then it seems we can do away with teleporting. For those who like the way things are, we can make strategic redeploy upon surrender a player option. Turn it on or off at your own will.

[Russian Guard]

If anyone else has already suggested what I suggest here, apologies in advance: How about when the pop-up appears asking what Province you want to retreat your forces to, it also asks if you would rather instead stay put, Forcing Access, and begin paying the political cost for doing so beginning the following turn...?

[barbarossa2]

Russian Guard, your suggestion (which mirrored one of my suggestions above) would be music to my ears.  It beats no change.

However, I do think it would still leave an "unrealistic" door open to allow my enemies to redeploy ridiculously fast at the wrong times.  For example: I am Prussia and have France almost at its knees when France beats Russia in a war.  Suddenly, the whole French army appears before me.

Perhaps the idea of "strategic redeployment" following a war wouldn't be so "odd" to most of us if this were allowed at other times, along peaceful interior lines.  But it isn't.  As I stated above, I can't even get some units from Languedoc to Paris in under 3 turns regularly. 

However, the proposal you are making (give the victor an option) is much better than what we are currently dealing with.  So, I would say yes.

But if I were designing, I would say make it so that "teleportation" after a peace agreement never happens, and then I would boost movement rates in areas which are under friendly control.  I don't see why someone who has transported half of their army to Turkey and wins a war should be allowed to magically return their armies home.  Napoleon's own forray to Egypt shows us that armies could be virtually abandoned and lost if they couldn't be returned home safely.

Players don't get to bring troops home after a successful campaign against a minor...why then against a major power?  It is all odd and adds a lot of hoops to the whole process.  Like a Rube Goldberg machine. 

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Perhaps the idea of "strategic redeployment" following a war wouldn't be so "odd" to most of us if this were allowed at other times, along peaceful interior lines.  But it isn't.  As I stated above, I can't even get some units from Languedoc to Paris in under 3 turns regularly.

Using containers and Corps/Army leaders with decent initiative values you should be able to Force March 2-3 spaces a turn.

I do think there ought to be some kind of delay. 1-2 turns for distances of 3-4 spaces. 3-4 for distances of 6-8, 5-6 turns for longer distances.

[dude]

My problem with "Strategic Redeployment" is that I think it’s fine for a game based on the US Civil War or afterwards… IE… railroads were used… I just don’t see that kind of strategic redeployment before that time period except by ship.
 
Russian Guard:  The problem with staying put even if access is forced… you can’t land a fleet into a neutral port… it must be allied to do that.  So your force would be stuck on any island unless the owner was allied to you.
 
It just stretches the imagination to see the entire French army teleport from Moscow back to France.  I’ve seen this happen in too many games now (to me and other AI players).  Twice directly it seriously hampered my careful plans because I was reeking havoc in France with British troops only to see Nappy show back up because my ally Russia surrendered before France did and instead of buying time for my forces I had to face the French army about three or four turns sooner than expected.
  
If it were possible to code it to allow units to board ship from adjacent sea zones (perhaps with a loss to stregth) then that would greatly help.
 
So what are the possibilities to code the game to either allow access to neutral ports for ships by violating neutrality just like land forces do or to allow boarding directly from shore and not port?

[ptan54]

Solving the stranded on an island scenario would do away with the need to teleport. Would appreciate some feedback from the WCS team.

[ubik]

I agree with barbarossa2 the troop teleportation breaks the logic and the suspention of disbelief this game so masterfully achieves. Something more sophisticated could very well be implemented.

In my opinion, a simple way to deal with it (and as we are talking about a patch thing probably something complex will never be implemented) would be to give x months to the player to remove the troops from foreign territory. After those "free months" two things could happen:

- Easier option: Apply the teleport rule.

- Not so easy option: Make the owner of the troops pay Glory points to have the troops in foreign territory. This price would be increased per month of delaying.

[barbarossa2]

I really want to make it clear that in spite of everything else discussed here, I am lobbying for just one change in this very good game:

That is to allow the victor's units to stay in place after the a surrender has occured.  This means making any additional code changes to allow this to happen to prevent units from getting stuck or whatever.  I don't want anything else changed.  Just leave the units in place. 

Almost 1000 hits and 50 comments after the thread was started and no one has disagreed with it yet (and most have outright agreed). I don't think it is a stretch to say this is the most agreed on change required to the "working as designed" aspects of the engine.

[barbarossa2]

Is there anyone reading this thread who is against the idea of having the victor's units be able to stay in place following a surrender? 

It is important that you speak. 

S-P-E-A-K  U-P  N-O-W!  [:D]

I am interested in what you have to say. (and someone else might be too)

Additionally if you are for having units stay in place, it is equally important that you speak up now! [&o]

[Mike Parker]

I wouldn't mind say reducing the treaty by 100 points for every unit that remains in the surrendered nations territory.  There needs to be some considerable cost.  You should be saddled with violating neutrality and likely a Glory cost too.
 

