Guess where the French went?

[pricemc1]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I can make the change that occupied cities cannot act as depot sources; that wouldn't be very hard. I'm worried that from a game balance perspective there wouldn't be nearly as much reward for occupying any city other than the capital, so maybe I'll increase victory points awarded, or some such.

One thing I think you should consider is making these kind of changes as optional rules. Alot of the threads on the forums really seem to deal with people who desire realism versus people who desire game play. My personal feeling is that you can address both types of issues by creating a more comprehensive set of "options" for the game so that players can turn and off what they feel makes the game better or worse. This would make the game more flexible, fit with everyone's desires, and cater to the simple and more complex game players as well.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

For what it's worth, our design rubric is to give primacy to game playability over accuracy of the simulation. It's quite simply a matter of self-preservation on my part: Crown of Glory required a tremendous amount of work in production, and in the development of it I incurred quite a bit of personal debt. There is a very limited market for products that emphasize simulation over game-play, and not being independently wealthy, I simply can't afford to make games that lose large sums of money. We try to make the game as historical as possible, but we have to try to attract more mainstream players -- as it is, I've had many complaints, some even on these boards, that the current supply and upkeep rules are too limiting!

I'm glad you finally spelled this out because this should quiet some of the threads where people rail for realism. My personal desire is for playability but as I stated above making all additional rules as options just makes it that much easier to address everyone's likes and dislikes.

Mike

[ptan54]

I would support the move that an occupied province (owned by enemy, occupied by you) should NOT be able to serve as a supply SOURCE.

This would have no impact on enclaves such as Gibraltar, as it is British OWNED. So long as Britain owns and maintains control over Gilbraltar, it can act as a supply source.

This change would get rid of "gamey" exploits such as maintaining weak forces along the LOS but occupying the province adjacent to an enemy capital, in the hope that all the supplies for the army can flow from that occupied province.

I should point out that at Wagram, Napoleon ordered his supply ministers to get 600,000 bottles of wine and thousands of pounds of flour - from FRANCE, not from Austria. Such a gargantuan amount of materiel could not be extracted from Austria with ease - either because the Austrians destroyed them, or if they didn't, it would take forever to sort things out in a newly conquered city. It only makes sense that there were previously sorted military supplies ready to ship once the order is given.

[nachinus]

Well, almost all wargames, even the simplest ones have rules dealing with lines of supply, and sometimes they are really restrictive, as they should be. Usually things as simple as the classical: 'if a unit can't trace a continuous line of owned or occupied provinces toward his lines, it is considered out of supply'. Simple, clear and restrictive rules like these haven't prevented very popular grand strategy titles like WaW or HoI to achieve commercial success.

[Gresbeck]

First of all, thanks to Eric for his kind response (I find very interesting to debate with developers).

Now, just a few thoughts.

Well, almost all wargames, even the simplest ones have rules dealing with lines of supply, and sometimes they are really restrictive, as they should be. Usually things as simple as the classical: 'if a unit can't trace a continuous line of owned or occupied provinces toward his lines, it is considered out of supply'. Simple, clear and restrictive rules like these haven't prevented very popular grand strategy titles like WaW or HoI to achieve commercial success

But almost no wargame has rules dealing with foraging, and that makes things more complicated. If we assume that line of supply should simulate rifles and bullets, also foraging units should be sometimes considered out of supply, and on the other hand the level of supply shouldn't depend only on the supply line, but also on the fact that a unit has engaged in combat.

Usually things as simple as the classical: 'if a unit can't trace a continuous line of owned or occupied provinces toward his lines, it is considered out of supply'.

But some posters have argued that during the Napoleonic period lines of supply where very thin and difficult to be cut (I remembere an old post by Ralegh about the inability to defend borders). A rule allowing a single unit (located in a very large province) to cut a line of supply would be probably too restrictive, and would probably never allow realistic results such as Napoleon conquering Moscow.

