CoG and historical outcomes

[David Fisher]

hi,

I downloaded CoG recently and have had a quick go at playing -- nothing serious, just trying things out. One of the messages that popped up caught my eye -- something about "Russians fighting Tunisians in English Channel." It got me wondering about the historicity of CoG. What kind of outcomes have players had that seem to mirror the history of those times? What have been some of the "crazier" outcomes? (like Russians gaining control of the English Channel from the Tunisians...)

Just to clarify: I'm talking more about historical "flavour" than exactly reproducing what happened. History within broad parameters.

My other query has to do with POWs. This is the first game of its type I've come across that "models" this. Kind of took me by surprise. Just seemed -- odd. I'm no expert on the period, but I had never thought of POWs as contributors to their captors' national economy. Didn't French prisoners at the Nore spend their time whittling whalebone or something ("scrimshaw")? Can anyone enlighten me here? Is there a historical basis for this, or is it included solely for gameplay reasons?

cheers

David Fisher

[ezjax]

POW’s,[:@]
You will find they are more of a liability then an asset. Stick them all behind your lines in a Province with a low forage rate and let them die off works best for me. They are to easily liberated by drunken Cossacks roaming your Provinces or by Defeated Army’s that jump over you and get behind you after you defeat them in battle.
I believe for game play they should just be a statistic you see after you win a battle, or a hidden asset that you can use until that Nation surrenders. Not some 5th element Unit waiting to be liberated and rearmed by Cossacks.

[ericbabe]

Having a parole-system rule was on the list of features I wanted to implement, as POW's were often paroled in the period. It wouldn't be a simple thing to do though -- have to find some way to take them off the map till the war is over.

For the time being, I'll consider some ways of weakening them when they are liberated -- dropping their morale, reducing their strength, shunting them home to the capital (if it's not occupied), etc.

On the historicity, there's a whole fistful of things we could do to try to force the game to be more historical (rules like: Turkish privateers can't leave the Mediterranean, and similar). If there's enough demand for something like this we might offer it in a sequel or expansion, but it'd be a lot of work to do just for a patch, and I'm not sure that the demand for this feature would quite justify the work necessary to implement it, or rather, I think we might better spend our time on other features. Though I could be quite wrong in this evaluation, and I welcome any input you all might have on this matter. I haven't got a good sense yet of whether having Tunisian pirates in the English Channel really ruins the game for people, or no.

By way of example, we can't just have the rule "Turkish privateers can't leave the Mediterreanean", this would also require some user interface when human players tried to move their Turkish privateers into the Atlantic. It would also require informing the AI of every new rule as well.


Eric

[ahauschild]

The game gives you a flavor of Nap times, but does not in many ways promote a "Historical" outcome. Nations to often commit to horrible attrition wars across the map with no hope of making any progress, Nations will often be complete decimated, just having surrendered to somebody and the next turn declare war on another nation with no hope of winning.

The austrians are famous for that in my campaigns, I clobber them, decimate their armys and once they surrender they will without any armys ready declare war on the french that have a billion troops at the ready. 2 turns later they surrender to the french, only to declare now war on the russians that have 2 billion troops just waiting to party in Austria, again, they surrender to them only to repeat this again and again.

Navys stray way out of their logical areas, and such. The AI for the stra part of the game gives you initialy a good fealing, but once you played a few games you will spot the need for refinement in it. I am sure though they will refine it as it goes on, as it does have the makings of a classic.

[Ralegh]

The main reason the game doesn't more closely mimic historical outcomes is that the AI in COG is reasonably intelligent and doesn't do amazingly stupid things the way the generals (and kings) of the time did.

COG does have a system of Political Goals that direct the territorial ambitions of the countries along historical lines. Note that sometimes countries will achieve things that historically they weren't able to do...

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

The main reason the game doesn't more closely mimic historical outcomes is that the AI in COG is reasonably intelligent and doesn't do amazingly stupid things the way the generals (and kings) of the time did.

COG does have a system of Political Goals that direct the territorial ambitions of the countries along historical lines. Note that sometimes countries will achieve things that historically they weren't able to do...

AI is compared to Economics, which sums up what "rational" persons would opt for (or out of) in making decisions, though sometimes I came across very weird AI-made arrangements, like keeping "only" a stack of leaders idle in Paris staring at my troops threating their capital.

