CoG and historical outcomes

[malcolm_mccallum]

Ok, naval invasions need to be an option but somehow the attempt has to be greatly discouraged by the game.

[kerguelen]

Its not so much the docks that are needed, as many of these 'naval invasions' were done on desolate shores rather than in ports (I believe).

I meant the invading country should have a certain amount of docks modelling the necessary advanced kowhow.

[David Fisher]

I always hate those threads where someone kicks them off and is never heard from again... So as the original poster I'll just quickly put in my tuppence worth. From the little I've played, and from what I've heard here, I think I'll be putting CoG to one side for a while, but will definitely be keeping an eye on it to see in what direction it develops. From this and from my experience with HoI2 I've come to the conclusion that I basically want history-like outcomes in my games -- as someone said, not rigidly historical, but plausible.

For some reason this kind of "plausibility" seems a lot easier to achieve in tactical games. We know more or less how weapons systems should function - what the range and penetration of a shell should be - roughly how different formations work should work, and so on. We can tell when situations become "gamey" or unreal and can come up with solutions to fix them. We know eg that in WW2 tanks can't operate with impunity in built-up areas without infantry -- if we see that in a game we immediately know there's a problem and it's fairly trivial to come up with a mechanism to fix it. It's a lot harder at the strategic level and I would imagine harder still at the *grand* strategic level of CoG. We kind of feel in a Napoleonic game Spain and Russia shouldn't really be at each other's throats, but not so easy to come up with non-arbitrary mechanisms to prevent it. In general it seems that movement is just too unconstrained so that the AI kind of sees the whole world as its oyster... and off the Russians go to conquer Spain!

Anyway, good luck with the game, it's interesting and ambitious and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

cheers

David Fisher

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Ok, naval invasions need to be an option but somehow the attempt has to be greatly discouraged by the game.

I agree... they need to be costly or difficult to supply until a port province is captured.

I would suggest that X number of transport ships per Y number of troops must be linked over water to a friendly port in order to maintain a supply depot.

Now my point here about transport ships isn't that transport class ships existed along the lines of 'victory ships' but rather a solution to the current game topography that induces a penalty (must create these ships) that could easily represent and be understood by the player the conditions needed to be met to perform naval invasions.

[malcolm_mccallum]

Maybe the whole naval invasion problem wold be solved when they fix depots.

If you have to forage after landing until you can capture a port that would make them alot more tricky.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: David Fisher

I always hate those threads where someone kicks them off and is never heard from again... So as the original poster I'll just quickly put in my tuppence worth. From the little I've played, and from what I've heard here, I think I'll be putting CoG to one side for a while, but will definitely be keeping an eye on it to see in what direction it develops. From this and from my experience with HoI2 I've come to the conclusion that I basically want history-like outcomes in my games -- as someone said, not rigidly historical, but plausible.

For some reason this kind of "plausibility" seems a lot easier to achieve in tactical games. We know more or less how weapons systems should function - what the range and penetration of a shell should be - roughly how different formations work should work, and so on. We can tell when situations become "gamey" or unreal and can come up with solutions to fix them. We know eg that in WW2 tanks can't operate with impunity in built-up areas without infantry -- if we see that in a game we immediately know there's a problem and it's fairly trivial to come up with a mechanism to fix it. It's a lot harder at the strategic level and I would imagine harder still at the *grand* strategic level of CoG. We kind of feel in a Napoleonic game Spain and Russia shouldn't really be at each other's throats, but not so easy to come up with non-arbitrary mechanisms to prevent it. In general it seems that movement is just too unconstrained so that the AI kind of sees the whole world as its oyster... and off the Russians go to conquer Spain!

Anyway, good luck with the game, it's interesting and ambitious and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

cheers

David Fisher

Good post...

But I do have to say, irrespective of the historical outcomes, the game is quite fun in it's own right and i think you're missing out if you shelve it! [:)]

Btw... I realize what constitutes fun is different for different people but thought I'd atleast 'poke' you into a direction that looks at the game differently so that you might enjoy it!

