Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

[terje439]

France glory gain: 31
France NM gain: 200

Austria glory loss: 668
Austria NM loss: 100
Austria NM gain: 254

Terje

[06 Maestro]

I just checked the settings for Turkey in the 109 game. I did have the "be aggressive' box checked, but did not have the "receive alliance" or "Trade" boxes checked with Austria.

Edit: I should have mentioned that I did receive the offer of a limited surrender the turn following France receiving the offer. I had an opportunity to decline-which I did..

[06 Maestro]

Another little item has crept up in the same game.

Vienna is occupied by Russia-both the province and the city. The city is captured and there are no Austrian units in the province or near by. The Russian forces only amount to 33,000 instead of the required 40,000 in the province. This has resulted in Austria not taking the 250 point hit during the turn for having its capital occupied by an enemy.

A similar thing happened some turns ago. Austria drove out the enemy armies from the Vienna province, but I had inserted a division into the city. Austria had to attack the city on the following turn to recapture it. In this situation Austria did not take the moral hit either. I did not mention this at the time as it was debatable as to the ownership of the province due to the presence of the Austrian armies. However, the province was clearly shown on the map as being controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

In both the above cases Austria did take the moral hit during the preceding turns while large enemy forces were in the province.

Perhaps this is not a bug-it could be debated. However, it just does not seem right-if the province is shown as under enemy control and the citadel is also occupied by enemy forces it seems clear to me that it should suffer the moral hit for not controlling its capital. The minimum 40,000 (IIRC)seems like a reasonable number to insist on for causing the moral loss in an enemy capital, but only if the capital city is not under enemy control already.

[evwalt]

I have been reading the AAR for this game (thanks btw!).  I THINK those glory/NM gain losses are right.
 
VERY strange that Turkey would get the option to accept/reject a limited surrender.  Seems like everyone should get that option or no one.
 
As far as capitol occupation, I have always thought that you should only lose funds if the capitol itself is occupied, not if there is an army in the area.  I would like to see the same for NM loss also.
 
Maybe if the area is occupied by an enemy container of at least 40,000, a country would lose 1/2 the NM it currently does and NO money (ie. still it gains full income).  If the city is occupied (ie. the enemy controls the province) then IRRESPECTIVE of the presence of any enemy containers, a country would lose all income and the full amount of NM loss (which I believe is 100 for France, 250 for everyone else but Russia, which is 75 each for Moscow and St. Petersburg).
 
With the above, you would see the garrison of the capitol become more important, as well as allowing a defender to be slightly more daring as he would not be as tied to the capitol.

[evwalt]

Have discovered another minor problem.  On the Development Screen, when money goes '5 digits' (ie. 10000 and above), the last digit is cut off.  (ie. 10000 would show as 0000).  It looks like a "space" needs to be removed as there is plenty of room for that digit.
 
Note: the money is always calculated correctly and there are plenty of places to see the proper amount, that darn space just always annoyed me.  [:@]  [:D]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: evwalt
I have been reading the AAR for this game (thanks btw!). 

You are quite welcome.

VERY strange that Turkey would get the option to accept/reject a limited surrender.  Seems like everyone should get that option or no one.

You think it is strange, I was shocked when I saw it in the game. Terje and I do a decent job at coordinating efforts-and then that?? What treachery [:D]. Anyway, I actually did receive the offer-as luck would have it I took a screen shot of it and posted it in the aar.

I would call what happened to Terje a "bug". Granted; with the optimum settings this may not have occurred (it didn't to me). However, it should not be possible at all. Limited surrenders are not supposed to be possible when there is an alliance. There is a requirement to surrender to everyone at one time-or at least I thought that is what the rules stated.

[06 Maestro]

Here are some snips of the rules. The rule of surrendering to "all" is in the "surrender" paragraph-not the "Offer Limited Surrender". So, perhaps it is suppose to be legal to accept a limited surrender even if in an alliance. However, the recipient of the offer should have an opportunity to decline. There is still the issue of there being 18 months of enforced peace rather than the 9 in accordance with a limited surrender.

