Help with a Review of COGEE for Non-gamers

[Anthropoid]

Great stuff guys! Keep it up! My job of "writing" the review will amount to just copying and pasting your comments! [:D]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

The first computer game I ever played belonged to the US Army. It was a large operation with permanent duty personnel to operate the system-there were NCO's who would actually use the keyboard and mouse for us.

LOL.

The mental image of the dedicated keyboard and mouse operators is hilarious.

[:)]Well, we were not allowed to touch the stuff-except to point on the screen. They were nice enough to let us use their radios. I don't recall actually seeing the computer-it was probably a million dollar mainframe.[:D]

Those guys were quite professional in their duties.

[Gil R.]

Anthropoid, that's great news! I'll let the players make suggestions -- as they've already been doing -- rather than interjecting my opinions. I'll certainly be following the discussion with great interest, though.

06 Maestro, it might interest you to know that the original COG was used at West Point to train the cadets. There's a center there, the name of which I've forgotten, that employed all sorts of computer games and simulations, and they bought a bunch of copies a few years back. (That was one of the finest compliments one of our games has ever received, of course.)

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.


06 Maestro, it might interest you to know that the original COG was used at West Point to train the cadets. There's a center there, the name of which I've forgotten, that employed all sorts of computer games and simulations, and they bought a bunch of copies a few years back.

Well, that is interesting and it adds eveidence that professionals do use computer games to learn from. I did not know for sure that they were using computer games there, but it comes as no surprise.

ORIGINAL:
(That was one of the finest compliments one of our games has ever received, of course.)

CoG EE is a great game-I'm glad that it received this recognition. I now regreat not having tried Cog-I eyeballed it for a long time though.

[Anthropoid]

Wanted you guys to know, I am working on this. I would like to be able to include (verbatim) significant chunks of text which several of you have offered here, and/or in other threads (e.g., Barbs review of the game thread).

Of course I won't use your text verbatim unless I can get your permission to be listed as co-authors, and if you agree to be a co-author, I will of course make it available for all to read and review before I send it to the site

http://www.napoleon-series.org/

I know one of you has already given me a sig chunk (Randomizer); if anyone else is okay with having your text used and being listed as a co-author let me know via PM.

I may seem to be acting incongruously to my normaly prolix self, but there are two factors that are making me less bold. First the audience is not a gamer audience, and indeed is a semi-professional research audience whose expertise I do not share. Second, I'd like to put forward the best possible message for the game.

So having started to piece together ideas from your discussion in this thread, I'm realizing that this is not just a quick assignment, and I welcome any and all of you to offer additional edits/inputs/ changes, and feedback to the draft review so far.

-=-=-=-DRAFT REVIEW OF COGEE for Napoleon Series Website as of May 7, 2009-=-=-=-=-=-=
Draft Review of “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition” computer-based strategic war game for
Napoleon Series.org

By Seamus Decker, Ph.D., Chris Comars, et al. (list of additional willing co-authors needed)

It is traditional for historians to use narrative as the primary method for examining and analyzing past events. War games have been used by professional soldiers for as long as professional militaries have existed, moreso now than ever before. Nonetheless, narrative and counter-narrative remain the prevailing methods for exploring the sequence and contingency of past events and in most attempts to investigate patterns of cause and effect that shaped past events. Given the one-time nature of the unfolding of history, in reality, no history other than that which has transpired can ever be ascertained with absolute certainty; consequently, any historical analysis of cause and effect will always constitute a probabilistic argument, in which final conclusions are primarily dependent on the achievement of consensus among scholars, based on available information and the combined reasoning powers of a research community.

To a limited extent, narrative and logic afford some capacity to compare and contrast alternative models of cause and effect or alternative contingencies (e.g., “what if” Prussia and Austria had actively allied against Napoleon in 1805?), but the higher degrees of certainty afforded in disciplines where experimentation and simulation are commonly used (e.g., psychology, physics, marketing, or nutrition) remains largely elusive for the pure study of history. However, advances in computer technology have created an interesting alternative method for exploring the history of the Napoleonic Aage which, though it could never eclipse, let alone replace careful documentation and detailed narrative analyses, may at least provide enjoyable and invigorating new ways to simulate historical debates and as such, potentially novel insights into debates about historical contingency and cause-and-effect.

