Update on patch

[Randomizer]

I just don't accept that marching while in supply should always cause permanent losses of manpower to a unit, per the attrition rules.

 

That's a great suggestion Mus/ShaiHulud.  I wonder how much of the "attrition" numbers were actually stragglers?

 
Given the divisional unit scale and one-month game turns one would think that all stragglers who were coming back would have returned to the colours by turn end.  I would consider the remainder either permanently lost to attrition or otherwise deserted.
 
Best Regards

[Bonaparte78]

I don't know if this is the correct thread to post this (maybe the "Wish List" one [&:]...), however...
What do you think about the idea to include "commercial treaties" or "trade clauses" in the diplomacy department of the game? O.K., you can already manage your trade policy arranging single trade-routes between provinces, but what is your opinion about the possibility to estabilish a preferencial commercial relationship with another Power via-diplomacy (deciding what to import and to export and "how much" for each resource from a global point of view)? Let's think about such a clause added to an embargo clause against an enemy Power, for example.
I don't know if it is possible to implement such a feature (maybe in a CoG 3 [:)]...): it's just an idea to improve the role of trades in the diplomatic "checkerboard".
What is your feedback?

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Mus

In our 1796 pbem game "another PBEM" is the title of the thread I think, I had a treaty as GB with Prussia to declare war on enemies of Prussia and vice versa.  France surrendered to me and then Prussia went to war with France.  I was unable to declare war because of the enforced peace with France from the surrender, but Prussia was taking a -40 glory hit every turn because I couldnt declare.  Isnt that incorrect?  Shouldnt GB have taken the Glory hit in that instance? Or did Prussia take the hit because they were the aggressor in a war against a person I had an enforced peace with? Trying to figure out if this is working correctly.

This is an issue that I believe we have fixed.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: ShaiHulud
Probably far too late to have any impact, but, I wish there were a factor for 'straggling', as opposed to simply attrition. Hard-marching armies always straggled, but, over time the stragglers caught up/were rounded up/were hospitalized. I just don't accept that marching while in supply should always cause permanent losses of manpower to a unit, per the attrition rules.

One of our beta testers showed me historical attrition data -- even for supplied armies sitting around in camp -- and those historical attrition levels were about on-par with the highest levels of march attrition we have in the game right now. The historical figures for march attrition were higher. We decided not to implement historically high attrition rates simply because players don't seem to like these.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Mus
The Glory penalties in certain diplomatic situations appear to be transposed.

Yes, these should all be fixed in the patch. Unfortunately this bug crept in when I made a change to glory default levels a few weeks before the gold version and nobody caught the error before the game shipped.

[ShaiHulud]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I just don't accept that marching while in supply should always cause permanent losses of manpower to a unit, per the attrition rules.

That's a great suggestion Mus/ShaiHulud.  I wonder how much of the "attrition" numbers were actually stragglers?

Given the divisional unit scale and one-month game turns one would think that all stragglers who were coming back would have returned to the colours by turn end.  I would consider the remainder either permanently lost to attrition or otherwise deserted.

Best Regards

Ouch! Very solid observation! From my reading it took from a couple days to about a week for the straggling to be resolved, depending on the distances covered.

[ShaiHulud]

Eric-

Hmm, if you are abstractly counting camp attrition (which, indeed, caused significant casualties due to poor sanitary conditions/disease), as opposed to mere marching, then I see your point.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

One of our beta testers showed me historical attrition data -- even for supplied armies sitting around in camp -- and those historical attrition levels were about on-par with the highest levels of march attrition we have in the game right now. The historical figures for march attrition were higher. We decided not to implement historically high attrition rates simply because players don't seem to like these.

For my part, I would love to see the historically high attrition rates implemented in the higher difficulty levels. One can always use the lower settings if they prefer.

Thanks for the updates on the patch, really looking forward to it!

[barbarossa2]

I think it would be useful to set the attrition levels and difficulty levels separately.  I don't think they should be connected.  For instance, maybe someone wants to play with 10% attrition, but doesn't want the computer AI cheating on its economies, etc., etc.

[IronWarrior]

Good idea B2... that would be even better. [8D]

[Bonaparte78]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I think it would be useful to set the attrition levels and difficulty levels separately.  I don't think they should be connected.  For instance, maybe someone wants to play with 10% attrition, but doesn't want the computer AI cheating on its economies, etc., etc.

Totally agree with you barbarossa2

[barbarossa2]

I am curious if the "merchant battleships" issue will be addressed for the patch?

[Gil R.]

Anything not in the list won't make it into this patch, simply because even the most basic change would delay the patch by a week or so because of the need to test it. If some game-breaking bug were discovered we'd address it right away, but anything else needs to wait.

[barbarossa2]

I agree totally with this position Gil R.

[Bonaparte78]

Just the same for me.

[Gil R.]

As those who closely read the forum have probably noticed, some additional issues have been reported, and we decided to make some additional tweaks to the strategic AI. This means that the patch, which would have been out earlier this week, needs to be delayed a bit longer. I never make predictions on when a patch will be out -- having learned this lesson the hard way! -- but can at least say that next week is possible. We'll keep you posted.

[Hard Sarge]

having learned this lesson the hard way!

oh yea, just blame me

and besides, it is HARD



hehe

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

having learned this lesson the hard way!

oh yea, just blame me

and besides, it is HARD



hehe

Don't you have something to test? Now if the patch is delayed by thirty seconds I'll blame you!

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: Bonaparte78

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I think it would be useful to set the attrition levels and difficulty levels separately.  I don't think they should be connected.  For instance, maybe someone wants to play with 10% attrition, but doesn't want the computer AI cheating on its economies, etc., etc.

Totally agree with you barbarossa2

I totally agree with you Barbarossa (but not at the cost of delaying the [:D]patch). Should have serious consideration for the next one though.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

having learned this lesson the hard way!

oh yea, just blame me

and besides, it is HARD



hehe

Don't you have something to test? Now if the patch is delayed by thirty seconds I'll blame you!

hey, I just won the world as Turkey !!

next run, I want someone with a Navy, I miss my naval actions