Britain lasts seven turns at -987 NML !!!??

[Khornish]

Okay, I was continuing my 1792 scenario as France and had taken care of all my continental enemies early, so I decided to go ahead and try for Britain herself.

Since Britain didn't have any protectorates to take out, as I'd already taken Hanover, I decided to invade England.

I scored early on when I got the Batvian Republic as a protectorate, which gave me the Dutch fleet. I gleefully added those precious ships to my own fleet in the Med.

I saw a small British Fleet of 6 ships alone, so I took my entire fleet after it and wiped it out over 2 turns.

Then I approached England and saw both remaining warfleets docked in Plymouth. I guess they were having a major overhaul or a naval gathering or something.

I Blockaded Plymouth with a fleet of 12 ships and used my other large fleet of 8 ships, added 3 transports to it, and transported 1 complete army into Kent in early summer of 1797.

Over the course of the next several turns, I ended up with 4 full armies in Kent, besieging the city.

England tried to drive me into the sea, and had over 150,000 troops attack me in Kent when I only had about 90,000 there myself. Luckily, I'd planned properly and my heavy artillery won me the battle almost by itself. Three rounds of combat and the British troops ran for it.

I set to starve the city with all four armies for a few months. Then, when London had only 80,000 troops left in the province, I attacked with 130,000 troops in 2 armies.

Soon, London was under siege and I watch as the British NML drained away.

A few turns later British NML was at -987. I was excited at forcing a surrender on them my insurrectionists the next turn.

6 turns later, British NML was STILL -987 and they still didn't give up.. WTF!? London was down to a single infantry division at strength .3 and they'd not been forced to surrender?

Finally, the next turn, the British finally surrendered due to insurrectionists, but not before Ireland, both provinces, had successfully rebelled.

Major complaint of mine is that all four of my armies ended up in Picardy due to the surrender, and I lost over 15,000 troops due to lack of supply!!?? This needs to be sorted out, I win the war, and I am forced to lose troops because of how supply is handled in this situation.

Of course, since Britain had declared war on me, I couldn't declare total war on them, so I was stuck with getting no provinces from them, but I did grab all 70 of their colonies.

I had plundered Plymouth and London multiple times, so their economy and naval building capacity is crippled.

Unfortunately, all the POWs I had of theirs are at the same bloody strength as when I had them, so after replacements they'll be back up to full strength for when I return to declare total war on Britain.

Now, Spain and Sweden have DOW'd me, so it's time to put them in their place too.

[Hard Sarge]

I think your hassle is your a griper

you know the rules and you know what is going to happen when England gives up, you lost troops because you didn't plan for it (lots of talks on how to replace the Troop warping, but as of now, we are stuck with it)

(when England give up on me, I had over 250,000 troops returned to France, I didn't lose a single one of them)

and since you had 7 turns to wait, shame on you (the hassle is when it happens when you do not expect it)

(I do believe you bring up a point, I wanted to talk with Eric about, England needs to stop keeping it's ships in port)

now comes the major hassle, how to take out England ?, since you do not control a province next to it, you can not make it Cede any of the Island provinces (that was something that was changed due to player complaint)

(I am working on a trick to see if it works, if so, may need to see if it is a explot of the rules or a good idea)

NML and surrender is random, the Higher (lower ?) it is, the better chance you got, but it is still a die roll

(what I really hate, is doing all the work, and then watching all the others who are at war and doing nothing, getting surrended to before you, but, oh well, I also know the rules and know it is going to happen)

what is the complaint about the POW's going back to the Nation that owned them to start with ?, you won how many battles when you were outnumbered, so what if they get there troops back, you are still going to win your battles ?

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I think your hassle is your a griper

No, I expect to have things happen within the structure that follow a logical pattern.

you know the rules and you know what is going to happen when England gives up, you lost troops because you didn't plan for it (lots of talks on how to replace the Troop warping, but as of now, we are stuck with it)

No, I didn't know that I'd get screwed with the troops pulling out of England after they surrendered to me. I've only had this game for 10 days.

