Surrender Issues...

[ubik]

Just to echo here the words said before. Besides the designing/coding of MMP2, I have been playing CoG:EE in the last few weeks exclusively and it is such a brilliant game (8/10 barbarossa2? That's QUITE harsh! ). Teleporting out of the blue is not in line with the rest of the mechanics, thus it really stands out.


I stick to my sugestion of giving a grace period after a surrender and then a nation should start paying glory per unit that continues to violate a (now) neutral territory.

Of course, one could make it all more detailed and add a special condition to peace treaties that increases by x months the presence of troops in the loser territories for no glory cost.

Besides this, it is always a must to consider how the AI deals with it. We don't want to cripple the AI with this and I can see several examples where the AI might be challenged by this. I'd go as far as saying it does not matter too much for me to have the AI play by a looser set of rules in order to help it.

[barbarossa2]

Ubik, with an 8/10, I am just leaving room at the top.  I am sure post first patch, the game will be a 9/10.  And I won't give a 10/10 (the PERFECT GAME) until I see a Napoleonic game with CoG:EE's inspiration, with no bugs, and with a tactical system like Total War's--BUT more realistic (more maneuver units, battles aren't so speedy, and you don't lose 80% of your troops in virtually every engagement against a human opponent).
 
And I didn't say SHAKY 8/10.  I said SOLID 8/10! LOL[:D]  IMHO as far as Napoleonic grand strategy goes, CoG:EE is without peer. And I hope by the time CoG:EE4 comes out, it earns my 10/10!

[ubik]

Was just provoking you... [;)]

[madgamer2]

I did not like CoG,FoF and now CoGEE....The whole tactical battle thing is not for me and it seems they have taken this system to bigger and bigger but not better. I read
to many strange things that can happen so I am glad I saved my money

Madgamer

[morganbj]

You don't have to play using the tactical battle "thing."
 

[madgamer2]

I am aware of that but I found that in FoF tactical battle was the only way the north had a chance to win many battles and friends who played CoG reported the same thing.
That is NOT the real reason I don't play such games. It's because what you end up with is an operational level game with tactical battle options.
I also have problems with some of the design concepts used in the Cog-F0F-CoGEE series. I love the grand Strategic level games but I do not do well with the economic/build portions of the game, simple or complex.

So for the most part the games great but not for me. Sometimes just loving a game or a certain type of game is not enough, when it becomes to much work and not enough fun the failure is in me more than the game. I can no longer just buy games because I like them. With my income now $40-70 is a lot of money and I must show more care in my choices.

Madgamer

Madgamer

[Anthropoid]

I think I'm pretty badly misunderstanding the way conquering is intended to work in this game.
 
It is now July 1797. I have been in a war with Britain for over a year. As I pointed out in a different thread, I captured pretty much her entire navy in Hampshire in about Dec or Jan 1797. I then proceeded to besiege and occupy pretty much every single province on the main island of England, all the way up to Scotland (except Wales): Devon, Hampshire, Midlands, Anglia, York. The last couple battles were me (France) ~135K vs GB ~18K troops. In short, GB is utterly crushed as a power for the rest of the game, and I had besieged and occupied the heartland provinces of the British Empire.
 
Then *poof* GB surrenders, my armies all teleport back to Ile de France, and voila, GB has control of her provinces again!?
 
Britain just surrendered last turn. I have 12,600 surrender points. I for a Terms of Surrender Treaty and go to Cede Provinces. Nothing will select. I cannot, despite the fact that I have 12,600 surrender points, and just a couple weeks ago OCCUPIED all of England, get control of any provinces that I just conquered and occupied?
 
What do I have to do to take away Major Power's provinces?
 
This simply does NOT seem right. How the heck are you supposed to conquer Europe if conquering provinces does not lead to you keeping them when the war ends??

[Hard Sarge]

you have to be next to a province to claim it, that is the strength of England (and also why I said before, if you want to take England, you need to go to Total War with them)

[dude]

As HS pointed out, to claim a territory as a surrender term you must have another adjacent province first.  I don’t have a problem with this rule, it gives GB a great advantage but it can also hurt them… they can’t claim any territories on the continent unless they have an adjacent territory.  In most games the only place this occurs is Gibraltar where they can claim Cadiz. 
 
The only problem I see in the surrender is the teleporting of the French army back home.  Otherwise the surrender of GB should be very hard and in my opinion a risky operation if someone want to risk sending their army across the channel making them dependent on ships to return home.
 

[barbarossa2]

It seems that stripping England of Wales and Scotland should be easier than stripping it of pieces of pure England. 

If you can gain Ireland in a treaty following a conventional war, then you should really be able to gain Scotland and Wales.  Especially as France.

