Matrix Games Forums

A lot of people don't like the fact that you make more economic decisions than, say, the Emperor of Austria would have made, and they call this aspect of the game "unhistorical", yet the same people are perfectly happy to have the player make more military decisions than the Emperor of Austria would have made. I just think it comes down to what people are used to doing in a game: to many people it's normal to have god-like control over the Austrian military yet bizarre ("gamey", "unrealistic", "childish") to have god-like control over the Austrian economy. De gustibus non disputandam!

 
I dont necessarily think that that is the case at all. It not a question of having too much control IMO, but more that the CoG econ was too 'fuzzy'. And by 'fuzzy' I mean that it was too convoluted and it was very difficult to determine what the cause and effect of various actions taken was. This leads to players making guesses rather than decisions and eventually to just the desire to not want to mess with it at all (and hence the reason why people dont want that level of control).
 
If the econ was more tranparent with easier cause and effect feedback I dont think you'd see the same 'resistance' to the economic aspect. And note that that doesnt mean that the econ has to be SIMPLE...just accessible.
 
I enjoyed CoG very much but I definately gave up on ever learning the actual mechanics of the econ and just winged it (which is far less satisfying for me than actually feeling like my decisions in the econ were important). Too many things just did not make consistant sense to the end user and thus were eventually just ignored (for example, Merchant income varied widely and wildly from turn to turn with no feedback as to why...eventually, I just stopped using them).
 
So, IMO, a complex econ with an accessible UI (not scattered over dozens of screen) and with clear feedback for the player's actions is far better than a complex econ with tons of calculations that are hidden from the player and dont allow for MOST players to make educated decisions. That latter just leads to players wanting to ignore that aspect of play (or automate it etc).
 
Just my $.02.

Hmm. According to the Mensa website (http://www.mensa.org), this is how one qualifies:

Membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised. There is no other qualification or disqualification for membership eligibility.

The term "IQ score" is widely used but poorly defined. There are a large number of tests with different scales. The result on one test of 132 can be the same as a score 148 on another test. Some intelligence tests don't use IQ scores at all. Mensa has set a percentile as cutoff to avoid this confusion. Candidates for membership in Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98th percentile on a standard test of intelligence (a score that is greater than or equal to that achieved by 98 percent of the general population taking the test).

Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test. There are a large number of intelligence tests that are "approved". More information on whether a test you have taken is approved, as well as information on the procedure for taking the Mensa test, can be obtained from the nearest Mensa office. There are no on-line tests that can be used for admission to Mensa. Feel free to contact Mensa for specific details about eligibility.

Mensa has no other eligibility requirements other than IQ testing. However, many tests are not valid for people under the age of 16. You should contact the nearest Mensa office for more information.

Perhaps I should write them recommending that the ability to demonstrate total mastery over the COG economy should automatically qualify one...

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I dont necessarily think that that is the case at all. It not a question of having too much control IMO, but more that the CoG econ was too 'fuzzy'. And by 'fuzzy' I mean that it was too convoluted and it was very difficult to determine what the cause and effect of various actions taken was. This leads to players making guesses rather than decisions and eventually to just the desire to not want to mess with it at all (and hence the reason why

I'm just going by a lot of the comments I've seen on other forums as to why people didn't like the COG economy.

I do think you're right that people prefer things that are more transparent. In the COG economy, everything affects everything else over a few turns. I was trying to design something I'd never seen in a strategy game before, an economy that was complex enough that making economic decisions might feel something like making economic decisions in the real world. In the real world, Paul Volcker increases interest rates, he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen... he may have enough experience to have a good idea, but the system is so "fuzzy and convoluted" that he's not just able to predict the exact effects of his decisions. Frankly I still like having this kind of thing in the game -- knowledge of the economy becomes a matter of intuition and experience -- but I agree with you 100% that the majority of players hate having to deal with something that's too complex to be able to handle more directly. There are a few European reviewers who really loved the economy in COG and one who actually "got" exactly what I was trying to do with it, another who thought we ruined FOF by taking out the COG economy, but I think these guys are exceptions and, (sniffle, sniffle), I don't think we'll being trying to implement this kind of economy again.

