Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

[terje439]

Ok.
In detailed combat vs the AI.

I move one of my units and an AI unit reacts to my move. This is bugged because what will happen step by step is;
1. I move my unit
2. The enemy unit reacts
3. No more of my units are allowed to move that turn
4. All the enemy units are allowed to move
5. The turn ends
6. My unit which started the whole thing (#1) gets to FINISH its move from last turn
7. Supply moves

That makes detailed battles where I am at a severe disadvantage close to impossible as the enemy gets "free" attacks/moves and my units stands still looking stupid...

(I am not sure how long ago this one was reported, but it is LONG ago tbh, also believe I posted this in the tech support thread)

Terje

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Colin I think you may inadvertently be Muddying the Waters [:)] , the egs you quote are quite correctly from the Invite game, they were used to give supportive evidence to Mus’s contention that Naval battles seem to be decided purely on who gains the ‘Weather Gage’ & that various of the higher level ‘Upgrades’ don’t appear to work (eg in that game England started with just 4 ‘Upgrades’ all naval 1 of which was ‘Naval Academies’ which again from Mus’s observations doesn’t appear to work).

To reiterate, the Dutch Navy is comprised of 2 elements ‘The Dutch Fleet’, 26 ships of which 10 are 4th Rates, &, ‘The Dutch Squadron’ 19 ships of which 8 are frigates (figures taken from a ‘Local game’), as you suggest the Dutch Fleet was in the same Sea province as the English fleet and promptly engaged as it was now french and france was at war with England, ergo, you were not in a position to alter the composition of the fleet till after the engagement.

The salient point being that the Dutch ships with a Moral of 6 v’s English c6.8 with no ‘Upgrades’ v’s Englands ‘Ship repair’ +1 on defence, ‘Naval guns’ +1 to attack, & ‘Naval Manoeuvre’ “large initiative bonus to ships in combat” + with at least 5 1st Rates, 2 frigates and the rest 3rd Rates, the fleet also had 2 or 3 Quality Admirals and a load of ships with ‘Reinforced Hulls’ & ‘Extra Guns’, the Dutch had none of those advantages, yet still won.

Re the upgrading of the French Navy even though you still have none of the 3 biggie upgrades mentioned above (Spain now has ‘Ship Manoeuvres’ & ‘Ship Repair’) and have therefor obviously ploughed your Naval experience points into individual ship improvements, the French don’t have near as many docks to give points on the quarterly as England, so even with points picked up via Battles your Ships improvement would still be lagging behind Englands (I watch the Naval points awarded to nations for upgrade on the ‘Training Report’ screen so have a fair idea who has what).

Phew, hope that clearer than Mud [:D]

Re Blockades see below.

B2, as has been suggested (several times) right from the very 1st PBEM game (Mat’s ‘Big War’) there appears to be no effect on the internal economy of any nation undergoing ‘Blockade’, it’s been alleged that a Blockaded province should have its income halved, although I have never personally seen any reference to that.

What does get affected by ‘Blockades’ are Trade routes using the Blockaded Port these can either be “halted due to Blockade”, (which again emphasises the stupidity of Blockading fleets being able to intercept ships/fleets out at sea, eg a French fleet blockading Plymouth and thereby “halting” the trade route can also seek out and intercept ships coming into the Atlantic Ocean from the Med, ie well south), or lost through the Trade route going through a War zone (also applies to land route), hope that helps.

All the Best
Peter

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Mus

I have not noticed any economic effect of blockading, either by reduction of merchant income in a given sea zone nor drop in province income the blockaded port is in.

When I play France, I see lost income from blockading fleets. I think it works correctly.

As you know Mus, it's hard to detect what is going on in other countries from the reports. The best way to verify that there is a problem is to play a few turns as every player so you only move a few units to see the effects. If you try that, maybe you can see if there is no impact of blockading under specific circumstances. But, in all the testing that I did, I don't rememebr seeing that blockades were a problem.

[Marshal Villars]

Okay. So, BJMorgan reports seeing lost income from being blockaded. Is this lost "merchant income" on your overall economic report? Where do you see this tallied up and called out? Kingmaker, I am assuming you are not seeing this now as England in the game where you are being close blockaded?