5.4.2 Declaring War, Surrendering, Treaties, and Subsidies
• Surrender –
....A nation that surrenders to one enemy is also forced to surrender to all the allies of that enemy as well.


• Offer Limited Surrender – Similar to a normal surrender, but the nation who is
offered the surrender may choose to decline, and the surrendering nation
does not surrender to all enemies. If the surrender is accepted, the victor
earns only half the normal Victory Points. Only nine turns of enforced
peace follow.

[Marshal Villars]

Discussions are being noted here. Thanks. Keep it up.

[terje439]

Just for laughs I started a new game vs the AI.
Is there any chance to look at how the nations act in vs AI games?
What I would like to see is that the different nations make more "realistic" DoWs on minors.

Turn 1.
Russia DoW Georgia (fine)
Britain DoW Denmark (fine)
Sweden DoW Georgia (????)
Spain DoW Denmark (????)

Turn 2.
Preussia DoW Georgia (????)
Ottoman Empire DoW Netherlands (????)

Turn 3.
Sweden DoW Transylvania (????)

They issue DoW on minors way beyond their sphere of influence, and do not really do anything about it.
Seems odd to me.

Terje

[evwalt]

Maybe the way surrenders are done should be changed.  Leave normal (ie. unconditional) surrenders the same, involving the use of surrender points, full NM and glory losses, etc.  This type of surrender (if voluntary instead of forced by NM loss) is done by right clicking an enemy and offering to surrender.  Forced surrender due to low NM is kept the same.  Note: this type of surrender can also be done through a treaty term, though I have never figured out why someone would do that rather than a "right click."
 
For Limited (what I would consider a conditional surrender), have this done by treaty ONLY.  A country can offer a conditional surrender containing whatever terms are desired.  If accepted by the other party, the normal 1/2 NM and penalty loss are applied to the surrendering party (with gains to the accepting part(ies) of course).  If rejected, nothing happens.  NOTE: There would be NO surrender points involved in this surrender.  I guess you could track somewhere how much each term would cost in surrender points (for determining if the computer would accept surrender) but there would be nothing to prevent a country from taking more or less surrender points than they could have received normally.
 
If doing the above, then limited surrenders COULD be done without surrendering to all allies.  Since the players have the option to reject it though, I don't think that would matter much.

[Anthropoid]

My settings were like Maestros: Be Aggressive, Do Not Trade, Do Not Receive Alliance. But then, I don't think Matto ever offered me the Limited Surrender. Of course I would've never agreed to such a cowardly and underhanded betrayal of my beloved alliance brothers, Franch and Turkly . . .

I like that there is a possibility for an alliance to be "picked apart" by the Limited Surrender thing, and do not agree that Limited Surrender should blanket to the entire alliance the way full surrender does.

I frankly also like that the engine seems to pool the spoils for alliance members who stick it out for the full surrender.

Being in an alliance (particularly in PBEM) should not be fool proof; it should be fragile (see vulnerability to having alliance members taken out of the war by Limited Surrender) and it should also involve some degree of reciprocal division (see spoils being pooled, not calculated separately among all nations), meaning that a relatively latecomer nation can to some extent exploit his allies by joining an alliance after they have taken most of the punishment in a war, but then expecting to receive roughly equal spoils for having helped to win it. That seems entirely in line with how real life international relations worked. IMO, things are working just fine with this part of the game and I don't see any need for any changes.

Having the "Receive Allliance" clicky box function to determine how the AI handles this in PBEM is, I agree, an ambiguous way for the player to indicate that they will accept a Limited Surrender, but I think there should be a way. Also, I think it is better for it to be a setting than for it to be something exchanged diplomatically between humans. Each turn is a month. A Limited Surender where one ally drops out of a war will tend to change things in a war, and I think having a full turn warning where the offer is made then the agreement is made would kill this dimension of it. I think it is better that their be a tick box that a player can tick or un-tick that determines how his nation will respond in the event a Limited Surrender is offered. I agree that "Receive Alliance" is a weird one (I would've thought it was the "Be Aggresive" clicky) but now we know what it is.

