On the fence

[PanzersEast]

I've lingered around this forum for quit some time, and after reading through all the post I am still on the fence. I must admit, I am not a witp type player, however I do enjoy the various elements CoG seems to offer, primarily the diplomatic and economic models. I'm a long time player of HoI series, however that is really an easy game to predict as it is confined to historical factors (rigidly). I also am a player of the Total War series, as great as they are still has some to be desired. Also play HHTTR and Risk (just kidding). Seriously though, I have yet to come upon a game that really makes me feel like I am in charge and that I have the power to alter the course of the future. It seems to me that CoG offers that in a well rounded way. Am I off base here? I have yet to find a operational or strat game to hold my attention for really long periods of time, although HOI 1/2 has done that in spurts.

[garoco]

I inivite you to participate in our TCPIP of Weekend, remember bring you pyjamas, near of 8 or 12 hours continue of game, forget you girlfriend, wife or children.

[Cyrano~]

PanzerEast,

While reading your post I thought I was reading a description of myself and...probably many others on this forum. I got this game a couple of weeks ago and have found it totally engrossing and enourmously entertaining. I have played all those games you mentioned including EU I and II and CoG is easily the most satisfying.
Good luck

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: PanzersEast

I've lingered around this forum for quit some time, and after reading through all the post I am still on the fence. I must admit, I am not a witp type player, however I do enjoy the various elements CoG seems to offer, primarily the diplomatic and economic models. I'm a long time player of HoI series, however that is really an easy game to predict as it is confined to historical factors (rigidly). I also am a player of the Total War series, as great as they are still has some to be desired. Also play HHTTR and Risk (just kidding). Seriously though, I have yet to come upon a game that really makes me feel like I am in charge and that I have the power to alter the course of the future. It seems to me that CoG offers that in a well rounded way. Am I off base here? I have yet to find a operational or strat game to hold my attention for really long periods of time, although HOI 1/2 has done that in spurts.

Oh you'd like SUPREME RULE 2010, especially if you like the HOI series. Only SR2010 offers much more in the complex department and your cabinet members. The future has already been altered and it is up to you to bring it back to something civilized, through force of course. $ for $ you'll probably get more out of SR2010 than CoG.

[TexHorns]

with respect to ravinhood opinion, it would depend on your interest. COG would be more for the historical/napoleon addict. SR more for the fantasy/command and conquer crowd. I too played HOI and TW series. COG is the best of those games. ALthough you must know that the tactical battles are more like playing an old SPI boardgame than TW real time battles. Which by the way I prefer. COG is a turnbased thinking man's strategy game. How fast you can click and give orders will have no bearing on the outcome of the game. So you can setr the pace of the game play. You also have option of quick battles if you don't wan to detail battle. I find when I have a lot of battles to do and the odds are fairly one sided I use quick battle.

[PanzersEast]

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

with respect to ravinhood opinion, it would depend on your interest. COG would be more for the historical/napoleon addict. SR more for the fantasy/command and conquer crowd. I too played HOI and TW series. COG is the best of those games. ALthough you must know that the tactical battles are more like playing an old SPI boardgame than TW real time battles. Which by the way I prefer. COG is a turnbased thinking man's strategy game. How fast you can click and give orders will have no bearing on the outcome of the game. So you can setr the pace of the game play. You also have option of quick battles if you don't wan to detail battle. I find when I have a lot of battles to do and the odds are fairly one sided I use quick battle.

TexHorns

The strategy game (turn based) is more my speed. I do not like a click fest in my strat games for sure. I tried the SR demo and it did not appeal to me , however looking at CoG - I am more of a student of WW2 and not a Napoleon addict. Regardless of the time period though, I do like a well thought out and put together game. I am currently playing X3, my first space sim and am having a great time with it - good to have variety . I also created and run the Wolves at War website www.wolvesatwar.org for SH3. I guess I'm leaning toward getting it as it seems the components in CoG are there. I have one last question however, is the ai predictable? i.e. uses the same alliances or overall strategy repeatedly, or does it vary each time you play?

Thanks for the replies [:)]

[Russian Guard]

In my experience there are few strategic predictables. I have seen, for example, Sweden at war with France for an entire 10 year campaign and do little more than skirmish with each other occasionally; yet other campaigns, Napoleon himself marches to Stockholm and compels the Swedes to surrender. I have seen England stay at war with France for 10 years and, as with Sweden, do little more than annoyance raids against France (with troops). Other times they commit major land forces and siege Paris.

Certainly, AI battles/wars do not always go the same way. France virtually always wins the 1805 war against Austria, but later on, it goes different ways depending on AI alliances and player-controlled Nation intervention. I recently posted a thread, with map snap-shots, of an AI Prussia (1796 campaign) that had crushed both France and Austria and become huge, owning chunks of Austria, France, and Sweden, as well as a number of minors. All that without any player intervention.