[cptracks]

Be kind of hard for him to see it this turn as a miscue broke the blockade and his trade went back up.

One thing I reeeaaaly hope you fix, and that is the randomly disappearing depot sharing agreement That pretty much cost me my main army the first time it happened. Players set up a depot sharing agreement and then at some random moment you just stop drawing supply from your agreed upon depots.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: cptracks



One thing I reeeaaaly hope you fix, and that is the randomly disappearing depot sharing agreement

This is another extremely important item. It can ruin a years worth of planning if it sneaks up on you-or you don't know about it.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

B2, as has been suggested (several times) right from the very 1st PBEM game (Mat’s ‘Big War’) there appears to be no effect on the internal economy of any nation undergoing ‘Blockade’, it’s been alleged that a Blockaded province should have its income halved, although I have never personally seen any reference to that.

Bingo. IF there is only some small effect on merchant income profitability and no effect on the land based economy you wouldn't notice it as the blockaded party anyways because your merchants would likely never be at sea and your "take" from merchants owned by the blockading power or parties friendly to said power would be a fraction of a fraction of total province income.

So assuming it is working properly the effect is not as great as I have been led to believe it was historically, on both sides but particularly on the blockaded party. If it is true that there is a reduction in merchant income in the sea zone only as has been suggested the current system counterintuitively actually hurts the blockading party more than the blockaded party.

[Marshal Villars]

cptracks,

I am working to get the depots sharing term to have an "end date" added to it.

Still following the merchant income/blockade debate here with extreme interest.

I have also PMed Mus, asking him to send me a copy of the PBEM file with the unconquerable minor so Eric can take a look at it.

[evwalt]

To add some more "kick" to full blockades of a country (and a problem we have just discovered), I think that if any country is under a full blockade (ie. no province not occupied or blockaded by an enmey fleet), that country should lose ALL colony benefits (ie. no colony income or spices).
 
Also, something I just remembered, Russia has a "slot" on her economy screen on her feudal level (ie. where you change the feudal level) at the very top (can't remember the number).  However, this slot can NOT be chosen.  Is this intentional or is Russia supposed to be able to increase her feudal level to a higher number than allowed at the present.
 
Another point, we had a game where Poland was controlled as a protectorate (and the Polish army still existed) by Sweden.  Sweden had ceded several Polish provinces to Russia.  Russia eventually got into negative NM level and the Polish provinces "rebelled" and became a free minor.  AT THE SAME TIME, the currently existing Poland was converted to conquered Swedish territory AND the Swedish-controlled Polish army disappeared.  This is REALLY not fair.  Not sure why the Swedes should suffer (ie. lose the Polish Army), because Russia had a rebellion.
 
I would suggest that either 1) rebellions NOT be allow in conquered provinces where protectorates  already exist (bad), 2) rebellions in such situations results in the conquered provinces REJOINING the already existing protectorate (better), 3) ANOTHER free minor be created (New Poland or whatever?) and be treated totally seperately from the existing protectorate (best, but I would imagine the hardest to do with the programming).

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Eric I think your suggestion may be a tad 'Invite game' biases, what you are suggesting would enable any future game Blockading fleet to a) blockade the port, with it's resulting damage to 'Trade', b) wander willy nilly around the Sea province intercepting ships/fleets and at the same time intercept colonial traffic, Sheee those seafarers didn't get paid much you know and thats one hell of a Work load, especially as a Blockading Fleet can comprise of just 1 ship! [:)]

Fully agree Poland needs to be looked at, I'm not to sure the same thing with the Polish army hasn't happened in the 3rd PBEM game, although Pauls not mentioned it, I have not seen Polish troops (Generals yes) for some time now since the Partitions but maybe I just cant see them. I also feel Poland is slightly Hamstrung against Diplomatic warfare by not having a starting Diplomate + they should also have a Merchant ship.

All the Best
Peter

[evwalt]

I think I already mentioned the diplomat problem when playing someone besides Sweden (ie. remove unplayed Sweden's diplomat, give diplomat to whatever other minor being played).  I don't think I would like to see free merchants though. 
 