Has anyone tried to for Britain to liberate Scotland or Wales or Ireland in a peace treaty?

I don't know if the adjacency rule works for Britain.  Plus, there is the problem that you can't escalate from normal war to total war (though I somewhat understand the rationale for this--in game terms). The outright annexation of a whole country might have created all kinds of rebellions and uprisings.  When taking over a single provence, an occupying power might be able to deal with this.  However, if you multiply these problems times twelve and then add fire to the problem, it could quickly become virtually impossible in a nation with any sense of national identity (I don't know how to explain Poland's division and disappearance in the late 18th century).

[dude]

I think the difference is that Ireland's provinces are listed as conquered while Wales and Scotland are listed as Home Provinces.  If you look in the Provinces.txt file you’ll see that Wales and Scotland are listed as Player = 2; while S.Ireland = 87 and N.Ireland = 88. 
 
If you want Scotland and Wales to be cedeable… you’d need to change a few things in the files.  But it should be doable to mod this.
 
You would most likely need to add a Scottish and Welsh Player in the Players.txt file.  Then set the Player values in the province list to match these player numbers.  Likewise for the Start.txt file for each city's entry.  Then in the Relations.txt file you would need to set the status (war, alliance, protectorate, or conquered).
 
That should do it if you wanted to have Scotland and Wales as possible independent nations.  Might make for an interesting mod.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think I'm pretty badly misunderstanding the way conquering is intended to work in this game.

It is now July 1797. I have been in a war with Britain for over a year. As I pointed out in a different thread, I captured pretty much her entire navy in Hampshire in about Dec or Jan 1797. I then proceeded to besiege and occupy pretty much every single province on the main island of England, all the way up to Scotland (except Wales): Devon, Hampshire, Midlands, Anglia, York. The last couple battles were me (France) ~135K vs GB ~18K troops. In short, GB is utterly crushed as a power for the rest of the game, and I had besieged and occupied the heartland provinces of the British Empire.

Then *poof* GB surrenders, my armies all teleport back to Ile de France, and voila, GB has control of her provinces again!?

Britain just surrendered last turn. I have 12,600 surrender points. I for a Terms of Surrender Treaty and go to Cede Provinces. Nothing will select. I cannot, despite the fact that I have 12,600 surrender points, and just a couple weeks ago OCCUPIED all of England, get control of any provinces that I just conquered and occupied?

What do I have to do to take away Major Power's provinces?

This simply does NOT seem right. How the heck are you supposed to conquer Europe if conquering provinces does not lead to you keeping them when the war ends??

You will frequently have somebody surrender to you that you have no shared border, so do damage to them some other way. One thing I do with countries that just love to DOW me (Russia), is establish an extended enforced peace. I've never liked the "forced war" on a third party, the treaty compleexities amoung all the countries never makes that work out well for me. Every so often, yes, but it's never a guarantee.

When Britain surrenders, I ALWAYS take colonies and have them scuttle ships, as many as I can. Their army is fairly small (but good), and they are at little risk of taking too much of Europe. BUT, they can do serious damage with their diplomats, so set a high priority of kicking them out when you see one anywhere in your area. They can flip countries red like crazy. When I play Britain, I buy all 7 diplo's and send them into central Europe. I usually have all of what used to be West Germany red after five years or so. That really irritates the French (who never invade them, for some reason. Don't know why.)

As France, I can always paint the continent mostly blue in a very long game (I usually play 23 years, regardless of scenario). And England frequently never surrenders to me, but other than through diplomatic action, I don't fear them too much. They do screw up my merchant income, that's why I like to see those ships of theirs being burned in Portsmouth by their own hands.

[barbarossa2]

One way to test the validity of the requirement that a nation have a provence adjacent to any provence they wish to claim is like this:

We know that France can't gain any English provences following a limited war. (Kent, Sussex)

Can England gain any French provences following a limited war? (Brittany, Normandy, etc.)

This test will show us if Great Britain is a special case or if the "adjacency rule" is being applied uniformy.

I haven't played the game as Great Britain yet, so I don't know.

[dude]

I've played GB a number of times now... you can't get a French province either unless you are adjacent.  What you can do is grab a protectorate like the Dutch or Hanover and then work your way into France that way [:D].  But you can't take Brest without having an adjacent province... so the Brits are under the same restriction... so I feel the rule is fairly balanced in that respect.  You can't take a GB province but they can't take yours either (unless you are Spain).  Just make sure GB doesn't get a foothold somewhere on the continent.
 
 

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

One way to test the validity of the requirement that a nation have a provence adjacent to any provence they wish to claim is like this:

We know that France can't gain any English provences following a limited war. (Kent, Sussex)

Can England gain any French provences following a limited war? (Brittany, Normandy, etc.)