Well I think you had the right idea; instead of 2+2=4 always, sometimes it will equal 3 or 5. Nothing wrong with some uncertainty. However, I sometimes felt that it was all a random crapshoot since I didn't have a good sense of why 2+2 didn't equal 4 at times. maybe simply a better feedback mechanism so that the player can easily determine what went wrong, even if there is nothing to do about it. My main complaint with the game as a whole was the interface felt like a chore at times. I hope that in COG2, the interface is streamlined without the gameplay being dumbed down. I also felt that I was more of an Economist than a General, but I dared not turn it all over to the AI. I am a control freak with these kind of games.

Do you know yet how you are going to modify the econ part of the game and if so, could you explain a wee bit? I also hope for an option to play with a more historical sized forcepool. I really didn't like seeing multiple huge armies running all over Europe. I think that once a Nation has conscripted over a certain percentage of the population, bad things should start to happen, both economicly and with civil unrest. Looking forward to COG2.

I did like the idea behind the economy, too, but I think it might be better suited to covering a longer timeframe. Back at the time, restructuring/massively expanding the economy just didn't happen so much. Even the Russians, who massively improved their army between the 1805 defeat and 1812 still had only two main musket production centers and had a hodgepdoge of various calibers and models, in muskets and artillery (though in arty most nations weren't any better). I felt similarly about the tech research, btw - it reminded me a bit of WW2 games where you receive groundbreaking new techs every other turn (though there it fits). Again, I thought a longer timeframe would be better suited to this (e.g. 1700 - 1825 or so).

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
De gustibus non disputandam!

Are you reading Ovid or Caesar at the moment or is your use of Latine due to the next project, the ancient game that was supposed to not be developed by WSC in the near future?

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Well I think you had the right idea; instead of 2+2=4 always, sometimes it will equal 3 or 5. Nothing wrong with some uncertainty. However, I sometimes felt that it was all a random crapshoot since I didn't have a good sense of why 2+2 didn't equal 4 at times. maybe simply a better feedback mechanism so that the player can easily determine what went wrong, even if there is nothing to do about it. My main complaint with the game as a whole was the interface felt like a chore at times. I hope that in COG2, the interface is streamlined without the gameplay being dumbed down. I also felt that I was more of an Economist than a General, but I dared not turn it all over to the AI. I am a control freak with these kind of games.

Do you know yet how you are going to modify the econ part of the game and if so, could you explain a wee bit? I also hope for an option to play with a more historical sized forcepool. I really didn't like seeing multiple huge armies running all over Europe. I think that once a Nation has conscripted over a certain percentage of the population, bad things should start to happen, both economicly and with civil unrest. Looking forward to COG2.

We want to make the current rules the "Advanced Economy Option". The default rules, tentatively, will have only two resources, money and labor. Each province will produce a fixed amount of these. There will be no trading of resources, no slider bars, no waste rules (we'll find another mechanism to make making huge empires more difficult). Not sure what to do with things like merchants and the Feudalism rate.

Provincial developments will be limited in some way since many of them don't apply. I recall that many people didn't like the fact that you were in control of the whole economy (they imagined that one had a "Stalin-like command over the economy", which is not what we intended the player to imagine at all... c.f., spirit-of-Austria), so we may just eliminate provincial developments as well, though we'd keep some of the numbers such as Barracks and Docks since these are useful game concepts, I hope not too confusing for people, and serve a direct militaristic purpose.

As for the historical sized force-pool, the original game had severe "waste" rules for limiting the force-pool. The original design of the game also didn't have any super-long scenarios. Based on customer demand, we mitigated the waste rules and added the super-long scenario, at which point the gigantic army sizes crept in. We also had more customers complaining that they couldn't build up their economy enough to support the 2M-man army that they'd built, and that therefore the game was broken... many people just didn't "get" that the economy/waste rules were supposed to be there to prevent you from building giant armies in the first place. Anyway, we want to add a new mechanism for limiting army sizes, something more direct that players will be able to understand more readily (like a "Maximum Army Size Rating").


(Apropos of talking about the economy, one confusion that persists out there is that "Courts" refer to courthouses -- as if one were building county-jails or something. "Courts" refer to palaces, called "courts" at the time. Napoleon built many new ones in territory newly acquired by France in order better to govern that territory by way of establishing his new aristocracy there; the book The Eagle in Splendor is a great source of information on these.)