Here I review a type of ‘document’ which may be unfamiliar to most historians in general, and historians of the Napoleonic Age in particular: a strategic war game, entitled “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition (COGEE). COGEE is the second edition in a series of Napoleonic era war games produced by Western Civilization Software, the first edition of the game being “Crown of Glory.” COGEE is published by the award-winning war gaming publisher Matrix Games which produces and sells a variety of strategic war games that simulate a wide-range of historical periods ranging from the ancient world, to the twentieth century. As a non-expert in the history of the Napoleonic period, indeed, as a non-historian social scientist (I am a professor of psychological anthropology) my insights are primarily from the standpoint of a ‘gamer,’ and as a hobbyist enthusiast of strategy and military history. As such, I will ask that my readers indulge me at least for the sake of learning more about what strategic war games may offer to the period expert in the form of fun and intuition, if not scholarly insight. I do not wish to suggest that computer games constitute an impending revolution in methods of investigation for communities with shared interest in historical topics, let alone for professional historical research. The more modest goal of this review is to inform members of the Napoleon Series community about the “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition” game as a resource in which they may find both entertainment and enlightment value, to point out strengths and weaknesses of the COGEE and foster cross-fertilization of ideas and community-interaction between the COGEE Fan Community and the Napoleon Series Community. As an indicator of the games merits for the exploration of military history, it can pointed out that the original Crown of Glory game, was used at West Point to train cadets in matters of strategy and tactics. The COG series of games is the result of enormous amounts of research into politics, economics, general history, naval and land tactics, etc., by the designers and their fans. Videos that offer insights into the structure, function, and look and feel of the game are available to view at Video Links Page on the Publisher’s Web Site.

For a historical period as dynamic, and revolutionary as the Napoleonic era, there must be thousands of compelling “what if” questions at all levels ranging from those of battlefield tactics and doctrine to theatre level operations to issues of national strategy, culture and will-to-fight; COGEE offers the enthusiast the opportunity to explore such “what ifs” at all of these levels. Players can assume control of any of the major powers of the era (France, Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Turkey) and all the minor powers of the era are represented as well. Players can compete against other human players through “play-by-email” (PBEM) games in which each player takes his turn and then emails a .sav file on to the next player. Alternatively, one can play against the “artificial intelligence” (AI), meaning play against the computer. COGEE has one of the better AIs to be found in contemporary strategic computer-based war games, and in COGEE the computer-opponent can prove to be a challenging rival for even the most seasoned of gamers. At the strategic level Europe and North Africa are represented in a beautifully rendered map abstracted into “provinces” or regions each with a capital city. National dominion is represented as control of individual provinces, and the limited ability to regulate and use each provinces resource bases (population, industry, natural resources). Players have control over national level processes such as the building of infrastructure in specific provinces, the mustering of new military units, building of ships, and national level strategic policy. The challenges a player will face in integrating various facets of national strategy and production with military mobilization and training, logistics and diplomacy may offer insights into the difficulties faced by the leaders in that era, which may contribute to fresh thinking or even new approaches to the study of the period. It must be remembered that COGEE is a game, and that it consequently operates within the parameters that designers can technically utilize; historical realities therefore must be abstracted or simplified in many instances and even in some instances ‘fudged’ for the sake of playability. But for anyone with even a passing interest in strategy games, and the period in question, COGEE is sure to offer hours of engrossing play and entertainment.

As Crown of Glory – Empire Edition (CoG-EE) is a truly strategic game; the selection of unit scale was vital to impart the appropriate period flavour and span of control for the player. The designers opted for the Division as the fundamental land unit and the individual warship for navies. What follows is an outline of the game system in use to organize and manage land forces.

There are ten different types of infantry divisions, six types of cavalry and four types of artillery that can be built. Some are unique to certain countries (Ottoman Nizam-i-Cedid heavy infantry for example) while others require specific upgrade technology before they can be built. An artificial cap is imposed to limit the absolute numbers of military units any nation can support and although this value is subjective and fixed at the start of play, it appears historically reasonable and in any event, can be modified by the player before starting a scenario.

Infantry divisions generally consist of 10,000 men while cavalry and artillery show less manpower but use greater numbers of horses and other (relatively) scarce resources. At first sight, the artillery ‘divisions’ do not really conform to any particular Napoleonic artillery grouping but the inclusion of this unit fits nicely into the organizational model created for the game system as will be seen below. The basic divisional manpower strength can vary widely due to economic factors and operational attrition and so after any campaigning, full strength units will become the exception. Although the generic division might seem something of an amorphous blob initially, the unit attributes can be greatly modified by acquiring technical and doctrinal upgrades so each national army soon displays entirely unique characteristics and abilities. In addition to upgrades that have a ‘global’ effect for the player, each division can acquire certain special abilities and over time most may become entirely unique in flavour.

