Armchair General Review

[twitter]

I don't mind the graphics - besides the two maps in the Members section are quite nice and easier on the eyes.  As for the steep learning curve I found it to be:
 
1. An enjoyable process - afterall this is why we play these types of games = the challenge
2. Not really as hard as people make it out to be - the best way to learn the game is to play the game.
 
After about a week I was ready for a full on game ( on medium level of difficulty).  The way I do it is if I can win (and win going away) then I move up to the next challenge level.  This reviewer did not get the luxury of time to play the game over and over - the more you play it the easier it is to find what it is you need AND the easier it is to understand strategy, tactics, diplomacy, etc.  Once you have played the game for a while the steep learning curve has been solved for the most part and the challenge of "What do I want to do and how to do it?" with your country of choice is what supplies the kicks.  I think it is a great game for the person who wants a mental challenge and enjoys learning about this period of history all while going about it as they did back then (referring to the issues dealing with politics of Europe, military gaps in different countries, etc).

[barbarossa2]

twitter...
 
Agreed. The best way to learn the game is to "just do it".
 
When I got the game at first, I felt overwhelmed. But I decided..."well, I sure as heck ain't gonna learn anything by just looking at it and complaining." LOL
 
So, I watched all of the introductory videos, read the rules once and took some notes... and laid into it.
 
It took me about 3 days of full time play to think I was ready for a real game.

[vicberg]

I'm sorry to be the only non-defender of this game, but I totally agree with the review. WCS games have great potential and have some of the best mechanics (such as diplomacy) as I have ever seen, but the User Interface is generally clunky, the graphics are basic and the strategic level game is usually lacking in some major area.

There's always something, whether in COG, COGEE or FOF that just doesn't seem to work. WCS is too ambitious without the ability or money to make a complete game...sorry....I know this won't be taken well by the great defenders of this game or of WCS in general....and yes...having played boardgames since the mid-70s...this game and FOF is boardgamish...the review is spot on...

When I saw Grand Army I and II in COGEE, moving independently and possibly engaging the enemy at different times, I realized right off the bat that this isn't a Napoleonic game...it's a game that looks Napoleonic. The game misses strategically. Armies shouldn't be limited by some arbitrary size. They should be limited by leaders. Napoleon moved THE Grand Army accross vast distances in good order. Moving large numbers of troops was his strength that no other leader of his time had the capability to do...this major strategic ability is not reflected in the game...look past this if you want...but it's too glaring an oversight for me...almost silly.

When I attempted to combine the Toulon and Brest Fleets, like Napoleon attempted to do in 1804, in order to gain control of the English Channel long enough to invade England and realized that IF 1) I combined the fleets, 2) there was an arbitrary fleet size limit that would force TWO fleets, moving independently, to attempt to move into the channel and that each one could be, and probably would be, picked off independently...I realized that the game wouldn't allow this.

The inability to invade and de-embark along the coasts in FOF...a major aspect of the North's campaign against the South..the arbitrary +4 moral for Southern Troops making early attacks by the north useless...when in truth it was the leaders that made the difference...there's no ability or even chance to overcome this....the "what if" McDowell at 1st Manasass had leaders that, for that day and possibly only that day, decided to be aggressive and exploited flank he had achieved...no die rolls...no chance...+4 flat southern moral kills you every time...so as north, do nothing until 1963...misses the mark, the fun, the uncertanty...WCS needs to look at WBTS...a gem of games

WCS Game just can't meet the lofty goals they are trying to achieve...too many arbitrary rules...too many shortcuts in coding..(I've been in IT for 20 years...I see the signs)....Please understand that I WANT to like these games because they have, potentially, everything...they just don't hit the mark and I'm tired of waiting.

[IronWarrior]

vicberg, now that's a fair critique. I agree with some of your points, UI, some of the historical aspects... but I suppose I can accept some of the abstractions if the results are realistic enough. WBtS is a good game, but I find COG:EE and FoF more fun to play. I can't really agree that the game misses strategically though. Besides, I have yet to find a better Napoleonic game on a grand campaign scale. If you know of one let me know! [:)]

[06 Maestro]

Vicberg

I have not found a perfect game yet-and I have at it for just a little longer than you (late 60's).

I have not seen any of the fans here say this game is w/o some faults. and everyone would like to see a thing or two in every game made better-that is one big reason for the wish lists.

The difficult part of of judging a game is finding a good basis for a comparison. This is made more difficult as there are wide differences in preferences. As an example, Civ 4 has some pretty good graphics-better than CoG, but it does not matter very much to me because Civ 4 is shallow (imo). I own that game, but have uninstalled it as I know I will never play it-and there is no shortage of hard drive space. That is my choice, but to publicly judge the game, I should have some specific benchmarks.

