Matrix Games Forums

to be honest, it is Poland I am worried about

It's probably easier to build up Turkey's economy in "Advanced Economy" mode, just because there are more ways of economic development (merchants, waste control, trade routes for money) under the advanced economy.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

It's probably easier to build up Turkey's economy in "Advanced Economy" mode, just because there are more ways of economic development (merchants, waste control, trade routes for money) under the advanced economy.

The main thing is that its highly unlikely that a country as disadvantaged as Turkey now is will be allowed to win a game versus intelligent human opponents who are economically and militarily far more powerful.

I was never concerned that a human wouldnt be able to defeat the AI playing Turkey.

Well, I suppose we could always put together an a fictional all nations balanced scenario though might be a bit tricky to balance Sweden.  Or are you saying historically that Turkey could have conquered Europe at this time?

ORIGINAL: Joram

Or are you saying historically that Turkey could have conquered Europe at this time?

No, thats not what Im saying. My statements and various unanswered questions can be read in previous posts.

I love a good fantasy scenario when it has some kinda underlying storyline. For example, there was a brilliant mod to the War Plan Orange game called "Western Citadel." WPO is in itself an alternate history game in which the Washington Naval Treaty was never agreed on and so the naval arms race of the pre and post WWI era continues unabated and culminates in the Great Pacific War ensuing in 1926 instead of 1941 . . . Western Citadel was a mod in which U.S. presence in the Pacific was considerably strengthened because of various well-thought out political developments culminating in Guam being a fortress by 1926, but also with Japan having undertaken a lot more naval buildup largely as a result of this one Admiral not having died on Titanic. The fan who made this mod, Engineer was his avatar, he must've written a hundred pages or more of "documentation" and back story, etc., The orders of battle were as intricate as those in the original game, changes to the map were brilliant, etc. It was like a whole nother game for free!!
 
Alternate history can be great when it is based on a sound understanding of history. When it is just Civ- or TW-style "what if" and "do whatever YOU want with the power you command in this game!" it has a lot less appeal to the serious wargamer.
 
Does that make those games less meritorious or "unfun?" Nah. I played that one FPS game, what was it . . . Call of Honor? Call of Duty? or something like that? The one where you can play a Soviet, British and American soldier in WWI "scenarios" (which are really just linear "dungeons") . . . played that nonstop for a week or so. Then it was "done," and boring. A game like COGEE has tremendous replayability in large part because of the finely balanced ecology it simulates: slight changes here and there could result in very different outcomes.

Well yes, it does appear to be your point as MrZ quite clearly says we wanted to keep it within it's historical limits and it achieved that in our opinion.  The only thing you're asking here is information on the basis of our decisions as well as questioning our testing abilities which is insulting to say the least.  If you are that passionate about their 'gimping' and you have a different opinion on what the strengths of Ottoman empire should be, please by all means feel free to help us out by providing us some data. 
 
Also remember that if you feel any side is unbalanced, that is what you can use the glory modifier for in the setup screen.  Give Ottomans 300 pts to begin with and see how close to winning they are then.  And my original suggestion wasn't made in jest either, it probably would be worth evening out the sides in a scenario to provide some what-if scenarios that players may enjoy more as not everyone likes to play the underdog. 

ORIGINAL: Joram

The only thing you're asking here is information on the basis of our decisions as well as questioning our testing abilities which is insulting to say the least.

Being well aware of the Ottoman superpower issue in original COG, I dont want to see that again, yet the penalty still seems excessive.

Whats the big deal about a fan asking detailed design/game balance questions?

No Im just curious what other values you guys tested with. Like did you guys try 50 extra money and extra build time and you still had Turkish superpowers emerging in games?

No reason to get defensive about a question like that. IF the answer is Yes, say so.

I personally don't want to discuss testing because this place is meant to discuss the game, not the design or testing methodologies.  Discussion on that simply distracts from discussing the game so sorry, I'm not going to even open the door a crack on that one. Not intentionally at least!  If you are truly interested in knowing about testing methodology I would simply suggest you sign up to be a beta tester. 
 
There's nothing at all wrong with questioning the design balance and in fact constructive discussions are encouraged.  I understand your concern but it was answered. 
 
Now moving on to the next step, the question then becomes what would you suggest as an alternative to make them less gimpy yet still be interesting and historical to play?  Or is historical not even the answer?  My suggestion is simply a 'balanced' scenario without restrictions on the different powers and economies while maybe not even, at least closer together?  I'm not an Ottoman expert, surely there could be better ideas.  Is it simply lowering the penalty in half?  Please by all means make suggestions. 

It would also be easy to mod Turkey to be much stronger, if desired. That might be the answer in a multi-human played game, to give Turkey a better chance.

Otherwise, much as with EIA or other Napoleonic period games that include Turkey, Turkey is the weakest and it's tough to win in most circumstances. IMO, it should be that way.

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Joram

The only thing you're asking here is information on the basis of our decisions as well as questioning our testing abilities which is insulting to say the least.

Being well aware of the Ottoman superpower issue in original COG, I dont want to see that again, yet the penalty still seems excessive.

Whats the big deal about a fan asking detailed design/game balance questions?

No Im just curious what other values you guys tested with. Like did you guys try 50 extra money and extra build time and you still had Turkish superpowers emerging in games?

No reason to get defensive about a question like that. IF the answer is Yes, say so.

well, since I already said yes, that is why it is insulting, so yes, it was tested and it was talked about and in the end, the Designer and OOB guy won out

and for what it is worth, I was one of the ones who didn't like the idea and argued against it

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well, since I already said yes, that is why it is insulting, so yes, it was tested and it was talked about and in the end, the Designer and OOB guy won out

Actually you asked me if I thought you guys put something like that in the game without testing it and reworking it or something to that effect and didnt answer any of the questions I asked.

ORIGINAL: Joram

Now moving on to the next step, the question then becomes what would you suggest as an alternative to make them less gimpy yet still be interesting and historical to play?

How would I be able to make good suggestions without knowing what has already been tried (and failed to resolve the problem) before the current penalty was settled on?

Really trying to be constructive about it, but the people capable of answering the very simple specific questions I put forward seem more interested in having their feelings hurt (for God knows why) than providing answers.

Just consider the matter closed.