In CoG-EE, the division provides the foundation for the land forces but not all nations in the era actually employed an official divisional formation so the designers have taken some historical liberties but the overall effect subjectively ‘feels’ right for the period. Divisions by themselves have only limited utility; the actual arbiter of land warfare is the Army and the Army Corps (Corps hereafter). These formations require time and resources to build and are created in a manner similar to divisions. However, they act as ‘containers’ for divisions and are described as such in the rules. To one familiar with the hierarchical nature of armies this term seems awkward and counter-intuitive at first but once the system is understood it quickly displays a simplicity and elegance that can nicely recreate the armies of the era. One might think of these ‘containers’ as the administrative and logistics tails that followed armies in the field since the earliest days of warfare but had become far more organized and extensive in the late 17th and throughout the 18th Centuries.

An Army can ‘contain’ up to eight units, these can be divisions, Corps or a combination thereof up to a total of 18 divisions (a theoretical total of some 180,000 men). A Corps may contain up to six divisions in any combination but these values can be modified by specific upgrades and the French have a slight organizational advantage in this area. Some of the aspects of this system are subtle and profound at the same time. For example, Armies are cheaper to build than Corps and so one of the net effects of this is it is easier to build a profusion of Army containers but these can be at a disadvantage when at war with an opponent who has spent the resources to build Corps and concentrate combat power accordingly. Thus, the player can be naturally encouraged to recreate Napoleonic style campaigns and is likely to find that attempting post Industrial Age strategies will be unsuccessful or even impossible.

Another advantage of the container system is that Armies and Corps can be tailored for specific roles and can be very effective when units are combined in a historically reasonable proportion. Thus an Army of six infantry and one each cavalry and artillery will be more effective (other things being equal) than one composed entirely of infantry, cavalry or (heaven forbid) artillery. Likewise with Corps, either independent or those composing the core of an Army container, the system rewards building Napoleonic style combined arms formations without micromanaging rules or artificial organizational constraints. This is where the Artillery “divisions” fit, the concept of independent Corps artillery under centralized control represented a significant gunnery reform and greatly improved the effectiveness of the field artillery during this period. The astute player will likely discover this and even without prior detailed knowledge of the era tend to create Armies and Corps that are entirely reasonable for the period instinctively and because they are what is most effective, not because the rules say to do so.

Perhaps the greatest benefit to be gained from playing a game like COGEE is in the overall ‘feeling’ of being immersed in the period, beyond that which can be achieved from books, or other media (e.g., music, art, cinema). As one author writes “When I was a teen and in high school, when geography and history were the most boring things in the world to me, Avalon Hill came along and with games like Third Reich, War and Peace, Guns of August, Caesar's Legions, and MADE me learn geography the fun way. They MADE me interested enough in these events to go out and buy books on them! Then, I was able to compare the gaming experience to what happened historically. That is where the greatest value of these games lies. If every kid in America had a copy of a game like CoG:EE, the world might be a better place because a game like this provokes the imagination by offering insights into the complexity, the subtlety, and the contingency of history on myriad factors (e.g., leaders, tactical doctrine, national processes, integration of naval and land strategy, etc.) which other sources of ‘study’ like books might not facilitate so readily.”

The value of any computer game simulation is always limited by the inability for any game to fully represent all the factors involved in real history. One example of a weakness that results from this limitation in what can be practically included in a game-based simulation of an entire historical period would be the games in ability to accurately portray the real events of the Spanish campaign. For example, there is no way to place "your brother" on the Spanish throne as Napoleon did, which may well be what turned the war into such a disaster for Napoleon. The requirement to declare a total war to cause the type of guerilla warfare seen in the campaign also seems a bit off. Overall the games mechanisms do not work so well in this instance, but there is so much to redeem the game that this is not so much a fatal flaw, as it is simply a common theme among strategic war games: it is a challenge for designers to create compelling games that represent the main strategic and tactical factors salient during a period, but it remains essentially impossible to create simulations that precisely represent all things that may have influenced history. In the words of another author “I think the game does a pretty good job in certain places of showing why Napoleons meglomaniacal overreaches were just that. If a normal person doesn’t exhibit that kind of madness it can be difficult to lose some scenarios as France.”