[Mr. Z]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

The main reason the game doesn't more closely mimic historical outcomes is that the AI in COG is reasonably intelligent and doesn't do amazingly stupid things the way the generals (and kings) of the time did.

Haha! That's funny [:D]

COG does have a system of Political Goals that direct the territorial ambitions of the countries along historical lines.

Which we might like to revise somewhat...

[Ralegh]

Hah! Wait until you see my latest great abuse of this system! Then you will really want to modify these!

[malcolm_mccallum]

The main reason the game doesn't more closely mimic historical outcomes is that the AI in COG is reasonably intelligent and doesn't do amazingly stupid things the way the generals (and kings) of the time did.

Buh? So Napoleon, Tallyrand, Metternich, Kutusov, Pitt, Charles, Suvarov, Blucher, and Wellington were all just stupid people who didn't understand the game mechanics of their world better than you? That, for you, is a more reasonable explanation for the wildly ahistorical results than suggesting that the underlying game mechanics are simply making for a very poor sim?

England should have invaded BRest in 1805 and marched on Paris like the game keeps having them do? A Ballsy Britain could have pulled it off?

Austria's best tactic would have been to crowd 150, 000 men into the Tyrol, throw them at Switzerland in in a lightning move drive on Paris while ignoring Napoleon's forces on the Danube?

Spain and Russia are natural enemies with much to gain from one another and smart leaders of those countries would have bent all their political and economic will to finding ways to conquer one another?

[ericbabe]

you? That, for you, is a more reasonable explanation for the wildly ahistorical results than suggesting that the underlying game mechanics are simply making for a very poor sim?

What are some very good campaign level historical sims on the market today?

[malcolm_mccallum]

There aren't alot of them available currently.

Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.
Victoria and Europa Universalis II as well, IMO, though they are more strategy resource games than campaign simulators.

Empire in Arms is the next Great White Hope.

[Erik Rutins]

In my experience, the results in CoG are not "wildly ahistorical", any more so than Napoleon ending up in Egypt as happened historically. There are definitely a few areas where things can be tightened up but the results overall seem to work out well and within historically reasonable outcomes in the vast majority of my games.

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum
Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.

Have you played this? It's a completely different scale than the other games, including CoG. It's an operational simulation rather than a strategic game.

Victoria and Europa Universalis II as well, IMO, though they are more strategy resource games than campaign simulators.Empire in Arms is the next Great White Hope.

There's really nothing out there that's quite like CoG. When you say that you've seen outcomes that are very ahistorical in your opinion, what are some examples from your experience?

Regards,

- Erik

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

There aren't alot of them available currently.

Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.
Victoria and Europa Universalis II as well, IMO, though they are more strategy resource games than campaign simulators.

Empire in Arms is the next Great White Hope.

All of these games can produce wildly a-historic outcomes and when it comes to victoria and EU2 that is the norm. Unless you consider my polish colonization of the new world to be historic from EU2... [8|]

[malcolm_mccallum]

My standard replies to the ahistorical results in CoG. I've played only as France in the 1805 scenario and get frustrated at how the same ahistorical results keep happening:

-Austria hunkering down in the Tyrol with 150, 000 men, laying out a supply line to Paris, blitzing through Switzerland and then sprinting up the underbelly of France despite Napoleon being astride their communication line.

-Britain launching a corps into Brest or Normandy, brushing aside any French corps placed to defend against them, and then marching on Paris without any concern for securing a port. I've seen them throw two such corps into France in the space of a year. Its like the designers thought the British historically had a competent land army at this time.

-Austrian armies running circles around France, keeping always one step ahead of French forces trying to chase them down, while Vienna burned.

-The entire army of Italy of 1805 moved into Switzerland in anticipation of an Austrian attack and it being unable to even slow them down. Do these designers have no concept of what mountain warfare consisted of at this time? That you really would have an entire army having to climb mountains or edge along dangerous ledges?

-Russia asking for access rights through France so that it can attack Spain?

-Spain taking Gibralter from the British consistently within the first few months of the war.

EDIT:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum
Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.

Have you played this? It's a completely different scale than the other games, including CoG. It's an operational simulation rather than a strategic game.

The question was "What are some very good campaign level historical sims on the market today?" and I replied in the context of horse and Musket games of this type. I am not saying that Campaigns on the Danube is of the same scope as CoG.