I am NOT a supporter of "fleets can blockade but also intercept."  I think it should be one or the other.  I guess if you want, set the fleet on "intercept" and allow it to intercept in the sea area BUT an attempt at intercept breaks the blockade.
 
I do think, however, that places like Britain, France, Spain and Prussia (!--where were Prussia's overseas colonies again?) should suffer colonial income losses when their countries are FULLY blockaded (ie. every port blockaded or occupied by enemy forces).  Perhaps not a full loss of income/spices loss, but some (1/2?).  My point is, "colonies" for the above powers represent areas shipping those resources for the benefit of the people of Britain, France, etc.  How do they get there if their countries are totally blockaded?  ("Wow, I can feel my morale rising already because we 1) had a big pile of spices suddenly teleport into London for our use or 2) have a big pile of spices used by our colonists and that just makes us feel good!").
 
Of course, maybe another, simple solution.  Simply provide the colonial income with no losses BUT force a country to establish "trade routes" from a colonial area representing off map colonies for the spices.  A country need not trade anything to receive the resources, simply set up the routes.  If the routes are cut (in the normal fashion), they must be re-established.  This would also allow privateers to attempt to intercept on the routes.  (I presume the routes would run into the Atlantic and then off map.  Might get some of the far western sea areas some more usage).
 
All that being said, I don't think that either Russia or Turkey should suffer from such loss, as their colonies represent 'off map' areas not eligible for interception (as the resources would be transferred by land only).  Of course, going with the "trade routes" solution would eliminate this problem.
 
This totally leaves out how "colonial regiments" (if the upgrade was working), could appear in a country under a total blockade.
 
Maybe what is needed is "off map" areas.  One east of Russia (for starting Russian colonies), one east of Turkey (starting Turkish), one north of the Atlantic (Danish colonies), one west of the Atlantic (a certain number of French, Spanish and British colonies), one south of the Atlantic (again, French, Spanish and British colonies).  Place the Prussian colonies whereever they are located.  Have spices appear in those areas and must be shipped through normal trade routes to their home countries (at no cost to the owning country).  Colonial regiments appear in those areas (randomly, if a country has colonies present in more than one area) and force them to be shipped to Europe for use (which means you will have to be able to dispatch fleets there).  No combat would be allowed in those areas and colonies could still be captured normally (ie. if the Brits capture a French colony, simply determine at random which off-map area the colony was captured and -1 French colony and +1 British colony there.)

[evwalt]

One addition thing (totally independent of the stuff above), if 'colonial regiments' are made to work as stated, it is WAY overpowered.  As it stands now, you would receive 1+ colonies/4 units.  This would mean a Britain with 70 colonies would receive 18 divisions!  WAY too many.  I think it should be changed to something like 1+ colonies /20 units (Fractions round DOWN).  This means a Prussia or Russia would get 1 division while Britain would get 3-4.
 
Have each 'colonial regiment' (which is really a division) count 1/2 for mob limits and have each regiment have a low starting morale (ie. much lower than a normal build). 

[Marshal Villars]

On the whole colonial regiments thing...

I don't remember a King's Indian Guard fighting for the British or a any African/Haitian units fighting for the French in the Napoleonic Wars. It seems to me at this point, these entities were still absorbing more troops than they were spitting out. Or? Does anyone have any evidence that such units participated in continental action? Don't know. I am curious though.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

In the main I agree with what you say, I do feel however that with Poland having 2 Ports Riga & Kovno ??, that while Poland was not renown as a great Mercantile nation it would nevertheless have had some form of Seaborn trade, maybe Poland could be given a Merchant but it's are of opperation resricted to just the Baltic & England East and Channel ports, or, 1/2 income from the Sea province for it's starting Merchant, just a thought.

Also agree there should be some form of penalty with Colonial trade for a full Blockade, it's just the Multi tasking fleet bit I disagree with your concept of establishing Colonial trade routes is a very Good idea, maybe for Turkey & Russia an eastern Province would need to be captured to cover the loss eliment for non seaborn Colonial trade, again just a thought; it has been reported elsewhere I think that 'Colonial regiments' don't turn up.