[barbarossa2]

I hereby grant Anthropoid full rights to use any of my text relating to CoG:EE for one time use in said article as presented and discussed in this thread.

I will read what you have written so far tonight. I have to get out and run now. But I am anxious to see what you have come up with.

-B2

[06 Maestro]

The project is making very nice progress-honest without any far flung promises.
I think it inspire a few to give the game a try-then the doubters will come along.

[barbarossa2]

I read through it and it looks good. 

[Anthropoid]

Awright, so I haven't got any more feedback. I gotta work tomorrow. Maybe after I get my stuff done, and while I'm still at the machine (heh, I'm ALWAYS at a machine! whom I kidding!?) I'll give it a final work over and send it to them. Barbarossa, send me a PM if you want to be listed as a co-author.

[Gil R.]

Wow. This will be the most highbrow review of a Napoleonic game not to mention a riding crop!

A small note: the original game's full name is "Crown of Glory: Europe in the Age of Napoleon."

I look forward to seeing the final version.

[barbarossa2]

ROFL... Yeah Gil.  It reads like something out of a...out of a... PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL!

[TheOx]

An EVIL peer reviewed journal?

[Anthropoid]

Mwah hah haha hah haw haw haw!

[Anthropoid]

Review of “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition” computer-based strategic war game for
Napoleon Series.org

By Seamus Decker, and Chris Comars

Introduction

Although war games have been used by professional soldiers for as long as professional militaries have existed, it is traditional for historians to use narrative as the primary method for examining and analyzing past events. Narrative and counter-narrative remain the prevailing methods for exploring the sequence and contingency of past events and in most attempts to investigate patterns of cause and effect that shaped past events. Given the one-time nature of the unfolding of history, in reality, no history other than that which has transpired can ever be ascertained with absolute certainty; consequently, any analysis of historical cause and effect will always constitute a probabilistic argument, in which final conclusions are primarily dependent on the achievement of consensus among scholars, based on available information and the combined reasoning powers of a research community.

Nonetheless, one might argue that the exploration of historical “what ifs” is for many lay persons and scholars alike, the most enthralling aspect of history. We find ourselves privileged to live in an era when advances in personal computers, and the growth of a computer-based strategy war gaming market facilitates exploration of historical “what ifs” in new─and as they say, “addictive”─ways. This review introduces a new computer-based strategy war game, released earlier this year, that may well be of particular interest to members of the Napoleon Series.org community, “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition,” or CoG:EE for short. The game covers a variety of short “scenarios” and longer “campaigns” that all occur between 1792 and 1820 in Europe, North Africa and western Russia, and involve the European and Eurasian powers of the era. CoG:EE is the second edition in a series of Napoleonic era war games produced by Western Civilization Software, the first edition of the game being “Crown of Glory.” COG:EE is published by the award-winning war gaming publisher Matrix Games which produces and sells a variety of strategic war games that simulate a wide-range of historical periods ranging from the ancient world, to the twentieth century.

To a limited extent, narrative and logic afford some capacity to compare and contrast alternative models of cause and effect or alternative contingencies (e.g., “what if” Prussia and Austria had actively allied against Napoleon in 1805?), but the higher degrees of certainty afforded in disciplines where experimentation and simulation are commonly used (e.g., psychology, physics, marketing, or nutrition) remains largely elusive for the pure study of history. Computer-based strategic war games have created a fascinating alternative method for exploring the history of the Napoleonic Age which, though it could never eclipse, let alone replace careful documentation and detailed narrative analyses, may at least provide enjoyable and invigorating new ways to stimulate historical debates and as such, potentially novel insights into debates about historical contingency and cause-and-effect. Such games may be unfamiliar to most historians and so one of the primary purposes in writing this review is simply to inform about the existence and nature of such games.

As amateur enthusiasts, our insights are primarily from the perspective of ‘gamers,’ enthusiasts of strategy war games and military history. As such, we will ask that our readers indulge our perhaps relatively meager expertise in the Napoleonic era, at least for the sake of learning more about what strategic war games may offer to the period expert in the form of fun and inspiration, if not scholarly insight. We do not wish to suggest that computer games constitute an impending revolution in methods of investigation for communities with shared interest in historical topics, let alone for professional historical research. The more modest goal is to inform members of the Napoleon Series community about the “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition” game as a resource in which they may find both entertainment and enlightenment, to point out strengths and weaknesses of the COG:EE and to foster cross-fertilization of ideas and community-interaction between the COG:EE Fan Community and the Napoleon Series Community.