It does not seem entirely correct to judge a game today for what it could be in 10 years. Most of us want more-and as time goes on, our demands for better products increase(although there are some perfectly content to play the same game for more than 10 years). We should make comparisons by real things that we have today while continuing to prod for improvements.

Ai's are an important part of this picture. Generally, ai's leave much to be desired-especially in strategic level games. In this regard CoG EE is very good-judging on a curve. This is something that really matters in a game.

As for the realism-this is always a problem-and the higher a game goes on scale, the higher its level of abstraction. I'm not so sure that strategic games can be made yet that can largely avoid this problem. I prefer realism myself and am always looking for a better game. From what I have seen in a few months looking into WCS forums, they are looking to make a better game. Perhaps in time, they will make the perfect game. I'll be around to buy it.

[vicberg]

You guys are making my point....

These guys are sooooo close to the perfect game...and I can read the frustration in quite a few posts for the games, mine included....want it all? (tactical, economic, diplomacy, strategic) go for it...want some of it...go for it...they just miss the most critical element of both civil and napoleonic periods....the LEADERS...the ADMIRALS...sure, they have an impact in these games, but they feel like afterthoughts.

Focus both of these games entirely on the leaders, with all the wonderful existing stuff they already have, and my god, what a game..a monster! No Grand Army I and II...Napoleon can control THE Grand Army. No automatic +4 Moral for the south...most of the southern generals may create +4 moral, but so should Grant in the beginning....this is the missing element in their games and from what I've been reading, the source of their frustration...

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

but the User Interface is generally clunky

Agreed. That's my main grip with the game. Especially army movement/combination on the strategical map. Look at AGEOD's game on this aspect (ACW, BOA) and you'll think that COG is way behind.


On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy with the design choices and the necessary simplification/modelization of some aspect. IMHO it's a good balance between playability and capturing the main strategical choice of the era.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: vicberg
The inability to invade and de-embark along the coasts in FOF...a major aspect of the North's campaign against the South..the arbitrary +4 moral for Southern Troops making early attacks by the north useless...when in truth it was the leaders that made the difference...there's no ability or even chance to overcome this....the "what if" McDowell at 1st Manasass had leaders that, for that day and possibly only that day, decided to be aggressive and exploited flank he had achieved...no die rolls...no chance...+4 flat southern moral kills you every time...so as north, do nothing until 1963...misses the mark, the fun, the uncertanty...WCS needs to look at WBTS...a gem of games

Fine, guys, leave it to me to defend FOF... [8|][;)]

Vicberg, you have to think of this from a game design point of view. In the July scenario if the Union stomps all over Beauregard and Johnston then it can take Richmond without much more trouble and the game ends in late 1861. While we don't want that to be impossible, it certainly shouldn't be routine -- no one wants a game that regularly ends after a few turns! Also, I'd note that the quality of brigades is partly a reflection of the quality of their staff officers, regimental colonels, and other officers, and there are many who would argue that the southerners generally belonged to a more martial tradition and thus had more good officers. I myself haven't explored this in depth, but there's enough to the argument to merit giving southern forces a boost at the outset of the game.

Also, this is certainly an area where people can disagree, but I'm strongly of the opinion that the #1 cause of McDowell's defeat was McDowell. He had the Confederates on the run by late morning but then took close to two hours reorganizing his army, instead of pressing the attack. And he poorly handled certain logistical aspects at the outset of the flanking march, throwing off his schedule.

[Randomizer]

Had not replied since figured this really belongs over in the FoF forum but here goes, off topic and all.

The inability to invade and de-embark along the coasts in FOF...a major aspect of the North's campaign against the South

This prevents the Union from exercising a Civil War version of Inchon or Normandy.  To be sure, the North executed some very successful amphibious operations but none resulted in anything resembling a 'second front' or strategic effective end run.  Even after the successful capture of New Orleans they were never able to really hold any city past Baton Rouge and also lost Galveston to a Confederate counter-attack.

The essential consequence of every Union seaborne operation was that they ended up sitting in their beacheads or enclaves created by limited advances inland for the duration, denying these cities and facilities to the South but reaping few other benefits.  FoF reproduces this effect by not allowing the Union player to employ his army as lethal projectiles fired by virtue of sea control.

Every real-world effort to drive inland foundered and a FoF player who choses to attempt a Red River or Meridian type campaign will likely find that unless he can establish an overland link, decisive results are doubtful

One might as well introduce aircraft and tanks into the mix while demanding doctrines, strategies and capabilities that did not exist in that era.