[malcolm_mccallum]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

There aren't alot of them available currently.

Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.
Victoria and Europa Universalis II as well, IMO, though they are more strategy resource games than campaign simulators.

Empire in Arms is the next Great White Hope.

All of these games can produce wildly a-historic outcomes and when it comes to victoria and EU2 that is the norm. Unless you consider my polish colonization of the new world to be historic from EU2... [8|]

That's broken RI, not AI. Yes players can generate ahistorical results in these games and that's part of the fun. AI though should be fairly normalized and its pretty good in those games for that. and yes, certainly there are ahistorical results coming out of them which I wouldn't applaud.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

There aren't alot of them available currently.

Campaigns on the Danube springs to mind.
Victoria and Europa Universalis II as well, IMO, though they are more strategy resource games than campaign simulators.

Empire in Arms is the next Great White Hope.

All of these games can produce wildly a-historic outcomes and when it comes to victoria and EU2 that is the norm. Unless you consider my polish colonization of the new world to be historic from EU2... [8|]

That's broken RI, not AI. Yes players can generate ahistorical results in these games and that's part of the fun. AI though should be fairly normalized and its pretty good in those games for that. and yes, certainly there are ahistorical results coming out of them which I wouldn't applaud.

I've seen the AI all over the map as well... Unless you consider that russian set of colonies in new york to be pretty standard historically... [X(]

[ericbabe]

I didn't mean to sound as though I was issuing a sort of challenge vis-a-vis other campaign level games... I was just genuinely curious as what a good benchmark might be. I haven't played EU2 a lot, but from what I've seen of it I was under the impression that COG compares fairly well in this area. I was really just wondering if there was some sort of "gold standard" of history-simulators to which people are comparing COG (and other games, for that matter).

Anyway, thank you for the constructive criticism. If you have any concrete suggestions for improving the AI, I'd like to hear about those too.

[Malagant]

If I wanted a recreation of history, I'd read a book. This is not what I play games of this type for.

Yes, 'historically' Britain did not have much of a land army at the time...but who's to say they could not have concentrated more heavily on the development of an army that was able to invade the mainland?

It's a GAME. Gamey things happen. (Hence the name.) It's for fun and entertainment, not to recreate history perfectly everytime it's played.

Can the big picture strategic results that historically occurred be recreated in this game? Yes, absolutely! Are you constrained or confined or forced in to those same strategic results? No, not at all! And that's the whole point, imo.

[Uncle_Joe]

-Britain launching a corps into Brest or Normandy, brushing aside any French corps placed to defend against them, and then marching on Paris without any concern for securing a port. I've seen them throw two such corps into France in the space of a year. Its like the designers thought the British historically had a competent land army at this time.

Yes, the lack of 'lines of communications' has been noted before. It is something I'm hoping for in a future update. From my readings, maintaining a secure line of communication was foremost in the thoughts of many of the combatants. In fact even as late as Waterloo, Wellington maneuvered AWAY from his Prussian allies just to make sure his LOC wasnt interupted. Archduke Charles continually fretted about his LOCs to ensure that he could always preserve the army.

What my proposal has been is to require not only a line of supply, but a line of communication. If no LOC exists, then the army should take a pretty big (and growing) morale hit and eventually surrender or disband. This would prevent a lot of the silly adventurism going on (like the constant Russian forays into Spain and the British attacks with abandon on the French).

As to some of your other gripes, many of them have been noted before, and in fact some had already been changed in previous (pre-release) versions. Its possible that movement through mountainous terrain needs to be restricted yet again. Perhaps supply can be harder to trace through poor terrain or something?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

If I wanted a recreation of history, I'd read a book. This is not what I play games of this type for.

Yes, 'historically' Britain did not have much of a land army at the time...but who's to say they could not have concentrated more heavily on the development of an army that was able to invade the mainland?

It's a GAME. Gamey things happen. (Hence the name.) It's for fun and entertainment, not to recreate history perfectly everytime it's played.

Can the big picture strategic results that historically occurred be recreated in this game? Yes, absolutely! Are you constrained or confined or forced in to those same strategic results? No, not at all! And that's the whole point, imo.

I think his argument isn't that he wants history recreated exactly but rather what could be historically plausible.