As an indicator of the games merits for the exploration of military history, it can pointed out that the original Crown of Glory game, was used at West Point to train cadets in matters of strategy and tactics. The COG series of games is the result of enormous amounts of research into politics, economics, general history, naval and land tactics, etc., by the designers and their fans. Videos that offer insights into the structure, function, and look and feel of the game are available to view at Video Links Page on the Publisher’s Web Site.


Overview of Game Mechanics and Scope

For a historical period as dynamic, and revolutionary as the Napoleonic era, there must be thousands of compelling “what if” questions at multiple levels ranging from those of battlefield tactics to foreign policy to theatre level military operations to issues of national strategy, culture and will-to-fight; COG:EE offers the enthusiast the opportunity to explore such “what ifs” at all of these levels. The game is a turn-based system that simulates both national level, and tactical battlefield events. Players can assume control of any of the major powers of the era (France, England, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Turkey) and all the minor kingdoms and protectorates of the era are represented as well. Players can compete against other human players through “play-by-email” (PBEM) games in which each player takes his turn and then emails a .sav file on to the next player. Alternatively, one can play against the “artificial intelligence” (AI), meaning play against the computer. COG:EE has one of the better AIs to be found in contemporary strategic computer-based war games, and in COG:EE the computer-opponent can prove to be a challenging rival for even the most seasoned of gamers.

In the main game screen, Europe, Eurasia and North Africa are represented in a beautifully rendered map abstracted into “provinces” or regions each with a capital city. While the basic map of the entire European region is visible at all times, details for remote areas beyond the players control often remain opaqued by “fog of war” (meaning that details for troop distributions, city infrastructure, etc. may not be visible). The entire map is divided into major regions each with a single city or town. A large set of screen-caps, showing the appearance of the game are available at a page on the Matrix Games site.

National dominion is represented as control of individual provinces, and the limited ability to regulate and use each provinces resource bases (population, industry, natural resources).  Players have control over national level processes such as the building of infrastructure in specific provinces, the mustering of new military units, building of ships, and national level strategic policy.  The challenges a player will face in orchestrating various facets of national strategy and production with military mobilization and training, logistics and diplomacy may offer insights into the difficulties faced by the leaders of the era, which may contribute to fresh thinking or even new approaches to the study of the period.

By “paying” with resources and money, players can build additional infrastructure in provinces which have a variety of effects on national and local level processes and events.  For example, construction of “Docks” improves naval quality and naval construction capacity, whereas construction of “Courts” improves diplomatic and cultural dimensions of the nation.  In this way, a player can choose to follow closely the national domestic policies of the historical figure he/she is ‘portraying’ in the game, or to follow very different national strategic paths.  For example one could, while playing France and despite the intrinsic advantages enjoyed by the English Royal Navy, attempt to build a navy to challenge English domination of the seas.  Military and political “units” in the game are also “built” (meaning recruited, trained, mustered and/or marshaled) at specific towns. Infrastructure has a strong influence on the quantity, quality and speed of production of such units, and thus, a wise and balanced pattern of national improvement balanced with economic demands, and military requirements are all issues that a player must effectively master.

During each month-long turn, a player can move his units on the map, engage in trade deals with other nations, build infrastructure, propose treaties, and engage in a wide-range of in-game actions that are satisfying, if not wholly realistic, abstractions of the actual national policy decisions and actions that would have been available to leaders of the time.  Decisions always have to be weighed in terms of their costs and benefits, with these being abstracted in terms of national economic parameters, national morale, and the availability of a variety of resources with important strategic impacts (iron, wool, cotton, foods, wines, spices, etc.) as well as the implications for military victory and defeat.  During times of war battles--including naval engagements--can occur between a player’s military units and those of enemy nations/kingdoms whenever they occupy the same province.  Battles can be conducted using three different systems of resolution.  An “Instant Combat” option exists for those who do not wish to exert any influence on specific battlefield tactics, and leave the resolution of combat up to a series of mathematical calculations that compare combatant numbers, quality, training levels, morale, equipment, terrain effects, and military leaders in each force.  A “Quick Combat” mode involves the opportunity for the player to place some general influence on the battlefield tactics, and lastly a “Detailed Combat” mode allows players to explore battles in exceptionally detailed hex-maps in which armies can be represented as individual brigades.