So what does "Be Aggressive" do?

[06 Maestro]

There is a situation of depot sharing treaties disappearing-without notice. I have seen this happen in two different games involving 4 nations. If it is a "feature" it needs to be explained. As it is I will try to make a habit of making a new treaty every year to be safe.

Something new has just come up in the 109 game. Units belonging to victorious nations did not redeploy to their respective home territories after a surrender. This involves the same surrender in which the "limited surrender" seemed to be bugged-at least in regards to time of enforced peace. I have not seen forces not auto redeploy before-something special going on here. If someone wanted to see a save that could be arranged.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

There is a situation of depot sharing treaties disappearing-without notice. I have seen this happen in two different games involving 4 nations. If it is a "feature" it needs to be explained. As it is I will try to make a habit of making a new treaty every year to be safe.

Something new has just come up in the 109 game. Units belonging to victorious nations did not redeploy to their respective home territories after a surrender. This involves the same surrender in which the "limited surrender" seemed to be bugged-at least in regards to time of enforced peace. I have not seen forces not auto redeploy before-something special going on here. If someone wanted to see a save that could be arranged.

+1 on the depot sharing treaty. My ally is noticing problems with it as well.

The redeploy isn't a bug. After a surrender you have the option to teleport out (redeploy) or not. We had voted to not use the redeploy in pbem 109 as I wanted some consistency there and not redo turns etc.

[Anthropoid]

So can we supply our forces while they are still inside the defeated enemy?

[evwalt]

Just curious for you guys in 109 (apparently no re-deploy).  Has there been any problem getting back POW's after a surrender?  Where do they appear?
 
In a game I am in (GoingAgain), Turkey surrendered to Russia.  Turkey had a general and a few Russian divisions POW.  Due to an ongoing war in Austria, Russia asked for no re-deployment out of Turkey.
 
The result, all Russians held by the Turks simply disappeared.  I was trying to figure out if this was a 1 time thing or consistant for treatment of POWs when you don't redeploy out of a country after surrender.

[Anthropoid]

It appears that we can supply our forces inside the defeated enemy. Not sure why my depots disappared after the turn where the surrender went through, but they stuck in place this last turn.

Have not noticed anything about PoWs that I can recall for certain. In the first war early in the game, it seems like Russian PoWs appeared back in Russia, and the British and Prussian PoWs same thing.

[06 Maestro]

I just had a situation of Otto PoW's being released in Prussia after Austria's (their capturer) surrendered. I could not order the Turks to do anything-they were stuck. Terje suggested I use the "violate neutrality"-and it worked instantly. I was able to march then right out. That is, right out into the blizzards of central Europe 1000 km from home.

[evwalt]

Most of the time, (outside of the Russian POWs disappearing), return of POWs do see to work fine.

I did observe the strange release Maestro commented on. Prussian POWs were released by France into Spanish controlled Naples! A strange bug that only seems to appear once in awhile.

[evwalt]

I thought that in the interest of having everything possible covered, we should make a master list of upgrades and which work/don't work.
 
First, I think everyone wants to know 1) what effect upgrades have in QC (for offense, defense and morale) and whether specialized upgrades only work in certain conditions (ie. in QC, do the bonuses for desert fighting only count in the desert or anywhere).
 
Upgrades that don't work/have problems:
Massed Artillery 1-3: Each actually increases the strength by +500, not 20%
Krumper System: As there is no limit to labor strorage, this does nothing
Levee in Mass: Strength per population factor doesn't increase by 50%
 
Naval Upgrades that don't work/have problems:
Colonial Regiments 1 & 2: Do nothing
Naval Academies 1 & 2: Do nothing (and you can get 2 before you get 1)
Merchant Marine 1 & 2: I am 99% sure these do nothing since merchants no longer fight in combat normally (and you can get 2 before you get 1)
Letters of Marque 1 & 2: I am 99% sure these do nothing since privateers no longer fight combat normally (and you can get 2 before you get 1)
 
Does anyone else have anything to add to the list?
 
 
 

[Marshal Villars]

Great comments. I am reading them all with interest and making notes of them.