This would have no impact on enclaves such as Gibraltar, as it is British OWNED. So long as Britain owns and maintains control over Gilbraltar, it can act as a supply source.

I know, but I don't understand why an owned province should be considered always supplied, and a conquered province not (btw, the actual game system allows peace treaties where some provinces are ceded and become enclaves, probably such a rule should be rediscussed, anyway how would you consider ceded provinces that become enclaves? always supplied?).

That's why I agree with all posters saying the actual game system seems to be unrealistic; I prefer realistic rules; but I've the impression we are not suggesting improvements; and that probably we are proposing to develop a completely different game.

[nachinus]

Well, I don't think that we are suggesting to develop a different game, simply a modification of current rules.

What I would do is to leave as it is now (so a conquered enemy city acts as a supply source) BUT adding some limitations to it, whether putting a maximum army size that a enemy province can supply or putting a time limit to it, so for example if a occupied enemy city is cut from the rest of your territory, it can supply units from there for 2-5 turns, this duration depending on the province developments or the foraging limit.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Eric,
The game has been acclaimed *also* because it was a credible simulation of Napoleonic Europe. Myself I gave it a good rating in PC4War... Yet those silly situation with Turkish Scandinavia or Russian N Africa really ruins the game for me, and other "elite" players !
What "playability" and market shares would be lost by fixing that ? The gamers wanting "simple" and more colourful games have already bought IG (Cossacks II) ... Don't miss your audience, the game is a Matrix game, not EA's ..[8|]

Oh, I don't think there's anything unmarketable about tweaking the game to make a Russian NAfrica more difficult to obtain; I was refering more to the proliferation of rules for LOC and supply. I'm getting a lot of feedback to the effect that the current supply rules are already too complicated and too limiting to players' imperial ambitions.

Never-the-less, many of the events that did happen in the Napoleonic era -- the French invasion of Egypt, for instance -- are just the sort of things that players seem to want to disallow as ahistorical using LOC rules and similar.

As I mentioned in the previous post, if we can only sell to the hard-core gamers on the Matrix forums, then we will lose money with each project: I wish it weren't so. I'd love to be able to ignore the reviews in CGW and CGM, but unfortunately I can't afford to do it.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: nachinus

Well, almost all wargames, even the simplest ones have rules dealing with lines of supply, and sometimes they are really restrictive, as they should be. Usually things as simple as the classical: 'if a unit can't trace a continuous line of owned or occupied provinces toward his lines, it is considered out of supply'. Simple, clear and restrictive rules like these haven't prevented very popular grand strategy titles like WaW or HoI to achieve commercial success.

I'd dare say we have an even more restrictive rule, as one not only has to keep LOS open, but also has to predict which LOS will be open and to build a depot chain along that line (or to spend extra money and build superfluous depot routes). In bad weather in winter in a low forage area, divisions that are out-of-supply can lose thousands of men each in a given month, easily more than is lost by a single rout in battle. I think we can eliminate the rule that allows depots to be built in occupied cities to address the current issue without the need to add more draconian LOS rules to the game.

The sort of rules that I don't want to implement simply for the sake of playability are rules that destroy units instantly once they become out-of-supply. My sense is that some players would be pleased if all their units were destroyed if they become out-of-supply in Russia, but that many more players would find that too frustrating.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: pricemc1
One thing I think you should consider is making these kind of changes as optional rules. Alot of the threads on the forums really seem to deal with people who desire realism versus people who desire game play. My personal feeling is that you can address both types of issues by creating a more comprehensive set of "options" for the game so that players can turn and off what they feel makes the game better or worse. This would make the game more flexible, fit with everyone's desires, and cater to the simple and more complex game players as well.

This is one approach we are considering for the sequels. It's hard to do it this way, because -- in my opinion -- a well designed game is a well-integrated game, but in a well-integrated game it's difficult simply to turn off sets of rules (because the rules that are left should be dependent on them.) Never-the-less, this is one approach we are considering.

