Armchair General Review

[Gil R.]

The first major review of COG:EE at a wargaming site:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/crown-of ... review.htm

Opine away!

[Mus]

He continually harps about the "boardgame feel" of the game which AFAIK is intentional and a big draw for the more serious wargamers?

Furthermore he complains about the graphics, which shows me where he is at mentally. I want big games with grand scale when it comes to a wargame. I dont want good graphics of a small/incorrect scale.

The real battle is taking place in my mind when I play a game like this.

Sounds like he wants to go play Total War or something. I dont get how the best Napoleonic PC wargame on the market right now gets a C (79%) review. Maybe they ought to ask a wargamer to review their wargames over there.

[IronWarrior]

Disagree about "steep learning curve and poor graphics". Glad they included screenshots at the end so that readers can see for themselves and probably leave scratching their heads. [:D]

I really don't find Advanced Economy hard to grasp at all, am kindof hoping for an "Extremely Advanced Economy" someday. [;)]

Very short review for a game this complex, and not even a mention of the tremendously fun multiplayer aspect.

A score of 79%??? What a tragedy! And games like ETW get a 95%? I feel like quoting the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz and say "What a world! What a world!". I guess you guys didn't pay off the reviewers eh? [:D]

[Franck]

''This can have a big impact on players’ enjoyment, as part of the fun of war games is acting as the general, moving the troops, and seeing units fight against each other, not just knowing how many hit points a unit took.''


WHAT?!?!?!??!?!?!?! I have never bougth armchair general... But I looked threw there magazine a couple of time... I tough it was a magazine for grognard!

THE FUN OF A WARGAME IS PLAYING A REALLY NICELY DONE GAME. Witch mechanics that makes the game interesting. That's not what I call empire total war...


Gil I give you 97%. Yeah, one of my teacher once told me when I got 98% at an exam: ''I really had to work hard to find some points to take away.''.
You don't have 98% because I have to admit that Napoleon's Triumph is my favorite game and it deserve the 98%.

[06 Maestro]

I don't understand his finale score. He generally gives the game credit where it is due. Even if the battle graphics are a little old fashioned, that surely should not have brought the score down that much. Even without the patch, I would have rated an 85-post patch more like a 95%.

The patch really did help on the graphics-I especially appreciate the zoom on the wheel now. I wonder if the reviewer had the 109 patch?

I would say that the reviewer at least took the time to learn most of the game. Some apparently don't even do that. I gave up on professional reviewers some time ago-they miss the mark far too often. I recall looking at one professional reviewers site. He had a list of games he had "reviewed" which indicated he had about 2 days to learn, play and write a review for each game-back to back for months on end.

[Joram]

Hey, everyone is allowed their opinion.  I love the map personally but I don't disagree about his comments about the troop figures or some of the interface areas.  But I agree the graphics is only a minor issue.  It's like a birthday cake.  Everyone loves cake and will enjoy a plain undecorated cake.  But, put frosting on it, candles, balloons and all that, and you will enjoy it so much more.  Either way you enjoy it but in the former case, there's certainly going to be people saying, hey, that's just a cake.  Unless a woman is going to jump out but that's another story!

I also don't completely disagree about the learning curve if he's referring to the advanced economy.  However, I think the single biggest improvement between the two CoG's is the simplified economy.  I think the only 'fault' with the article is that it didn't even touch on the simple economy or how using things like instant battle or the advisors make the learning curve comment invalid. 

Not sure how much time the person spent playing the game but it seems they missed some major features if they didn't even comment on that. 

(edit - so many double negatives I confused myself lol).

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

and not even a mention of the tremendously fun multiplayer aspect. It's mentioned now Bill [:D]

Just in case folk didn't notice you can add comments about the review at the bottom of page 1.

I also think the article is too short to adequately cover the intricacies of CoG EE and too much emphasis is placed on the Graphics, but given the positives he does put across it’s perplexing how comes a score of only 79% [X(] ... maybe it’s a typo!

That said I think the final bit and for those who are willing to trade off flashy graphics for a compelling and intricate game that can provide the user with a rewarding finish. nicely sums up the Game overall.

All the Best
Peter

[morganbj]

Not a bad review, overall, but it's a far better game than 76%.  Clearly, he likes the battle graphics that shows hoards of individual men running around the screen in loose military formations.  Really cool, but COG is a STRATEGIC game.

[Gil R.]

I generally don't comment on reviews, for the simple reason that if I write something critical then the reviewer might remember that next time he reviews a WCS game, and if I write something positive it might appear to the reviewer that I'm sucking up and he might remember that the next time he reviews a WCS game. Still, I'll point out that it might be instructive to read the new review in tandem with the one for the original game:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/pc-game- ... -glory.htm

In general, it seems that there are fewer and fewer reviewers out there who care about the types of games that WCS and Matrix produce (i.e., not as pretty as the ones made with a gigantic budget, but arguably more challenging), so I would urge all of you to consider getting in touch with some of these sites to see if you might be able to provide the occasional review. Heck, maybe one of those sites might even still have COG:EE waiting to be assigned.

I would say that the reviewer at least took the time to learn most of the game. Some apparently don't even do that. I gave up on professional reviewers some time ago-they miss the mark far too often. I recall looking at one professional reviewers site. He had a list of games he had "reviewed" which indicated he had about 2 days to learn, play and write a review for each game-back to back for months on end.