Losing troops because they happen to go into a province I don't have a depot in is dumb behavior on the part of the game. I did have a supply chain starting in Brittany that ended up in London, but me troops didn't follow their line of supply, and they should have.

and since you had 7 turns to wait, shame on you (the hassle is when it happens when you do not expect it)

Does this mean that England has a die roll bonus to NOT surrender when her NML is low enough to cause insurrectionist happenings? I've not seen this take 7 friggin turns before. I've played 5 games to completion and had only 2 turns elapse past the break point in NML before the victim surrendered.

now comes the major hassle, how to take out England ?, since you do not control a province next to it, you can not make it Cede any of the Island provinces (that was something that was changed due to player complaint)

I expected I'd not get the island provinces, which is why I plundered the 2 provinces like crazy.

what is the complaint about the POW's going back to the Nation that owned them to start with ?, you won how many battles when you were outnumbered, so what if they get there troops back, you are still going to win your battles ?

My complaint is that the units didnt suffer attrition due to being POWs, didn't suffer morale loss of any significance after being captured, and I end up losing more casualties because of how supply is handled than I did on the battlefield after invading England.

And my whole point about POWs you still seem to miss, if this were a multiplayer game the losing side gets a huge advantage with regards to regaining his POWs.

I've gotta cut this short as I have to head out of town 10 minutes ago. Happy new year.

[Hard Sarge]

I've played 5 games to completion and had only 2 turns elapse past the break point in NML before the victim surrendered.

well, this seems to counter the idea that you didn't know what was going to happen, you knew the troops would warp when you won the war, you should of planned for it

do I like the warp ? no, I am one of the ones who offered ideas on how to counter it or change it, but until they do, we got to live with it

but, be that as it may, over all, may just be point of view

but if you don't want the bad guys getting there troops back, do something about it, just kill them off

the gain or loss for the surrender should not be that great to make a difference

(most people like to make a enemy into a Ally, so I think alot of people who rather give the troops back, but each there own)

hope you have a good and safe trip

we'll still be here when you get back, and we can complain more later

[Hard Sarge]

oops sorry, missed a point

no, I do not think there is any bonus to the surrender die roll, only the fact that it is still a random die roll, and in computer games, that can be truely random

[Khornish]

Actually, as I was heading out, I looked at the itinerary again and I don't leave until Wednesday, although I was told verbally that I leave Monday. <sigh>

well, this seems to counter the idea that you didn't know what was going to happen, you knew the troops would warp when you won the war, you should of planned for it

No, the claim you are trying to make isn't true. In my previous games, I didn't bother to invade England at all, and won anyways.

I hadn't noticed my victorious troops returning and losing men in my previous games. Usually, my troops ended up in one of my front line provinces that had a depot in place. In other instances, my armies must have foraged successfully, as I'd not noticed any odd forage losses before this game against England.

It shouldn't be too hard to code in that returning troops follow their supply chain back to the nearest home province/protectorate that. Meaning, they follow back along the line of depots set up to support them in the first place.

[note: if this has been brought up before, ad nauseum, too damn bad. Until the devs take notice and comment on it, then it is STILL a problem worth addressing.]

but if you don't want the bad guys getting there troops back, do something about it, just kill them off

I do work at it, but when an enemy unit routs into one of my units or garrisons and surrenders, I don't have an option to cry "havoc".

At any rate, a strength 1.0 POW shouldn't be returned to its owner at strength 1.0 after 6 months to 3+ years in captivity. This behavior is counter to reality and is a great benefit to the "loser" of the war as he immediately regains his army that he didn't have to supply or maintain (while it was captive), that he doesn't have to pay to rearm and can be immediately put to use against someone else.

(most people like to make a enemy into a Ally, so I think alot of people who rather give the troops back, but each there own)

Yes, a major power usually returned POWs of another major power without undue atrocity. This is not always true with regards to treatment of a minor power's troops that are captured by a major power and there were times of abuse even in the first case mentioned.

However, I am not talking about losses due to France killing off POWs. I am talking about attritional losses that would take place due to desertion, sickness, and wounds that would affect the unit of POWs.

I'd rather have POWs suffer from attritional losses while captive, so the longer the unit remains captive, the more it suffers from being so. However, if that's too much work to code in, at least give us the immediate attrition when it returns to owner.

no, I do not think there is any bonus to the surrender die roll, only the fact that it is still a random die roll, and in computer games, that can be truely random

Yeah, I am aware of randomness in computer games. I _was_ in the industry, in fact you may have even played a game that I had a small hand in.