ORIGINAL: Sytass
I did like the idea behind the economy, too, but I think it might be better suited to covering a longer timeframe. Back at the time, restructuring/massively expanding the economy just didn't happen so much. Even the Russians, who massively improved their army between the 1805 defeat and 1812 still had only two main musket production centers and had a hodgepdoge of various calibers and models, in muskets and artillery (though in arty most nations weren't any better). I felt similarly about the tech research, btw - it reminded me a bit of WW2 games where you receive groundbreaking new techs every other turn (though there it fits). Again, I thought a longer timeframe would be better suited to this (e.g. 1700 - 1825 or so).

I agree there was too much economic development possible in COG. Originally (at least in our in-house testing in the beta stage of development) we tried to ensure that economic development would be held to reasonable levels of GDP growth by balancing the costs of things with their economic benefits. The longer-scenario and the mitigated waste rules really allow things to grow much too large.

I don't think it's inappropriate to have appropriately large economic growth in this period though. Napoleon and the Directory introduced sweeping economic reforms, and to a large extent Napoleon engaged in an attempt at "micromanaging" some sectors of the French economy.

By way of examples: in 1800 London built the West India docks, expanding them steadily over the next six years, and in the same year the Berlin's Royal Porcelain factory begins to use steam power for the first time, greatly increasing its production of luxury goods over the next few years. The first advertising agency is opened in London. A major horse-drawn railway opens in the Ruhr Valley to increase mining operations there. Berlin introduces a new postal system. Denmark begins to regulate guilds in Copenhagen.

In 1801, the Bank of France is founded. Horse-drawn railways are introduced in Surrey. Gerhard von Scharnhorst starts a war college in Berlin. Chivas Royal Scotch whisky is first blended (an increase in luxuries if ever there was one). The London Stock Exchange is formed.

I do agree that as it is now, the growth can easily be too large. I also think that the more feudal nations should have a harder time of changing their economy -- note that the examples in 1800/1801 are all French, British, and Prussian (not that other places weren't making economic developments as well.)

For my own opinion, I disagree that the upgrades are too fantastic for the period. Most of the things on the list were things actually developed during the period covered by the game (or else were attempted to be developed, such as Rocket Horses), and their effects aren't anything like the sweeping technological changes introduced into WWII. They also for the most part don't represent technological improvements but rather developments in military doctrine or training. I would argue that the Coalition showed marked improvements in military doctrine during the Napoleonic Wars. I'd appreciate more opinions on this as I haven't heard too many people complain that the upgrade system is too generous.

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman
Are you reading Ovid or Caesar at the moment or is your use of Latine due to the next project, the ancient game that was supposed to not be developed by WSC in the near future?

Ah, for a while I was trying to read a few lines of Ovid each day to keep my Latin from sliding away, but alas! I haven't kept up with it.

We'd love to do an ancient game at some point, but no firm plans for anything yet.

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I dont necessarily think that that is the case at all. It not a question of having too much control IMO, but more that the CoG econ was too 'fuzzy'. And by 'fuzzy' I mean that it was too convoluted and it was very difficult to determine what the cause and effect of various actions taken was. This leads to players making guesses rather than decisions and eventually to just the desire to not want to mess with it at all (and hence the reason why people dont want that level of control).
If the econ was more tranparent with easier cause and effect feedback I dont think you'd see the same 'resistance' to the economic aspect. And note that that doesnt mean that the econ has to be SIMPLE...just accessible.

FWIW, this is my distillation of the anti-COG econ argument as well. I think folks complained about complexity but really when you scratched the surface they meant transparency.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I dont necessarily think that that is the case at all. It not a question of having too much control IMO, but more that the CoG econ was too 'fuzzy'. And by 'fuzzy' I mean that it was too convoluted and it was very difficult to determine what the cause and effect of various actions taken was. This leads to players making guesses rather than decisions and eventually to just the desire to not want to mess with it at all (and hence the reason why

I'm just going by a lot of the comments I've seen on other forums as to why people didn't like the COG economy.

I do think you're right that people prefer things that are more transparent. In the COG economy, everything affects everything else over a few turns. I was trying to design something I'd never seen in a strategy game before, an economy that was complex enough that making economic decisions might feel something like making economic decisions in the real world. In the real world, Paul Volcker increases interest rates, he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen... he may have enough experience to have a good idea, but the system is so "fuzzy and convoluted" that he's not just able to predict the exact effects of his decisions. Frankly I still like having this kind of thing in the game -- knowledge of the economy becomes a matter of intuition and experience -- but I agree with you 100% that the majority of players hate having to deal with something that's too complex to be able to handle more directly. There are a few European reviewers who really loved the economy in COG and one who actually "got" exactly what I was trying to do with it, another who thought we ruined FOF by taking out the COG economy, but I think these guys are exceptions and, (sniffle, sniffle), I don't think we'll being trying to implement this kind of economy again.