I am not sure what compels these differences, since in many of these cases neither Nation is "top dog" (see below).

Some of the behavior of the AI strategically, is driven by what nation is currently "top dog" in terms of Glory (first place). The "top dog" tends to get alot of wars sent his way by the other nations. Although I don't always care for this - particularly when an Ally of mine with supremely dedicated loyalty both ways, abruptly turns on me - it makes sense that the AI will not let you just waltz to victory without a fight.

Tactically (detailed battles) there are a few pretty defined choices the AI takes. Unless terribly outnumbered, it ALWAYS attacks (as opposed to sitting on defense waiting for you to come to it), and it almost always tries to out-flank you, pushing on your edges. Rarely, in my experience, does it commit to an all-out frontal attack unless terrain compels it to do so.

Enemy Cavalry primarily wait for opportunity charges; find yourself with a disordered infantry unit and watch it draw enemy Cavalry like a magnet, and the multiple over-runs begin. One tactic enemy Cavalry will do is threaten to charge your infantry, forcing them into Squares, where they get hammered by other units.

Of course the detailed combat AI is, in the end, AI; it makes the kinds of mistakes a player would never do, like sitting a division 2 hexes from an enemy Artillery unit with it's back turned, in column. 10,000 casualties later, that division ceases to exist.

Overall, I cannot recommend this game enough. Like all games it has it's weaknesses (and still a few bugs to sort out), but I think it's excellent.

Hope that helps!

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: PanzersEast

I've lingered around this forum for quit some time, and after reading through all the post I am still on the fence. I must admit, I am not a witp type player, however I do enjoy the various elements CoG seems to offer, primarily the diplomatic and economic models. I'm a long time player of HoI series, however that is really an easy game to predict as it is confined to historical factors (rigidly). I also am a player of the Total War series, as great as they are still has some to be desired. Also play HHTTR and Risk (just kidding). Seriously though, I have yet to come upon a game that really makes me feel like I am in charge and that I have the power to alter the course of the future. It seems to me that CoG offers that in a well rounded way. Am I off base here? I have yet to find a operational or strat game to hold my attention for really long periods of time, although HOI 1/2 has done that in spurts.

Oh you'd like SUPREME RULE 2010, especially if you like the HOI series. Only SR2010 offers much more in the complex department and your cabinet members. The future has already been altered and it is up to you to bring it back to something civilized, through force of course. $ for $ you'll probably get more out of SR2010 than CoG.

You don't even own cog... so why would you post that? [8|]

[ravinhood]

You don't even own cog... so why would you post that?

My user group owns Cog, so, once again you are incorrect.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

My user group owns Cog, so, once again you are incorrect.

Thats a very fine line you are walking there ravinhood [X(]

[1LTRambo]

I too have been on the fence and have been reading all of the threads in this forum. From what I have read, it sounds like a great game except for some bugs. I'm just waiting for an official patch to be included with the box. Once they do that, I will have this game.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

You don't even own cog... so why would you post that?

My user group owns Cog, so, once again you are incorrect.

Your user group?

This is you?

[Treefrog]

Probably depends on discretionary income and time.

At $ 40 this game will ultimately cost you pennies per hour as you explore playing countries (like Turkey and Sweden for example) and fighting wars in places you seldom get to (Middle East, the Great North).

The game has sufficient options, variables and difficulty levels it is hard to foresee any two games playing out in a similar manner.

[Gem35]

Since you can also tweak the power levels in the campaign set-up there is alot of room for variety. By tweaking them you can control how many trrops each country starts out with. I am a WWII fan myself and never really got into Napolean era games, until I bought this game. It's perhaps my favorite game.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Since you can also tweak the power levels in the campaign set-up there is alot of room for variety. By tweaking them you can control how many trrops each country starts out with.

I tried this yesterday and it seemed to work well, although I only played 2.5 years (1805-1807). I wanted to set what I view as a more "historical" balance of power in a solo game, and see what happened.

I set Sweden at -3 Power, Turkey and Spain at -2 Power, and Prussia at -1 Power. I set France at +1 Power and left Austria and Russia at "Normal" (0) Power.

I watched for troop builds and income status changes, as opposed to without these modifications. All of the Nations with reduced power built fewer troops, especially Sweden, Turkey, and Spain. They all built a $2,000 treasury reserve, but that's fine; I think its good that the AI builds a cash reserve to go on campaign, I was most interested in whether it reduced their on-map forces and limited their throwing cash around on Subsidies.

Again, only a 2 and 1/2 year test but it seemed to work that way.

I also verified that France (at +1 Power) started the game with an additional Corps and the troops to fill it out.

Lastly - this may be coincidence but I had not yet, in all my campaigns, seen France move into Spain and siege Gibraltar. Maybe that happened because I was playing England, don't know (the AI seems to react to played nations differently than AI Nations, a good thing).

I'll set up a longer campaign and try this. If anyone else has/does try these, please let me know how it went.