I'm glad you finally spelled this out because this should quiet some of the threads where people rail for realism. My personal desire is for playability but as I stated above making all additional rules as options just makes it that much easier to address everyone's likes and dislikes.

I'm keen to make the game realistic in-as-much as that serves to make the game more immersive and thus more enjoyable, but I'm looking for ways to do so that don't make the game more complicated.

[Uncle_Joe]

Never-the-less, many of the events that did happen in the Napoleonic era -- the French invasion of Egypt, for instance -- are just the sort of things that players seem to want to disallow as ahistorical using LOC rules and similar.

I think you are over-generalizing here a bit (is that a word?). There is such a thing as scale going on here. I dont have a reference in front of me, but how many men did Nappy take into Egypt? I believe it was under 50k.

The things that occur in the game allow for hundreds of thousands of troops to base far from home. That is where it start to really strain believability. Part of the problem is that Depots are just a channel for your entire econ. If you have the money/food in existance to supply your troops, they can literally be anywhere and in supply. Even in the most barren wasteland, 100s of miles from home, they are well supplied in good morale. Napoleon in Egypt was cut off quite easily and the army was left to die. When France invaded Russia, they lost hundreds of thousands to attrition for little gain. Those are hardly ringing endorsements of the capabilities of armies to sustain themselves far from home!

In fact, I think they point out why it was rarely done in that era...once you are going so far, the supply needed to maintain the supply line was often so much that you weren't really getting much forward to the troops. Draft animals need food and water. The amounts carried by them would often be consumed just getting out there, leaving little to distribute.

A suggestion I have mentioned before would be to have Depots add 50k to the Forage Value or double it (whichever is greater). That would mean that in desolate areas (or mountainous), it doesnt matter how much money/food you have laying around, you cant GET it to the troops.

That said, I understand your point about keeping the game with 'mass appeal'. I think its possible to please most vantage points though, either through options or by making clear, easy to discern limitations based on reality. Once the rules become convoluted, you start losing the 'lite' crowd, but just because a limitation to reality exists, it doesnt necessarily mean the game is more complex or difficult to play.

[Gresbeck]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

A suggestion I have mentioned before would be to have Depots add 50k to the Forage Value or double it (whichever is greater). That would mean that in desolate areas (or mountainous), it doesnt matter how much money/food you have laying around, you cant GET it to the troops.

Agreed. It seems a good solution, rather simple and easily implementable.[&o]

Tonight I had a dream [:)]
A dream where each province in enemy territory was rated not only for a forage value, but also for a supply value. The supply value depended on presence of supply depot chains, presence of enemy / friendly troops along the supply chain, distance from home provinces. The supply value of provinces more distant from home country could never be higher than the value of closer provinces (exc.: conquered provinces should have a supply bonus). Every unit in enemy territory should pass a "supply check" based (inter alia) on the number of battles fought during the turn. Casualties depending from unseccessful supply check could be sent (at least in part) back to the draft pool (assuming they are troops feeded but no supplied with ammo).

I admit such a solution wouldn't probably be implementable in the actual engine. Consider it a wish list for a sequel.

BTW: I'm not sure a complicated rule about supply would make the game too difficult to play. Realistic rules are difficult to implement, but can be easily mastered if they make the game strategies more intuitive.

[Azog]

I think the movie "Lord of the Rings" had a big flaw: Tom Bombadil didnt appear. [;)]
I had kind of 40% of my troops killed in Moskau in winter. I think the suply rules are generally speaking okay. That nations maybe have too much money, to much food or the AI doesnt cut the suply lines or whatever, that could be another question. How was suply in the early 1800s? I dont know, but I can more or less imagine. Anyway, the Roman Impire, 2000 year ago, did manage quite well, also the mongolians with Gengis Kahn. They faced different problems and used different strategies. I think it is to easy to say "you cannot have 100ks in Egypt". IMHO lets improve the AI, first things first.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck
Agreed. It seems a good solution, rather simple and easily implementable.[&o]

It would be more difficult to change the supply rules so drastically at this time.