This test will show us if Great Britain is a special case or if the "adjacency rule" is being applied uniformy.

I haven't played the game as Great Britain yet, so I don't know.

the rules work the same for all

England with a Protectorate on the mainland, can force another Nation to cede provinces that are next to that protectorate

you can also play with the treaty terms, to get somebody to "lend" you a province, which is then seen as your "province" until the treaty time runs out, which then expands your borders

[barbarossa2]

By the time the game starts, Scotland had only been part of Great Britain for around 100 years--after a long and complicated process of conquest and independence and personal union and finally legislative coup.  And to this day, there is still a very pro-independent mentality among the Scots.  Being somewhat of a student of Scottish history, I would say that treating it and England as a monolith is an error.  I know very much less about Welsh history, but they also have a proud history independent of the English.  One of the best books I ever read was Magnus Magnussen's, "A History of Scotland".  I recommend it to any student of European history.  Indeed, I just mentioned to a Scottish friend of mine that Scotland, Wales and England are being treated as a monolith...and I was instantly told, "Oh! That never goes down well with any of us." Indeed, the feeling that Scotland is NOT part of England has lead to the construction of a Scottish parliament and an ever growing machinery of independence. Scotland and Britain don't even share the same legal systems.

[Hard Sarge]

ahhhh, you can make the same claims about almost any province in the game, just depends on the time, most of Russia's "home" provinces should be Polish

how much of Spain, would be seen as Spainish to the people who lived there

so would say, some of this is playbalance (my point of view, not the designers)

[barbarossa2]

True Hard Sarge.

However, I had noticed that many of these provences which you mention have the conquering nation's flag behind them and the old nation's flag in front.  For instance, most of Hungary is like this.  Much of eastern Prussia is like this.  I don't remember how Russia's status is in the west. I am a fan of CoG:EE for many reasons, and this is one of those reasons. It allows the differentiation of these subtle relationships. I merely feel that Wales, Scotland, and Ireland should be considered for the same status as say parts of Poland under Prussia have with Prussia. Or the same relationship which Hungary has with Austria.  That is, for instance, a small Scottish flag in front and a large British flag in back. 

[Randomizer]

The start of the CoG-EE period was less than 50-years after the Battle of Culloden and the brutal Highland Clearances that followed so it seems perfectly reasonable to consider all of Scotland as conquored.  On the other hand, Wales had been under the English Crown for generations so it being a home province seems more reasonable.
 
One of the few nagging little things about CoG-EE that bugs me is the continual use of "Britain" rather than "England" in the 18th Century.
 
In this pre-Nationalist era there are many areas that might not be considered as home provinces; the Basque and Brittany areas of France and the Basque and Catalonian areas of Spain immediately jump out as candidates along with Scotland.
 
Fortunately modding this seems pretty straightforward provided there are no unintended consequences waiting in the wings.
 
Does anybody know what Province 81, named "this_province_no_longer-exists" in the 1792 scenario used to be?  It flags as a Russian objective and I hope this is fixed in the first patch.
 
Best Regards

[barbarossa2]

I see merit to the argument Randomizer. 

In Scotland, in the 18th century alone, there was a rebellion in 1719, a French invasion planned in 1744 with the help of Jacobites (individuals loyal to the Stewart dynasty), and the major rebellion of 1745 which culminated in the battle of Culloden that Randomizer mentioned.  Indeed, if nothing else is considered to be conquered, the "Highlands" region should be, as this was not even effectively assimilated into rule under the Scottish crown during the 18th century and was, indeed the center of many of these "troubles" (lol...I am a closet Jacobite myself )

Unlike other rebellions throughout Europe perhaps, the Scottish efforts were born of a sense of naitonal identity--not just poor living conditions leading to overt frustration and an attempt to overturn the status quo.

You will always find a large portion of Scots who would be willing to take independence if offered to them.  However, one reason that the case of Scotland is so different than the case of Brittany or Champagne, is the fact that, in theory, it WAS a unique political entity. Scotland is not listed along side the provences of Kent, Sussex, etc. No. Scotland stands alongside England in the Union. Which is why the flags were integrated (the Scottish blue field and white cross with the English white field and red cross, giving us the "Union Jack").

I don't know if you would find these kinds of statements to be true about Champagne, or Kent, or Pomerania in the time frame of CoG:EE. 

What would the opinion be of a Welsh historian?  I don't know. 

Randomizer, I do agree that England had in effect gained control of Wales for some time, but I don't know how effectively it was assimilated.  So, if we could assign degrees of "independence" I would agree with Randomizer, that Wales would be less deserving of this status than Scotland.