[morganbj]

The behavior in COG was somewhat different and the object of many complaints in the Cog forums, as I recall.  I remember that there were vocal opinions on all sides.
 
Anytime software is being developed and a strategy is eventually adopted, somebody will wish it had been done differently.  As different approaches are explored, the deciding factor is, in many instances, the reduction of anomalous situations caused by programming logic and event sequencing and practicality of implementing a different strategy.  Believe me when I say that I understand and even agree with many of your assertions, but also know that this decision was not arrived at lightly.  The staff at WCS are wonderful in trying to do things the right way.  I think very highly of them.
 
Perhaps they could look at ithe issue again in a future patch, but I can live with it the way it is.

[ptan54]

I should supplement barbarossa's post by saying that if the player/AI decides not to stay put after a victorious war and chooses "teleportation", this should not be a 1 turn thing. Moscow to Paris would be at least 3-4 terms for this to be realistic.

Maybe the easiest thing to do would be:

1) Change naval pickup rules, can pick up troops without going into port, but some troops should "desert" since it's harder to pick up when not in port.

2) Make the strategic redeploy rule an option (maybe only an option you can tweak at game start, just once, then you're stuck with it for the game). If you choose yes I want teleporting, then either use the current system or take into account distance. Berlin to Paris is not the same as Moscow to Paris (I think distance is a key factor but not sure if the devs can code this). If you choose no I don't want teleporting, then you will have to move your troops out of the defeated country. Let the victor violate neutrality with a glory point loss.

[Anthropoid]

I just want to say that, having them all reappear in the same province in disorganized fashion, and potentially as far as 10 or 20 provinces away on the very next turn is unrealistic. I think the Devs, and testers should consider possible ways it could be changed.
 
At the same time, I recognize that, the decision to have the automatic strategic movement was not made lightly, and it was a solution to a whole set of alternative problems that were emergent from the previous way that post war occupation was handled. I would hate to see a solution to the 'teleportation' issue merely resurrect some old COG-era problem with 'stuck' post-war units else 'lingering' post war pests.
 
It is rarely possible to achieve true 'realism' in games, which makes COGEE all the more amazing. But then these few little issues we are spotting that seriously rock the suspension of disbelief are made all the more 'poignant' because so much of the rest of the game works so realistically!
 
So my opinion is this: if the Devs can envision a way to change the system so that it is not likely to create alternative problems or to resurrect old ones, and with a sufficiently smalle expenditure of time and energy that it will not detract from other issues potentially being looked at (e.g., my naval capture points I made, and the merchant-beats-fleet problem) then I would very much encourage looking into alternative to the strategic movement option.
 
It is easy for me to say that I can live with the current system because it has not yet impacted a game for me. But I can definitely imagine how it COULD impact a game, so I am generally in agreement that viable changes are a good thing to be explored. But if 'humoring' us is likely to simply result in an alternative set of problems then I think just a concise explanation of why this is 'likely to be the best way it can be coded for now' might even be just as good.

[Randomizer]

I hope am not out of line for saying this but I suspect part of the problem here is that WCS did such a good job at replicating the era that the instant strategic movement solution just seems entirely wrong.  In a more abstract or a poorer quality game, teleporting units might pass with much less notice but with so much of CoG-EE done so well, the solution for dealing with the strategic redeplyment after third-party surrenders appears to be simplistic and ugly.

For me this is not a game breaking flaw and thanks to all the posters on this thread a player knows the issue is waiting out there but I do hope that there is potential for a solid fix and that teleportation can get patched away.

Best Regards

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I hope am not out of line for saying this but I suspect part of the problem here is that WCS did such a good job at replicating the era that the instant strategic movement solution just seems entirely wrong.  In a more abstract or a poorer quality game, teleporting units might pass with much less notice but with so much of CoG-EE done so well, the solution for dealing with the strategic redeplyment after third-party surrenders appears to be simplistic and ugly.

For me this is not a game breaking flaw and thanks to all the posters on this thread a player knows the issue is waiting out there but I do hope that there is potential for a solid fix and that teleportation can get patched away.

Best Regards

... that's my feeling exactly... I think the game is superb in everything else that this one thing just stands out so badly for me. I could accept this kind of “strategic” movement in later wars once railroads are available but not for this time period.

[barbarossa2]

Dude and Randomizer,
 
I think you both put that very well.  The people at WCS have done such a good job with most other things here, that the forced "strategic movment" after a surrender throws the train off the track (for me).  I don't know why if units getting "trapped" is the issue which forced this coding that WCS didn't just add code to keep units from getting trapped. I mean in real life, units don't get trapped (NOT ENTIRELY TRUE: look at the French army that Napoleon abandoned in Egypt).  Why couldn't they come up with a mechanic to allow ships to pick up these "trapped" units on islands?  By violating neutrality for instance?
 
-B