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Maybe the whole naval invasion problem wold be solved when they fix depots.

If you have to forage after landing until you can capture a port that would make them alot more tricky.

Actually, that's a much better solution than mine! Add in a reinforcement penalty (when they fix the current bug of being adjacent or in a depot containing territory) and I think you have a winner!

[Malagant]

I agree that naval invasion is far too easy right now.

As a possible solution within the game engine we currently have, could we make it so that troops on board ship HAVE to forage, and the forage value for sea hexes is zero, and perhaps increase the lethality of exceeding the forage value in sea zones.

While you would still be able to build depots in sea zone, it's only purpose would be to be part of the chain from the 'homeland' up to the beachhead.

This would make transport by sea and landing extremely costly in troops as they die from all kinds of horrible shipboard diseases and drownings and all those wonderful things.

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I agree that naval invasion is far too easy right now.

As a possible solution within the game engine we currently have, could we make it so that troops on board ship HAVE to forage, and the forage value for sea hexes is zero, and perhaps increase the lethality of exceeding the forage value in sea zones.

While you would still be able to build depots in sea zone, it's only purpose would be to be part of the chain from the 'homeland' up to the beachhead.

This would make transport by sea and landing extremely costly in troops as they die from all kinds of horrible shipboard diseases and drownings and all those wonderful things.

You say that the problem is naval invasion, and then propose a solution that harms naval transport. I think naval transport is hard enough already: providing supply for units being transported requires complete control of the seas, and without it the troops take amazing losses (much worse than foraging in a Russian winter!).

Naval invasion is already "difficult" - in another thread, players say that as France they wouldn't launch an invasion of Britain even if they controlled the seas because there is nowhere to retreat to if you lose the land battle, and troops captured in Britain are probably out for the rest of the game.

If I was to make one tweak it might be to say that divisions should have to make an extra forage check in the turn of navally invading (ie. if being supplied you pay for supply AND they take forage losses; if not being supplied they take 2 lots of forage losses). This would reflect the losses from disembarking.

IMHO what is too easy now is actually depot supply. Sea supply should only "link" to a depot on land at a port area when you control the port, so you should be able to be fed from the sea zone until you take the port, and only then build a depot there to extend further inland. That creates an incentive to take the port province as a beachhead...

[Malagant]

You are correct, Ralegh, my idea would have the unintended effect of hurting all naval transport. Not what I'd want.

I like your idea of somehow increasing forage casualties on the turn of disembarkation.

I also very much agree with your idea of depots at sea. Two thumbs up!! [&o]

[Malagant]

ORIGINAL: 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?

A game I haven't seen mentioned here, probably because it was too buggy to be playable and the game's publisher refused to support any patches, was called, if I remember correctly, Wargamer: Napoleon 1813

As the name implies, it focused on the time after the French retreat from Russia, the campaign that culminated in the battle at Leipzig, and the resulting French defensive actions back to France.

It had many of the same features CoG does: tactical battles based on strategic movement; ability to assign leaders and set up OOB the way you like; industry back home pumping out new units; leaders that had drastic effect on a units ability to move and fight. It focused more on the military side of things, and not at all on the economical and political. It was 'real time', though the pace was easily adjusted, and orders could be given while paused. There was more of a focus on operational movement (roads could only hold so many troops at a time, maneuvering with speed required dividing forces to use different roads), and on Leader's strengths and weaknesses (some leaders for very slow to get moving after having received orders!).

I really enjoyed that game, but it's bugs made it impossible to complete a campaign. Other than Imperial Glory (which didn't do anything for me), it's the only comparable game to CoG that I can think of.

[Gresbeck]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I agree that naval invasion is far too easy right now.

As a possible solution within the game engine we currently have, could we make it so that troops on board ship HAVE to forage, and the forage value for sea hexes is zero, and perhaps increase the lethality of exceeding the forage value in sea zones.