All the Best
Peter

[evwalt]

Actually, I wondered about the whole colonial regiments thing anyway.  I don't think any really fought in Europe in this period.  Doesn't mean they couldn't have however.
 
The real solution I think is to make those "off map areas" combat areas also.  Have some type of "colonial quick combat" where the number and type of ships and divisions, when combined with morale of the units, gives you a basic strength.  Compare the two strengths of the different sides, roll the dice, and the result is some number of ships damaged (and possibly sunk), and some losses to the ground units (which could be disbanded if their strength fell to low).  Have each ground unit receive replacements EQUAL to the number of replacements received normally (ie. replacements in the off map boxes would not lower replacements available in Europe).  Victory wins a certain (fairly low) number of enemy colonies in the area.
 
Scrap the colonial warfare upgrades (or keep them in and they give a bonus to the random roll).  Leave the colonial regiments in (at the lower availability level mentioned above).
 
Doing this would be a good addition to the game, adding colonial warfare to the mix.  (ie. a European country could make a big push overseas to capture colonies by dispatching troops and/or ships).  If doing something like this, probably need to bump up the mob limits for all powers a bit and add some more ships to the British (and to a lesser extent the French and Spanish).  Have gain and loss of colonies also be a NM gain/loss.
 

[evwalt]

Pay attention designers!  Now you know who to come to if you need a new designer for COG III  [:D]
 
Some more ideas: if going with off map areas and combat:
 
The USA could be redone:
USA at peace: 1 frigate and 2 merchants wander the map.  If less than this amount, they will respawn up to these amount during each Levy Phase.
USA at limited war: caused/ends normally (ie. by blockades), 1-3 privateers spawn at the beginning and during each levy phase while at war.
USA at major war: as limited war + the USA will bring a certain strength to bear on colonies in its area.  For each colony captured, the losing power loses all income, resources and some NM.  Give the US a certain size (in colonies): if the country at war with the US captures all their colonies, the war is over and all colonies are returned to their pre-war owners (ie. the US can't be conquered but can't perminantly conquer either).  No major war for 18 months between the US and that power.
 
To encourage gathering off map colonies in the same area, give each country bonus production for each 5 colonies in an area.  Colonies in Russian and/or Turkish areas give extra spices or luxuries.  Colonies in the north (ie. Danish) give food or spices.  Colonies in the Americans give extra money or timber.  Colonies in the south give extra spices or luxuries.
 
Gosh, you could also introduce the USA as a major (but only computer controlled) minor.  Allow trading of resources (food, cotton, luxuries, timber) with it.  Give each country an attitude with the US that affects willingness to trade as well as determining if the US will declare a major war on a power.  Allow this attitude to be affected by diplomats (either improving your own standing or lowering others standing).  Allow some limited treaties with the US (ie. to end wars outside of fighting to an end....likelyhood of acceptance would depend on attitude of US to power, # of US colonies captured by the power, etc.).
 
All of this would expand the Napoleonic Wars around the world BUT only to a very limited extent without distracting from the war in Europe.

[cptracks]

I've been following this with a lot of interest. One thing I'm really puzzled by is the debate about blockading versus 'sweeping the seas' at the same time. As I understand it a blockade in this era would consist of a main fleet in a central position and one or more 'inshore squadrons' who would keep an eye on one or more anchorages via frigates. That leaves the frigates and other light vessels of the main fleet free to monitor commerce and scout, which I understand they routinely did. As for hostile fleets showing up, it would be entirely possible for the main fleet to engage them and be back on station before the blockaded ships even knew what was happening. Even if they had prior knowledge of what what was planned, blockaded units would have found it quite difficult to coordinate closely. Knowing, being able and ready to act, and acting at the right time were very different things given the type of communications they had.
Maybe its ignorance, but overall, given the scope of the turns, I'm satisfied with this as is.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

I've been following this with a lot of interest. Where you live Colin probably makes you one of the most Landlocked of all the game players so it’s good to see you taking an interest in stuff Nautical [:D] and being a Generous sort of Bloke, just to help foster this, here’s a link for some Technical detail for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Di ... he_horizon

You are quite correct re your supposition of an Inshore Squadron & an Offshore Squadron (ie just over the Horizon) it would be the norm for Blockading operations although the prevailing weather conditions may (and did, see Blockades of Brest & Cadiz for further info) well alter that somewhat.