Bummer... that's the thing I liked most about the economy aspect. Unfortunately, many wargamers are absolute control freaks and think it's 'realistic and historical' to be able to determine the cause and effect of every single action, whether in the economy or on the battlefield. In my view, such an outlook is anything but realistic or historical.

I think it was truman (can't remember) who said that if you were to line up all the economists in the world, they'd still be pointing in different directions.

Thanks for your reply ericbabe. I look forward to your efforts.

I agree there was too much economic development possible in COG. Originally (at least in our in-house testing in the beta stage of development) we tried to ensure that economic development would be held to reasonable levels of GDP growth by balancing the costs of things with their economic benefits. The longer-scenario and the mitigated waste rules really allow things to grow much too large.

I don't think it's inappropriate to have appropriately large economic growth in this period though. Napoleon and the Directory introduced sweeping economic reforms, and to a large extent Napoleon engaged in an attempt at "micromanaging" some sectors of the French economy.

By way of examples: in 1800 London built the West India docks, expanding them steadily over the next six years, and in the same year the Berlin's Royal Porcelain factory begins to use steam power for the first time, greatly increasing its production of luxury goods over the next few years. The first advertising agency is opened in London. A major horse-drawn railway opens in the Ruhr Valley to increase mining operations there. Berlin introduces a new postal system. Denmark begins to regulate guilds in Copenhagen.

In 1801, the Bank of France is founded. Horse-drawn railways are introduced in Surrey. Gerhard von Scharnhorst starts a war college in Berlin. Chivas Royal Scotch whisky is first blended (an increase in luxuries if ever there was one). The London Stock Exchange is formed.

I do agree that as it is now, the growth can easily be too large. I also think that the more feudal nations should have a harder time of changing their economy -- note that the examples in 1800/1801 are all French, British, and Prussian (not that other places weren't making economic developments as well.)

Good points, and while I agree with them, I also agree that in game the effects were too pronounced, especially in more "traditional" monarchies, like Russia.

For my own opinion, I disagree that the upgrades are too fantastic for the period. Most of the things on the list were things actually developed during the period covered by the game (or else were attempted to be developed, such as Rocket Horses), and their effects aren't anything like the sweeping technological changes introduced into WWII. They also for the most part don't represent technological improvements but rather developments in military doctrine or training. I would argue that the Coalition showed marked improvements in military doctrine during the Napoleonic Wars. I'd appreciate more opinions on this as I haven't heard too many people complain that the upgrade system is too generous.

I think I may have expressed myself a bit misleadingly here. What I meant was that research could have been a bit more streamlined, i.e. instead of small steps being researched, putting together some related advances into one.

Well Alexander I did try to enact some social and economic reforms.  He formed the "Private Committee", and they drew up a number of reforms, such as allowing merchants to own land, as well as drafting a constitution that would have given new rights to the peasantry.  None of this was ever signed into law however!  If I remember right, Russia did engage in a number of cultural works at the time, and built new educational institutions as well.

I think the best thing may be to have cost multipliers on improvement types for each nation.  I'll have to think about it some more though.

Great news![&o] I own and enjoy all of your games and will diffently get this one. And when you finnaly make a Fantasy game using the FoF engine I'll buy that one to. [8|]

Is the expansion still being worked on? What's its ETA? 1st quarter 2008? 2nd quarter?

Yep, 2nd quarter at the earliest.

Thanks for the prompt answer! I'll buy it as soon as it's out.

I've just recently got COG and still feeling my way around, but I will get COG2 as soon as it becomes available.

Erik, I agree. I've had this game for years and never really enjoyed it because I found the economy too frustrating. The complexity was fine, but it was the seeming total inability to figure out the result of my actions that was frustrating.

May I suggest that the expansion contain an economic model with all the detail of the original, but done in such a way that you can anticipate the approximate result of your actions? There are many people who love to plan economic aspects, but the fuzziness of the current model makes planning very difficult.

I would also like to see an option for an economy that was largely automated, for those folks who would like to focus on the military aspects.