Naval Leader Counters

[Naomi]

I read a thread (Elite Cavalry) about a plan to enrich the list of land units and I appreciate the designers' ongoing effort to add to variety. With more and more efforts going into improving the attractiveness of the earth-bound battles, naval warfare seems never to catch any further attention. I am not certain if sea struggles really were no more than a side show while continental Europe was busy coping with Nappy's iron fist. Just wondering if it's probable to let significant leaders like Nelson come on the stage as individual counters.

[Ralegh]

I am very keen to have a naval version of detailed combat. There is a lot of interest in the community between Hornblower, Bolitho, Nelson in the naval warfare of the period, and a detailed combat engine would be reusable for the war of the Americas etc etc. Then a full set of naval leader counters could make sense.

But even in the short term, naval leaders and the ability to rally ships in quick combat would make some sense. The programmers intended this feature, but it didn't make release, so I suppose it might make it in a patch. (There is an unimplemented "Naval" attribute for leaders, for example.)

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Naomi

I read a thread (Elite Cavalry) about a plan to enrich the list of land units...

I don't remember seeing the details of that but I sure do hope they don't turn this into "Sim Army Builder". There are already PLENTY of unit types in my mind. I almost wish they just converted from one to antoher as they gained experience and morale instead of making me try to balance whether I need light cavalry, heavy cavalry, irregular cavalry, lancer cavalry, cassack cavalry, or just plain ole normal cavalry for new corp I am building. Enough already. I'm playing a grand strategy game here. 3 different types of cavalry would have been plenty for me.

[pfhokie]

Please improve the naval combat. That's one of the things that's holding me up on buying the game right now. I really would like to have something that has some tactical naval simulation. And naval leaders would be a plus.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: pfhokie

Please improve the naval combat. That's one of the things that's holding me up on buying the game right now. I really would like to have something that has some tactical naval simulation. And naval leaders would be a plus.

I suspect this is much more likely to be in a sequel than in a patch to this game. Developing an entire framework for performing detailed combat with Navies would be a lot of work.

[siRkid]

I would very much like to have detailed naval combat added to the game.[&o]

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: Naomi

I read a thread (Elite Cavalry) about a plan to enrich the list of land units...

I don't remember seeing the details of that but I sure do hope they don't turn this into "Sim Army Builder". There are already PLENTY of unit types in my mind. I almost wish they just converted from one to antoher as they gained experience and morale instead of making me try to balance whether I need light cavalry, heavy cavalry, irregular cavalry, lancer cavalry, cassack cavalry, or just plain ole normal cavalry for new corp I am building. Enough already. I'm playing a grand strategy game here. 3 different types of cavalry would have been plenty for me.

In fact, I seldom built additional divisions, let alone sophisticated ones. [:'(]

[EarlPembroke]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: Naomi

I read a thread (Elite Cavalry) about a plan to enrich the list of land units...

I don't remember seeing the details of that but I sure do hope they don't turn this into "Sim Army Builder". There are already PLENTY of unit types in my mind. I almost wish they just converted from one to antoher as they gained experience and morale instead of making me try to balance whether I need light cavalry, heavy cavalry, irregular cavalry, lancer cavalry, cassack cavalry, or just plain ole normal cavalry for new corp I am building. Enough already. I'm playing a grand strategy game here. 3 different types of cavalry would have been plenty for me.

Agreed. Would rather have work done on the economic model and a full 1792-1820 scenario developed first.[;)]

[Naomi]

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke


Agreed. Would rather have work done on the economic model and a full 1792-1820 scenario developed first.[;)]

Heh, hope the game won't then be re-named CoG - Economicfare in the Age of Napoleon. :p

[jchastain]

We all seem to have different preferences and wishes. I think it is a testiment to what a great job this game does of incorporating so many different facets of events. But alas, the downside is that the only thing I know to be absolutely, positively, 100% definite about the first patch is that someone somewhere will complain. [;)]

[TheRockSal]

As long as I can alt-tab regularly at work..shhhhhhhh....I'll not be complaining at all! [;)]

[ericbabe]

As Ralegh mentioned, we started working on naval leaders and then dropped them when we realized it was a lot of work for a small amount of abstract playability.

I would love to do detailed naval battles, but this would probably be something for COG2 or an expansion pack or something.

[GreenDestiny]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I would love to do detailed naval battles, but this would probably be something for COG2 or an expansion pack or something.

I would like to see some battles scenarios like waterloo and others in an expansion pack using the detail battle system. [:)]

[GreenDestiny]

A lot of people say that the battles last for 3 or more hours... Right !!! So why not make battles that people can finish in one night as a game. I think it would be a great add on. Something like what RTW has when you don't want to fight a full campaign.

And if WCS needs help with the battles.... then I'll help them out.

[ericbabe]

Our idea for an expansion pack mostly involves expanding the detailed combat along these lines, providing historical maps, orders of battle for historical battles, and an editor so people can make their own maps/orders of battle.

[FirstPappy]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Our idea for an expansion pack mostly involves expanding the detailed combat along these lines, providing historical maps, orders of battle for historical battles, and an editor so people can make their own maps/orders of battle.

Hope that puppy's ready by this Christmas!

[pfhokie]

ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I would love to do detailed naval battles, but this would probably be something for COG2 or an expansion pack or something.

I would like to see some battles scenarios like waterloo and others in an expansion pack using the detail battle system. [:)]

I'll probably purchase the game after the first patch. I'm waiting because I have limited time for gaming and I would rather wait for a more stability. How much confidence do you have in the continuation of this game to a version 2? I know it must be pretty early yet to answer that question. I really like what I see and hear.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Our idea for an expansion pack mostly involves expanding the detailed combat along these lines, providing historical maps, orders of battle for historical battles, and an editor so people can make their own maps/orders of battle.

Add in detailed naval combat and I think you'd have a winner...

[ericbabe]

I'll probably purchase the game after the first patch. I'm waiting because I have limited time for gaming and I would rather wait for a more stability. How much confidence do you have in the continuation of this game to a version 2? I know it must be pretty early yet to answer that question. I really like what I see and hear.

It is pretty early for deciding that! We've other sequels in the pipes right now (different wars, same basic engine). I guess it will ultimately depend upon how well the game and the sequels are received...on how strong the demand for such a thing might be.

[pfhokie]

It looks like they have been well received. There is lots of buzz in the wargaming boards. Then again, that's the hardcore crowd. I'm not sure how this would translate into a mass market. This game is more of a hobby than an entertainment. I say that as a good thing because I think hobbies are more fun. I do like the idea of being able to talk to representatives of the development company and express ideas and then see those ideas implemented (I know that you can only do so much but you are taking action on some much needed changes already). I think that is a huge plus and one that you don't see with other companies.