It must be remembered that COG:EE is a game, and that it consequently operates within the parameters that designers can technically utilize; historical realities therefore must be abstracted or simplified in many instances and even in some instances ‘fudged’ for the sake of playability.  But for anyone with even a passing interest in strategy games, and the period in question, COG:EE is sure to offer hours of engrossing play and entertainment.  A related point that readers who are unfamiliar with such games will want to note: games like CoG:EE have quite steep learning curves, and can require a good deal of time and effort to understand much less master.  The details covered in this review are really only the tip of a very large and complicated ‘ice berg;’ readers who expect a game as simplified as say “Risk” or common board games like “Monopoly” should be aware that CoG:EE is a truly complicated, demanding game.  With the exception of short scenarios, finishing, much less “winning” a match may take dozens or even hundreds of hours of play.  For many gamers, it seems to be the sheer challenge of learning to play games like these which constitutes a major portion of the allure, and one might suspect the same would be true of non-gamer period enthusiasts and historians as well.


Military Matters

Because CoG:EE is a truly strategic game; the selection of unit scale was vital to impart the appropriate period flavour and span of control for the player.  The designers opted for the Division as the fundamental land unit and the individual warship for navies.  What follows is an outline of the game system in use to organize and manage land forces.

There are ten different types of infantry divisions, six types of cavalry and four types of artillery that can be built.  Some are unique to certain countries (Ottoman Nizam-i-Cedid heavy infantry for example) while others require specific upgrade technology before they can be built.  An artificial cap is imposed to limit the absolute numbers of military units any nation can support and although this value is subjective and fixed at the start of play, it appears historically reasonable and in any event, can be modified by the player before starting a scenario.

Infantry divisions generally consist of 10,000 men while cavalry and artillery show less manpower but use greater numbers of horses and other (relatively) scarce resources.  At first sight, the artillery ‘divisions’ do not really conform to any particular Napoleonic artillery grouping but the inclusion of this unit fits nicely into the organizational model created for the game system as will be seen below.  The basic divisional manpower strength can vary widely due to economic factors and operational attrition and so after any campaigning, full strength units will become the exception.  Although the generic division might seem something of an amorphous blob initially, the unit attributes can be greatly modified by acquiring technical and doctrinal upgrades so each national army soon displays entirely unique characteristics and abilities.  In addition to upgrades that have a ‘global’ effect for the player, each division can acquire certain special abilities and over time most may become entirely unique in flavour.

In CoG-EE, the division provides the foundation for the land forces but not all nations in the era actually employed an official divisional formation so the designers have taken some historical liberties but the overall effect subjectively ‘feels’ right for the period.  Divisions by themselves have only limited utility; the actual arbiter of land warfare is the Army and the Army Corps (Corps hereafter).  These formations require time and resources to build and are created in a manner similar to divisions.  However, they act as ‘containers’ for divisions and are described as such in the rules.  To one familiar with the hierarchical nature of armies this term seems awkward and counter-intuitive at first but once the system is understood it quickly displays a simplicity and elegance that can nicely recreate the armies of the era.  One might think of these ‘containers’ as the administrative and logistics tails that followed armies in the field since the earliest days of warfare but had become far more organized and extensive in the late 17th and throughout the 18th Centuries.

An Army can ‘contain’ up to eight units, these can be divisions, Corps or a combination thereof up to a total of 18 divisions (a theoretical total of some 180,000 men).  A Corps may contain up to six divisions in any combination but these values can be modified by specific upgrades and the French have a slight organizational advantage in this area.  Some of the aspects of this system are subtle and profound at the same time.  For example, Armies are cheaper to build than Corps and so one of the net effects of this is it is easier to build a profusion of Army containers but these can be at a disadvantage when at war with an opponent who has spent the resources to build Corps and concentrate combat power accordingly.  Thus, the player can be naturally encouraged to recreate Napoleonic style campaigns and is likely to find that attempting post Industrial Age strategies will be unsuccessful or even impossible.