06Maestro, I once heard a very reliable report of a reviewer taking just a few hours to review a game. (I don't know who it was, but I do know how this was discovered.)

[Gil R.]

P.S. I'd only add that it's a shame the review is critical of the graphics, but provides so few screenshots (probably an ACG policy, rather than the reviewer's decision). I wish in such cases ACG would provide direct links to the developer's/publisher's own screenshots page(s). In the case of COG:EE, we've got a whole batch of them that give a much better idea of the game: http://www.west-civ.com/COGEE/SnapshotsAdobe/index.htm

[Randomizer]

The main map does not stand out and feels more like a board game than a computer game.

 
To each his own since I consider this a plus for CoG-EE.
 
Best Regards

[barbarossa2]

I will cut them slack on the graphics issues at the interface and tactical level. However, I feel that this reviewer didn't spend enough time learning and playing the game. Kingmaker's comments (I believe they were his) made the point well...

"Steep learning curve can also mean rewarding, in depth play options." or something like that.

This is by far and away my favorite multi player game I have ever played online. 

[DeWitt]

Hi Everyone,
 
I'm the reviewer you are crushing here! I appreciate the comments and do enjoy the game! CoG:EE is the first game I've played for Matrix, so my review is coming from someone who is completely new to this game. I've tried to make the point that veterans of the CoG franchise will love it, just as a new user you will have a difficult time picking it up.
 
The game is very in-depth and I wish I could have covered more, but I'm limited to what I can write and tried to give the best overall description of the game possible. By highlighting some of the great things (diplomacy, economics, strategy) to some things that may turn people off (graphics).
 
Gil, to your question about poll and what people prefer, I'd be interested to discuss that with you and get your opinion on some of my thoughts.
 
Thanks Everyone!
 
DeWitt
 
 

[ShaiHulud]

Poor DeWitt!

Just want to say that the addition of simple economy in EE was made because the most common complaint about CoG was the complexity of the economic system. (admittedly, I never understood that complaint). Thus, De Witt's critique of the economics is actually not out of line.

Likewise, my own view of the graphics is similar to DeWitt's. The strategic map does not clearly delineate national borders. The tactical maps are not at all sophisticated. In fact, it's confusing that the two differ so greatly in their style, yet, neither lends itself ideally to its purpose.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: ShaiHulud

Poor DeWitt!

Just want to say that the addition of simple economy in EE was made because the most common complaint about CoG was the complexity of the economic system. (admittedly, I never understood that complaint). Thus, De Witt's critique of the economics is actually not out of line.

...

Thus that's why it wasn't entirely open not to at least mention some of the mitigating factors like the simple economy...

Anyway, not bashing you DeWitt, it's not a bad review, just not complete.

[Joram]

Oh, and kudos for bravely sticking your head in the lion's mouth here, lol. That takes a lot of integrity.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: DeWitt

The game is very in-depth and I wish I could have covered more, but I'm limited to what I can write and tried to give the best overall description of the game possible. By highlighting some of the great things (diplomacy, economics, strategy) to some things that may turn people off (graphics).

Could you describe an A (90%+) quality grand strategy Napoleonic wargame for me to go buy? I just wasnt understanding the description of COG EE as a "79%" game.

If I get 79% on a test or project I consider it a failure and really buckle down for the rest of the course.

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

A score of 79%??? What a tragedy! And games like ETW get a 95%? I feel like quoting the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz and say "What a world! What a world!". I guess you guys didn't pay off the reviewers eh? [:D]

Right.

And if the stuff said about ETW in Hitlers review video posted awhile back is true, ETW has major game breaking issues.

[;)]

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Joram

Oh, and kudos for bravely sticking your head in the lion's mouth here, lol. That takes a lot of integrity.

Agree. Gutsy:)

[ericbabe]

Hi DeWitt!  I'm one of the COG:EE developers.  Thank you for the thoughtful review, and for stopping by our forum.  I can sympathize completely with the need to complete projects within the constraints of time and budget!

Honestly, I'm fairly pleased to get 79% when COG:EE is counted among games like Civilization IV and Empire: Total War.  As of last year, Civilization IV all by itself had sold over 3,000,000 copies.  I wish I could say that we're a competitor of Civilization IV, but the truth is that we sell fewer copies than these games, and have a smaller operating budget.  Civ IV has more programmers on staff than we have volunteer beta testers.

In light of these considerations, anything that might convince just 1% of Civ players to give COG:EE their consideration is mightily appreciated.

My only tiny -- very miniscule, really -- quibble would be that when you mention "other games in this genre" in your review that you might have clarified that you did indeed mean games like Civ IV, and not other games in the war-gaming niche.  Though I love the idea that COG:EE belongs in the genre with Civ IV, and I would that it were so, the reality is that COG:EE is really designed-for and marketed-toward the war-gaming niche, as typified by other Matrix games and their competing publishers (whom I shan't name for fear that lightning may strike me).  When you wrote "other games in the genre," many war-gamers probably assumed you'd meant the war-gaming niche and not the genre of mainstream empire-builder games.

Anway, thank you again for the review.  I really am quite flattered that COG:EE is considered a low-end competitor to Civ IV, rather than a high-end competitor within the war-gaming niche.  You're absolutely correct that a large portion of Civ IV players would find our graphics too primitive -- but if just 1% of Civilization IV players find that our graphics are tolerable and our game-play unique and wonderful, we should then be doing very well indeed.

[barbarossa2]

;D Well said.