On topic, not sure about reading too much into any superficial similarities between the Civ franchise and CoG-EE.  The Wife plays a lot of Civ so after reading the review I asked her to sit in and watch a couple of turns of CoG-EE to get her take but it left her totally lost.

Best Regards

[Anthropoid]

The graphics in CoGEE are basic, and the UI is a bit clunky. It can be frustrating right- and left-clicking away on the map trying to get the units to do what you want . . . until you figure out how it works. Then it becomes pretty much easy to use.
 
In contrast to what I've heard about some other recent games being effectively "impossible to lose" CoGEE (and FoF) is not easy to win; heck it is not even "easy" to figure out. In fact, I bet very few of us have yet to win a serious contest (5K or 10K Glory or Path of Nappy) against the AI. The game is just plain not "easy," and that is what this reviewer was looking for: easy, and pretty, and simple. Doesn't mean he is a bad guy or a 'moron' or unworthy; just means he did not understand what the intent and purpose of this game is and was using an inappropriate standard to judge the game, i.e., a standard that is more appropriate to a game like ETW.
 
The conclusion I reach is this: "strategy" games are undergoing a split, with the majority of larger-budget games going one path, the "Simple Spectacle" path and a small majority of games continuing along the more traditional "Grog" path. There is a place for both paths, but to expect one to achieve the purposes and intents of the other is not fair, esp. when Simple Spectacle standards of graphics are held up to a Grog game in which the real effort, the real genius, and the real beauty of the final product is not in seeing an interactive cartoon on your screen, but in having to understand a complex ecological model of historical events.
 
CoGEE is a game that creates a complex ecology that models historical events of the Napoleonic era in a highly satisfactory way. At this it achieves astounding success.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Fine, guys, leave it to me to defend FOF... [8|][;)]

Vicberg, you have to think of this from a game design point of view. In the July scenario if the Union stomps all over Beauregard and Johnston then it can take Richmond without much more trouble and the game ends in late 1861. While we don't want that to be impossible, it certainly shouldn't be routine -- no one wants a game that regularly ends after a few turns! Also, I'd note that the quality of brigades is partly a reflection of the quality of their staff officers, regimental colonels, and other officers, and there are many who would argue that the southerners generally belonged to a more martial tradition and thus had more good officers. I myself haven't explored this in depth, but there's enough to the argument to merit giving southern forces a boost at the outset of the game.

LOL.

Man I didnt even know where to start disagreeing on some of the historical points.

I thought pretty much everyone was of the opinion that the Eastern Yankee was, with a few exceptions, made of much softer stuff than the average Southern Man and even the the Yankees in the Western Theater.

It took a long time for the AOP to be drilled up to the quality of the Southern Armies. I dont think its fair to say it was only a difference in leadership.

The rest of Vics comments I can kinda understand, but I am not similarly expecting sudden success in the search for the Holy Grail of Strategic wargaming.

Limitations will fade with time, but will probably always be there.

I still support the kinds of products I want to see with my dollars (agree 100% with barbarossas comments re that as expressed below).

Edited to expand on my thoughts.

[barbarossa2]

I understand Vicberg's points. And I even agree with some of them. But I am sure most of us here see that in this type of gaming community (small sales moving perhaps 1000s of units--not millions, like games from Sega or Microsoft), we kind of have to decide on which products we will support the development of in the long haul and keep buying them, knowing (hoping) that in 5-10 years we will be able to whip out the old credit card and buy something that is three or four great strides closer to our dream game. 
 
Show me a better grand strategic computer game about the Napoleonic Wars, and I will probably buy and play it too.  But for now, my money is on the CoG:EE system. ;D Literally.

[pvthudson01]

The thing I love about this game is that it does not cop out on combat. While I like AGEOD games, the combat is weak and I like the fact that this game becomes a good old hex warfare game at the detailed level. I would love to see a game with a tight interface and then become a John Tiller sort of Waterloo game at the combat level but keep the grand strategy. In a way that is what Total War does.

The interface is clunky however I do agree

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: vicberg
When I attempted to combine the Toulon and Brest Fleets, like Napoleon attempted to do in 1804, in order to gain control of the English Channel long enough to invade England and realized that IF 1) I combined the fleets, 2) there was an arbitrary fleet size limit that would force TWO fleets, moving independently, to attempt to move into the channel and that each one could be, and probably would be, picked off independently...I realized that the game wouldn't allow this.

If you do it in good weather, fleets have 95% chance of moving, so the chance that one fleet won't move when the other does is only 5%.