Now I hope to Hell I can get the Map to download as it will give a pictorial image of the size of the prob facing your 14 ships of the Plymouth Blockading fleet, if not I’ll try and spell it out now.

Given my already alluded to “Generous Nature” I’m going to set a range of 40 Nautical miles (more than a standard mile, see, generosity abounds) range with perfect Visibility for ships to sight each other on the Horizon; and as a base for distance its 160 nautical miles between Lands End & Cork in Southern Ireland, so under perfect conditions the spotting range is a ¼ of that distance (see Map if it comes through). Edit, it has, see bottom of Post.



To refresh the eg, my 4th Rate is sailing up from the Med and is promptly intercepted by your Plymouth Blockading Fleet, now given that its planned route was to end up in the top left Sea zone of the Atlantic Ocean it would no more than skirt the edge of the Atlantic/Celtic sea zone where the action took place, lets guess here a day maybe 2 days worth at Max, so we now have a picture of the your Blockading fleet intercepting my 4th Rate some 480 Nautical miles from its Offshore station Blockading for Plymouth ... !?!?!?!!!! [:-]

OK so lets have a really really patronising bit just to offset my earlier self proclaimed Generosity, “Cough, Cough”, having sailed in these waters many times during my time a Sea, the one thing I can guarantee is that “Perfect Visibility” is phenomenally rare occurrence (it’s got lots to do with High Pressure areas over the Azores and or Iceland/Mid Atlantic set against the prevailing Wind patterns and Depressions and lots of Metrological stuff like that), suffice to say with the Atlantic sending in Billions of tons worth of cloud bourn water, quite often from Sea level upwards, on the prevailing Westerly winds towards these Islands then perfect visibility is something you just aint gonna get, ergo the earlier 40 Nautical miles range should be slashed to 20, if you are extremely lucky!

So given that your 14 ships (minus whatever you are assigning to the Inshore squadron) has several thousand square miles of Ocean to patrol + beating against the Westerly winds (which can slow up modern Power driven Vessels, never mind Sailing ships) then sorry Colin but interception by your fleet would be a phenomenon of such staggeringly high proportions that you are looking at the figures involved with Number of Stars in the Universe sort of thing (ish) ie, it just aint gonna happen [:'(]

Transpose the e.g. we have been using to Blockades in general and I’m sure you can see the nature of the prob, i.e. Blockading fleets should not also be able to intercept Ships/fleets as well as keeping a Blockade in place, itself a very difficult operation in those days, as witness the number of fleets that escaped, or, maybe to add another perspective think of the probs the RN had in WWII, with all the benefits of Radar, Radio communication, Air observation & Shore based spotters etc finding the Bismarck and other surface raiders.



All the Best
Peter

[Marshal Villars]

Great post. I tend to agree with you on this one Peter.

[Mus]

That is one of the few sea zones where that example makes sense and it requires a needless course change east into the zone involved in order to even make that stretch. Many of the seazones with ports in them have narrow areas where ships transitting can be observed by a couple of ships and the port similarly can be observed by a couple of ships, while the main force sits according to prevailing weather conditions "upwind" from whatever is considered the more dangerous location being watched.

It is not possible in game for a large fleet to simultaneously blockade multiple ports and prevent transit of a narrow strait (as is highly possible in several locations), so I am ok with a rare abstraction that makes the impossible possible as well for the sake of simplicity.

A force set on avoid battle is 50/50 with one set to seek anyways.

If anything sea zones should be split up into smaller chunks around ports and larger chunks containing ONLY open ocean, then make open ocean encounters less likely to occur, even if both sides are on seek battle. All the big battles are around anchorages or people trying to break blockades or sail through straits in this period.