Another advantage of the container system is that Armies and Corps can be tailored for specific roles and can be very effective when units are combined in a historically reasonable proportion.    Thus an Army of six infantry and one each cavalry and artillery will be more effective (other things being equal) than one composed entirely of infantry, cavalry or (heaven forbid) artillery.  Likewise with Corps, either independent or those composing the core of an Army container, the system rewards building Napoleonic style combined arms formations without micromanaging rules or artificial organizational constraints.  This is where the Artillery “divisions” fit, the concept of independent Corps artillery under centralized control represented a significant gunnery reform and greatly improved the effectiveness of the field artillery during this period.  The astute player will likely discover this and even without prior detailed knowledge of the era tend to create Armies and Corps that are entirely reasonable for the period instinctively and because they are what is most effective, not because the rules say to do so.


Conclusion

Perhaps the greatest benefit to be gained from playing a game like COG:EE is in the overall ‘feeling’ of being immersed in the period, beyond that which can be achieved from books, or other media (e.g., music, art, cinema).  As one fan writes “When I was a teen and in high school, when geography and history were the most boring things in the world to me, Avalon Hill came along and with games like Third Reich, War and Peace, Guns of August, Caesar's Legions, and MADE me learn geography the fun way.  These games made me interested enough in these events to go out and buy books on them!  Then, I was able to compare the gaming experience to what happened historically.  That is where the greatest value of these games lies.”

The value of any computer game simulation is always limited by the inability for any game to fully represent all the factors involved in real history.  One example of a weakness that results from this limitation in what can be practically included in a game-based simulation of an entire historical period would be the games inability to accurately portray the real events of the Spanish campaign.  For example, there is no way to place "your brother" on the Spanish throne as Napoleon did, which may well be what turned the war into such a disaster for Napoleon.  The requirement to declare a “Total War” to cause the type of guerilla warfare seen in the campaign also seems a bit off. Overall the games mechanisms do not work so well in this instance, but there is so much to redeem the game that this is not so much a fatal flaw, as it is simply a common theme among strategic war games: it is a challenge for designers to create compelling games that represent the main strategic and tactical factors salient during a period, but it remains essentially impossible to create simulations that precisely represent all things that may have influenced history.

In the words of another fan “I think the game does a pretty good job in certain places of showing why Napoleons meglomaniacal overreaches were just that. If a normal person doesn’t exhibit that kind of madness it can be difficult to lose some scenarios as France.”  Games like CoG:EE may not be for everyone, but as one of the best examples of this genre of entertainment product, it may well be worth a try for those who have an interest in the period.  No computer game is perfect, and there are definitely more things that could have been included, or slight issues that might not suit all opinions. But to these reviewers, this is not what distinguishes a good game from a great game.

CoG:EE installs seamlessly, it runs beautifully, it has good to excellent documentation, and on the Matrix forums one can chit-chat with the designers, and become part of an enthusiastic and knowledgeable community of fans. Matrix is one of the best consumer experiences a gamer can have, and the game is the epitome of "strategy war game." CoG:EE is not an example of the real-time strategy graphics-fest games posing as strategy war games which have become more and more common on the gaming market. CoG:EE is a balanced, intriguing, subtle, artistically-satisfying, historically-accurate-enough, challenging, easy-to-learn/hard-to-master game: in short, a work of art. You don't create art with big bankrolls, you create it with inspiration, hard work, team work, vision, and dedication. That is what characterizes the WCS team and their games. So if you are a Napoleon era fan or expert and you have a little time, even if you’ve never played a computer strategy game, check out CoG:EE, it is one of the best in its genre and you are likey to have a lot of fun!

[ptan54]

As Crown of Glory – Empire Edition (CoG-EE) is a truly strategic game; the selection of unit scale was vital to impart the appropriate period flavour and span of control for the player. The designers opted for the Division as the fundamental land unit and the individual warship for navies. What follows is an outline of the game system in use to organize and manage land forces.

Great article. Just a minor point, "Emperor's Edition", rather than "Empire Edition".

[Anthropoid]

Thanks ptan!!

[Randomizer]

Very impressive Anthropoid but the review lacks details in the management of shark-mounted lasers and is void of typical fanboy dogma...

Have sent you a PM!

Best Regards

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Just a minor suggestion, This review introduces a new computer-based strategy war game, released earlier this year, that will be of particular interest to members of the Napoleon Series.org community, (my emphasis)

Might "may", or "may well" be better? "Will" sounds dogmatic/confrontational, whereas "may" promotes the readers curiosity.

Slightly Nit-picky, but ...

Anyhow hope the article is well recieved whatever.

All the best
Peter

[Anthropoid]

Thanks kingmaker; good suggestion