a new review

[Tanaka]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/crow ... eview.html

[1LTRambo]

Thanks for the link, the review is well done.

[Hard Sarge]

Has anybody ever seen that screen shot, where Aus Declines an Alliance ?

I like that one

[garoco]

no this pop up I didn´t see during all my games

[ericbabe]

They somehow seem to have gotten ahold of an early beta version of COG -- that's what we used as the diplomacy advisor before the final graphics were done.

[Krec]

i would say it is a fair review. i just wish someone would review the game properly. i am just so tired of these very generic reviews of what i would call great games. ie WITP, COG, UV,

these games all 3 are classics by any standards. all 3 dont even have a game close to the game play depth. i give all of them 90% to start.

this guy is a RISK/Stratego player? reviewing COG........give me a break.

this game for a turn base strat game is excellent. name me 1 TURN BASED GAME that is as good as this one covering this era? is there one?[&:]

the best you can get out of these reviewers for these games is at best about 85%.

just my rant[:@]

[1LTRambo]

Your rant is justified. But, the review did not mention and of the qurks or bugs that I read alot of through this forum. So they probably did not really play it, but, from what ericbabe said, fired up the original beta version to have a look see.

[ravinhood]

The review is justified by a "generic" type of review site. To get a quality review of wargames you have to go where wargamers go. Here is a good place. The Wargamer is a dying place. Any of the wargame ladder sites. And anytime you can catch a William Trotter review on a game is a good source. I'm still on the fence with this one, mainly because it's just another Nappy game and EIA is suppose to be coming out SOON. lol They been saying that for years now and then that remake of "Battles of Napoleon". I'm more interested in that one and real wargame type battles instead of this abstract campaign game of COG. I think EIA will certainly blow the doors off of this one and have greater community support if it's true to the boardame.

[Hanal]

I liked the review because he admitted to what he normally does not like in games, but showed that CoG overcomes these personal biases......

[Khornish]

CoG definately fills a niche that has been missing for a lot of us. EIA was a great boardgame, but it is as abstract if not more so than CoG in most areas. If someone likes Axis and Allies, the boardgame, then CoG isn't too far a stretch from that, and CoG does have a bit more detail to it overall.

My only real issue gameplay wise is that you can't choose to play a detailed battle in any multi-player game. I hope this is implimented in the future or at least in a future version.

I have other, smaller, issues, but the development crew have been very responsive, at least by the way they post here in these forums and that is a <bleep> <bleep> of a lot better than you're going to get from EA, Microsoft, 2K, and what was once Atari.

BoN looks to be something that fills a niche too and I hope we'll see it released before summer 2006. I doubt we'll see EIA before mid-2007 without some kind of miracle taking place. Not knocking that team at all, but their task is not a small one.

I have _personal_ experience with Bill Trotter and how he does his "reviews". I take anything he prints with a bottle of salt and still double check it. Every so often he'll have a diamond in the rough, but that's about it from my experience.

As far as the review in question above. Hell a review is subjective anyways and it appears CoG was good enough for the reviewer to overcome a number of his prejudices.

I certainly feel I got of my money's worth after playing with the game for a few hours than I did from Civ IV, AOE III, or B&W 2. At least CoG installed and ran properly from the get go.

[Reiryc]

My only real issue gameplay wise is that you can't choose to play a detailed battle in any multi-player game. I hope this is implimented in the future or at least in a future version.

You can play detailed battles in a multi-player game... I've done it. [:)]

[Khornish]

Really?.. Then why have I seen various people say they couldn't do so? Is it the tcp/ip issue that is preventing them?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Khornish

Really?.. Then why have I seen various people say they couldn't do so? Is it the tcp/ip issue that is preventing them?

Don't know to be honest.

I played a few times with Mogami (tcp/ip) and during the detailed battles, if it was against the AI, we sat and watched the other person fight it out.

I haven't tried tcp/ip with the any of the beta patches however so can't say if there's been problems since their introduction.

[ericbabe]

There are no detailed battles in PBEM, I think that might be what some people mean when they say there are no m-player detailed battles. There are detailed battles in TCP/IP, and I don't know of any issues with the TCP/IP detailed battles: the reported bugs (which I think are fixed in the latest patch) involve orders given at the strategic level.

[Napi]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There are no detailed battles in PBEM, I think that might be what some people mean when they say there are no m-player detailed battles. There are detailed battles in TCP/IP, and I don't know of any issues with the TCP/IP detailed battles: the reported bugs (which I think are fixed in the latest patch) involve orders given at the strategic level.

Sorry Eric but that is just not correct. I reported several problems with detailed battles TCP/IP over LAN some months ago and got _very_ limited response. Just a thank you for reporting the problem. Granted, this was a few patch levels ago so perhaps these issues have been resolved but telling here that you have no knowledge of these problems is highly questionable. I even offered to send a saved game which has the bug in detailed battles for you to see yourself without any response (I still have the saved game if you're interested).

These problems involved crashes when routed unit leaves the battle area and when another human player is called in as a reinforcement by the AI fighting against a second human.

I realize that most players will select quick battle in TCP/IP games but we have chosen not to because we like the added realism this feature offers and it not working was a game breaker for us. It was very frustrating to see that some people get a quick response to their problems and others get ignored, me being in the ignored camp.

Merry X-mas

[garoco]

Hi Napi
Eric´s Team is doing a big work, until now, they are very consistents with each of our topics about of bugs or crashs,
I´m disagree with you, Eric thought that is problem that you report was fixed with the last patch (ver 1.2.16) however like you said exists some minors problems still in detail battle (LAN or TCPIP) but they are working in that yet.
Let´us give a little of time. I can understand you frustration but we can wriite topics without disqualifications.
Merry Christmas to you too

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Napi
and got _very_ limited response. Just a thank you for reporting the problem. Granted, this was a few patch levels ago so perhaps these issues have been resolved but telling here that you have no knowledge of these problems is highly questionable. I even

I apologize if you feel as though your bug reports have been slighted. I receive many reports into which I look, sometimes find things and fix them, and I don't always respond explicitly after looking into issues. I don't intend this as an insult to you; there are simply hundreds and hundreds of things on my to-do list, and I don't always have the liberty to exercise attentive individual courtesies as well as I would wish to be able.

Secondly, bug reports are prioritized according to the severity and ubiquity of the bug. All other things being equal, a bug that is reported by multiple people that occurs often during play shall be given much more attention than a bug that is reported by a single person on a single occasion and that occurs less frequently during play.

I must strenuously disagree, however, when you say that my telling of this bug is "highly questionable." I do not tell lies about the status of our bug report list. In the case of the bug you reported, I ascertained that the bug was most likely occurring in the method CHexWar::DoRoutMove(int); I rewrote this method a few patches ago. Since that time there have been no further reports of this bug of which I know -- if I am wrong, and there has been, then my having missed that report was a mistake on my part.