And I actually have received many more complaints from players who think supply is too limiting right now than from players who think supply is too generous. The ratio is about 3-1. There seem to be many more players who want to be able to conquer-all-Europe-with-their-enormous-army than there are players who want a more realistically limited army, and who are happy with more limited accomplishments, like say, conquering all of Austria in 15 years. The large cost of supplying armies, the ease with which depot chains can be cut in enemy territories, and the enormous losses that big stacks of units sustain when they lose supply are some of the most complained-about rules in the game.

For the sequels we are planning to change the supply rules in a way that I hope both simplifies the rules and makes them more limited.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
The things that occur in the game allow for hundreds of thousands of troops to base far from home. That is where it start to really strain believability. Part of the problem is that Depots are just a channel for your entire econ. If you have the money/food in

Frankly the mechanism I originally had to prevent this was supply costs. There is a penalty for large stacks and there is a large cost for every depot in the chain. There is also extra supply cost for operating in enemy territory and for operating in bad weather. There are also surrender-during-retreat penalties for units that are out of supply. Economies were limited by the very large waste rules we had. In early versions of the game players couldn't field enormous armies because the waste rules prevented their economies from being able to afford them. At the start of the 1805 scenario France immediately had to go into debt in order to continue to prosecute the war.

I found it to be a fairly elegant way of handling the problem -- you can field a big army far from home if you can keep the depot chain open and can afford to pay the huge costs. I reckoned it integrated the economy into military maneuvers and into politics very thoroughly. It encouraged players to save up resources when they anticipated war, to make their campaigns brief and decisive, and allowed the underdog the strategy of fighting a delaying campaign.

Secondly, the AI's advantage at harder levels is an economic advantage. This allows the AI to field larger armies than the player and to concentrate them farther from home than the player. It's AI handicapping, and it's a common computer game mechanism. Admittedly it does allow the AI to field larger than historical forces, even with the old waste rules, but it makes for a more challenging game and a more enjoyable game, in my opinion. I could have handicapped the AI by giving it large combat bonuses, but then you'd have the situation at harder levels where Turkish militia were better fighters than the French Old Guard, and then you'all would be (rightfully) complaining about that. I prefer the former situation. Any AI handicapping is going to make the game a-historical in some way, and no AI handicapping is going to make the game less challenging and thus less enjoyable. Faced with this situation we choose to err on the side of challenging/enjoyable.

Players didn't like the limited economy and the large waste rules, though. There were many irate posts to the effect "I've built a 2,000,000 man army, but why can't I afford it! This ruins the game for me." And the waste rules... we probably received more complaints about the large level of waste than we did about all other aspects of the game combined.

Consider France in the 1805 scenario: there are new players trying to figure out combat and movement rules, but we've thrust them into a situation where they're burdened with an army that they can't afford -- a perfectly historical situation for France at that time, but it's not perhaps the best way for new players to learn the game. Players want to move and fight, yet their most pressing concern is really the economics of supply, and they probably don't even realize it!

[rich12545]

You might consider playability/realism toggles for this in options. Or maybe even make them slides. Don't know how difficult this would be to implement at this late stage but it would be a way to satisfy everybody. If it's pretty easy you could include several toggles or slides in the "realism options" section. Personally I prefer playability and would rather not have the economy too difficult.

[ericbabe]

We're considering something like player customized complexity-levels for the sequels. It's too late to add it to COG really. It's difficult to allow players to turn off rules and still keep a well design game, because -- in my opinion -- the rules of a well-designed game are very integrated with each other. But in a very integrated set of rules, one can't just turn rules off and on without other elements of the whole system.

Still, I think there might be a way to do this.

[Napi]

Eric,

Don't make it easier, please. If you must change it, then give people like me the option to keep the old rules. Thanks.

Best,
Glenn