I think part of what I'd like to see is a AI nation asking for a cease fire or offering a limited surrender at certain NML thresholds. If this is already in the game, then I haven't seen it at all. I'd think at the very least England would have asked me for a ceasefire the moment I invaded Kent. It would have been then up to me to decide whether or not I could prosecute a successful invasion, or to go ahead and accept the ceasefire so that I could deal with someone (or someones) else.

Then, when Kent capitulated, they should have offered a limited surrender, but it didn't happen.

This could easily be toggled to NML level, just as the surrender forced by insurrectionists.


Again, I really do like COG, but the game does have some weaknesses that can and should be addressed over the life of the game. I definately look forward to its sequel.

[Hard Sarge]

guess you have been lucky then, the warping troops can be a major pain, even worse when they go were you are not expecting them

ahhh, Eric has spoken on this in the forum

which as you say, it may take one of the follow ups to really get it right, get it better, only so much you can do, to fix something with out changeing the whole game (I beleive there is some thought to allowing a grace turn for supply when a Nation surrenders, but most to be honest, would rather have to march out)

Okay, one hassle we are having, is you did not play the version one of the game, in that one, the nation that took the POW's had to feed them, players didn't like that, players would herd them into small provinces and put them on forage and let them die out, others would put them onto ships and let the die off, or let other navies sink there ships loaded with POW's

so this system now, is the result

for killing them off yourself, I meant that you could dismiss the unit once it becomes a POW, no mess, no fuss, just click the red X and no more POW the next turn

there has also been lots of changes to supply, POW's, cede provinces and so on, since the game was first released

well, if you are in the bussiness, and I have had a chance to play one of your games you worked on, I hope I enjoyed it

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

guess you have been lucky then, the warping troops can be a major pain, even worse when they go were you are not expecting them

Yes, I guess I was really lucky, and now that I realize how it can work badly, time to make some noise about it.

ahhh, Eric has spoken on this in the forum

Perhaps a new discussion can help him resolve to sort the issue.

which as you say, it may take one of the follow ups to really get it right, get it better, only so much you can do, to fix something with out changeing the whole game (I beleive there is some thought to allowing a grace turn for supply when a Nation surrenders, but most to be honest, would rather have to march out)

Since the code for returning troops home is already there, why not just have a check to make sure they end up in a province with a supply depot? If there isn't a supply depot in the player's home county for the returning troops to got to, then it's the player's fault for being a dunce instead of the game's fault for screwing over the player.

Okay, one hassle we are having, is you did not play the version one of the game, in that one, the nation that took the POW's had to feed them, players didn't like that, players would herd them into small provinces and put them on forage and let them die out, others would put them onto ships and let the die off, or let other navies sink there ships loaded with POW's

I'd not mind feeding them if there was a reason for keeping them around. Namely, a hit against NML and the attrition when they return to the owner. Hmm, seems I've brought that up before.

for killing them off yourself, I meant that you could dismiss the unit once it becomes a POW, no mess, no fuss, just click the red X and no more POW the next turn

Eric has said he's gonna remove this as an option. I'd rather him just change it to "release POWs" for the reasons and with the consequences I stated in my other thread.

well, if you are in the bussiness, and I have had a chance to play one of your games you worked on, I hope I enjoyed it

I am no longer in the industry. I got royally screwed, well all of us in the company did, and ended up moving on. Now, I just play the games and usually end up regretting a purchase from one of the bigger publishers.

[TexHorns]

Since the code for returning troops home is already there, why not just have a check to make sure they end up in a province with a supply depot? If there isn't a supply depot in the player's home county for the returning troops to got to, then it's the player's fault for being a dunce instead of the game's fault for screwing over the player.

I must be missing something or I just think differently. How does the "game screw over the player"? If the game has a mechanic or rule, then it is what it is. The player knowing it is the rule or mechanic should plan accordingly. War is messy business and "players" cannot expect everything to work out just like they want it to. If a war ends and the troops have a long march home, I bet some of them are going to decide to go straight to the homestead and not return to combat.

How about play the game as designed instead of trying to get Eric to redesign the game to your liking. I understand bugs and problematic code needing to be fixed. What I don't understand is the complaining about the design. Eric must have awful thick skin. I get peeved reading some of these posts and I'm just a "player".