Fleet limits aren't at all arbitrary, since nations of the era had a very real limitations on naval logistics. If we wanted to be more realistic, we'd have a larger penalty for the logistics of multiple fleets operating in the same sea zone. There were huge complexities involved with supplying ships at sea that we have simplified greatly with a few rules, and fleet size limits is one of those rules. If we wanted to make the game more historical in this regard we'd have to introduce many new complexities to the game.

When I saw Grand Army I and II in COGEE, moving independently and possibly engaging the enemy at different times, I realized right off the bat that this isn't a Napoleonic game...it's a game that looks Napoleonic

At the start of the Ulm Campaign the Grande Armee was stretched out north-south along the Rhine, and east-west almost to Nuremburg, a bent line about 200 miles in extent. This is two provinces in our game. The Grande Armee often operated along such a wide frontage that it covered the equivalent of two provinces in our game. Because of these kinds of considerations we decided to split it into two parts and to add the large-stack penalty for when large armies are all located in only one province. It was anything but an arbitrary decision, and I would personally find a system that confined the Grande Armee to one province to be less historical.

As for whether the game "is Napoleonic," I'm always a little taken aback when people find one or two issues with the game and then see fit to pronounce to the world that they have concluded that our game is "not Napoleonic." All "Napoleonic" means is "of or relating to Napoleon Bonaparte." You might not like aspects of the game, but it strikes me as slightly bizarre to claim that our game has nothing to do with the Napoleonic era.

WCS Game just can't meet the lofty goals they are trying to achieve...too many arbitrary rules...too many shortcuts in coding..(I've been in IT for 20 years...I see the signs)

Our #1 goal is to make a game that is fun to play for people who like these sorts of games. We like our games to adhere to historical rigor to a high degree, but perfect historical rigor is not our primary goal. Similarly, we never had the goal of making a game with graphics that would compete with other mainstream empire builder games, so the notion that we failed in this goal because we lack "ability" is silly. Big game studios will never make a turn-based hex game for operational Napoleonic combat because they would lose lots of money on such a product. Small developers can make money from such games because we don't have gigantic art budgets.

It's a common theme for people who don't like the game to announce to the world that I have failed to meet my "lofty" goals, but by my measure, we have more than satisfactorily met our goals. Honestly the "loftiest" thing I could have imagined for COG in 2004 was that enough people would find it sufficiently fun and historical that it would win the Charles Shaw Roberts Award.

The inability to invade and de-embark along the coasts in FOF...a major aspect of the North's campaign against the South..the arbitrary +4 moral for Southern Troops making early attacks by the north useless...when in truth it was the leaders that made the difference...there's no ability or even chance to overcome this....the "what if" McDowell at 1st Manasass had leaders that, for that day and possibly only that day, decided to be aggressive and exploited flank he had achieved...no die rolls...no chance...+4 flat southern moral kills you every time...so as north, do nothing until 1963...misses the mark, the fun, the uncertanty...WCS needs to look at WBTS...a gem of games

You just want a different game than we envisioned. We did not want to allow the North to overcome all of the obstacles it had by dint of player decisions; we wanted to force the Northern player to have to live with some of these adverse conditions. If we did allow players to do this, then in short order, every game would be concluded with a Northern victory in winter 1861. We simply didn't want this to be possible. There are Civil War games that allow the North to win after a couple months, but I personally find these games to become tedious, so I did not want FOF to allow for this. I agree with historians like Nosworthy who wrote that the commanders during the Civil War could not get everything out of their troops that they wanted because they lacked well trained staffs and logistical support, and I think our game models this fairly well. I don't think it was just about the commanders.

this game and FOF is boardgamish

We designed them to be like table games; they aren't that way because we're somehow defective people. We know that we don't have the budget to make a game with $1M worth of artwork, and so a board game metaphor seems like a reasonable way to go. Within the war gaming niche market, our graphics are usually reckoned to be very good, so much so that our art director has been asked by several other top notch war game developers to do artwork for them.

Similarly, tables games are our standard of historical accuracy. In our case I looked closely at the table game "Empires and Arms" to see what kinds of things were possible in that game. Given the revisions in COG:EE, I would argue the game is now more historically plausible than the table game: in that game, the corps of the Grande Armee can go wherever they want -- but I don't know too many war gamers who would say that "Empires and Arms" isn't Napoleonic.

In short, we designed the game to be similar to a table game in several respects. It is hardly an indication that we have failed to meet our goals.

[pvthudson01]

I cannot believe that vicberg poked fun at them being boardgamish. That is the WHOLE POINT. And thank God you guys did this. Same reason I like SSG games like Korsun Pocket. It brings back that feeling that so many wargamers yearn for