While you would still be able to build depots in sea zone, it's only purpose would be to be part of the chain from the 'homeland' up to the beachhead.

This would make transport by sea and landing extremely costly in troops as they die from all kinds of horrible shipboard diseases and drownings and all those wonderful things.

You say that the problem is naval invasion, and then propose a solution that harms naval transport. I think naval transport is hard enough already: providing supply for units being transported requires complete control of the seas, and without it the troops take amazing losses (much worse than foraging in a Russian winter!).

Naval invasion is already "difficult" - in another thread, players say that as France they wouldn't launch an invasion of Britain even if they controlled the seas because there is nowhere to retreat to if you lose the land battle, and troops captured in Britain are probably out for the rest of the game.

If I was to make one tweak it might be to say that divisions should have to make an extra forage check in the turn of navally invading (ie. if being supplied you pay for supply AND they take forage losses; if not being supplied they take 2 lots of forage losses). This would reflect the losses from disembarking.

IMHO what is too easy now is actually depot supply. Sea supply should only "link" to a depot on land at a port area when you control the port, so you should be able to be fed from the sea zone until you take the port, and only then build a depot there to extend further inland. That creates an incentive to take the port province as a beachhead...

Very interesting points, but there’s something I miss.
Could someone explain what do supply depots in open sea areas represent? Are they invisible supply vessels? If so, is it realistic to imagine (in 19th century) a way to supply troops in open sea? Wouldn’t it be more realistic to imagine a supply chain overseas could supply only troops located in friendly / allied / conquered provinces with a port? Is it so absurd to think that a unit disembarking should be treated as an unsupplied unit, or at least as a strongly undersupplied unit? What’s wrong with a strong penalization for disembarking units, even if it would be comparable with the penalty for foraging in Russian winter? We’re talking about units loaded on vessels that have been travelling 30 days. Could troops embark more food than they could stock in Russian winter? What’s wrong with the total destruction of units that lose a battle after disembarking? That’s exactly what would happen in real life.

[Ralegh]

Very interesting points, but there’s something I miss.
Could someone explain what do supply depots in open sea areas represent? Are they invisible supply vessels? If so, is it realistic to imagine (in 19th century) a way to supply troops in open sea? Wouldn’t it be more realistic to imagine a supply chain overseas could supply only troops located in friendly / allied / conquered provinces with a port? Is it so absurd to think that a unit disembarking should be treated as an unsupplied unit, or at least as a strongly undersupplied unit? What’s wrong with a strong penalization for disembarking units, even if it would be comparable with the penalty for foraging in Russian winter? We’re talking about units loaded on vessels that have been travelling 30 days. Could troops embark more food than they could stock in Russian winter? What’s wrong with the total destruction of units that lose a battle after disembarking? That’s exactly what would happen in real life.

I suppose for maximum realism, we should deal with naval supply as an object that gets loaded on the ships, and can only be restocked by going into an allied port. This is actually VERY attractive to me. However it would be a very major change to game dynamics in COG, where the actual supply is an intangible good, and all that is tangible are the supply depots. So I suppose this is an abstraction to keep the game simple. (ha!) Note that we also abstract supply by "supplying" the unit at the end of the turn - it would be more realistic to have do supply week by week for the month, or something. In fact, I'd like to able to choose to provide better rations to units as a way to improve their morale, or economise by making them eat beans...

Anyway, naval supply in COG is abstracting (a) food loaded in the hold before embarkation (b) resupply vessels bringing additional food etc. If we accept that the cost of supply depots is due to the additional cost of food that doesn't spoil and those resupply scooners, then it models acceptably - the more sea areas you want to travel, the more expensive it is.

I agree that a really mean forage role on disembarking seems appropriate: I suggested it, after all.

I disagree with your suggestion that disembarking troops who lose a battle should be completely destroyed. The game's current mechanics of them surrendering is much more in keeping with the gentlemanly conduct sometimes shown during the period.