Nothing personal Khornish. Your post was just the straw that broke my back. I like to read the forumn for strategy/gameplay insight. I've learned alot, and feel I may have helped someone as well. I enjoy the AAR's. But the pissing and moaning about how the computer somehow screwed a player is getting ridiculous.

Okay, deep breath. I'm better now.

[Khornish]

I guess we can then revert back to v1.0 of COG and call it good then?

Or, would you rather allow the game to develop along more playable and logical lines?

Where does it say in the rules that at the end of the war you have to take your chances as to whether or not your troops will suffer attritional losses when they return home?

Why is it okay for people to complain about certain situations, that are also contrary to how they feel the game should work, when the game is at v1.0, or v1.1, but it is no longer the case to find valid criticisms at v1.2.17?

Is it the case that only early purchasers of the game can pose a valid argument about mechanics and all the rest of us, who purchase the game later, have to suck it up and deal with it?

We are able to define a supply line in order to persue action in enemy territory. Why, then, is it unacceptable to request that this same supply line is used in reverse in order to return victorious troops home?

Not every change that has been made to the game's code from v1.0 to the present has been a bug fix, so an argument along that line is flawed. Some changes have, indeed, been design changes.

If Eric decides that v1.2 is the last patch for the game, then fine, it's his choice to do so. However, if he decides to continue with future patches that allow for changes and fixes, then I am asking to take a new look at resolving this issue.

[carnifex]

guess you have been lucky then, the warping troops can be a major pain, even worse when they go were you are not expecting them

This is a silly mechanic. A surrender should come with 6 month access and you should have to walk your troops back. I have 250,000 troops teleport from Moscow to Italy (my closest territory to Russia) in one instant. Since you never know when someone will surrender you have to keep depots in places you normally never would and pay for them, which kind of defeats the purpose of all that foraging I did to get to my enemy's capitol in the first place. Second of all, it breaks game immersion something fierce.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: carnifex
A surrender should come with 6 month access and you should have to walk your troops back.

I am only asking for the warping follow along the player provided line of supply. It shouldn't be difficult to make such a change.

[ericbabe]

Teleportation after a war is on our list of things to address: the most important consideration is that players find it frustrating when the troops are teleported to an unsupplied province and massive casualties result -- a natural enough frustration. One idea is simply to provide a supply-amnesty for any troop that gets teleported during the round in which it is teleported.

The troop teleportation is implemented mainly because of considerations of naval transport. We could maybe work-around this by teleporting troops off of islands / British Isles, but leaving all other troops in place.

British AI is very stubborn regarding surrender, and tends not to surrender unless forced by insurrection, or London is successfully occupied. Other AI players give greater weight to relative troop strengths and relative slaughter-levels, but since Britain is mostly protected by Her ships it didn't make as much sense to use the generic AI code with Her.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

British AI is very stubborn regarding surrender, and tends not to surrender unless forced by insurrection, or London is successfully occupied. Other AI players give greater weight to relative troop strengths and relative slaughter-levels, but since Britain is mostly protected by Her ships it didn't make as much sense to use the generic AI code with Her.

Do they even consider at all that they've lost all but 4 ships and 2 transports of their navy with a good chunk of what they had being captured while in port?

I'm not saying the British shouldn't be stubborn, but it's nice to have confirmation that they get a real serious bonus even with being invaded.

However, if their navy is, for all intents and purposes, gone from the equation, that should bear some weight on their decision to capitulate or not.

[carnifex]

The troop teleportation is implemented mainly because of considerations of naval transport.

Ahh right, the AI would probably just leave those guys stranded there. Human players should just suffer though - if their navy is sunk in the interrim well there's always the disband button muahahaha

(just like all those guys Nappy left in Egypt)

[carnifex]

The troop teleportation is implemented mainly because of considerations of naval transport. We could maybe work-around this by teleporting troops off of islands / British Isles, but leaving all other troops in place.

I got an idea - why not delay the troop teleportation one execution phase so that it happens at the end of the next execution phase? Right now it's a big surprise because it happens right after a surrender. If you delay the teleportation the player can build depots as needed, and also issue orders to troops to move normally (if he has use for them in the area) and/or embark them on ships. Any troops not moved out of the surrendered country's territory would then be teleported out.