Surrender Issues...

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Give the Guys a Break!!

Merely my personal opinion, but the Guys at WCS & the Beta testers have worked their socks off to get this game out for us all and continual carping on (that sometimes verges on the edge of ridicule!) about issues is not going to get the probs sorted any sooner!

Yes there are probs with the game and some things could well be done better, and, that’s what Feedback is for (as is the ‘Wish List’) but please keep in mind those Guys will have other projects on the go not just CoG EE, notably, a big patch for FoF.

I’m sure they will address the probs as & when time allows, in the meantime enjoy what is a magnificent game even if there are some minor flaws in it and after raising your concerns leave be, they will get attended too in the fullness of time!

All the Best
Peter

[Randomizer]

I think that I have to come down solidly on the side of the ad hoc Society to Prevent Teleportation of XVIII Century Armies. It seems to be a gamey way to address the problems caused by a partial peace in a war game but on the plus side you do have some say on where the troops end up.

However.

I checked some books see what happens to the forces involved when Coalition A makes peace with Country X but not Country Y and typically the chapter ends and we never find out what happened to the Troops. In the next chapter, they have magically appeared at their new start lines with no sense for the reader as to how and how long it took to get there or any supply and or diplomatic concerns.

We know for example that the Army Napoleon used in Italy had veterans of his Egyptian adventure and yet determining how those soldiers actually got there with the RN dominating the Med is not as clear. It’s a safe bet they did not teleport in real life but having them teleport in a game solves a multitude of problems and would probably pass unnoticed by the less discriminating gamer.

So I am not entirely opposed to 18th-Century teleportation on principle but…

I do like the suggestion of an option, move by magic or retain the strategic position you have won but at a cost. The cost could be Glory, National morale, money or whatever but it should not be free. The vanquished might have issues with you launching offensive war against their former allies from their territory, local supply might be difficult and expensive and there is always the possibility that this action could trigger new hostilities with the recently defeated enemy.

Army teleportation is an inelegant solution to a multitude of political, military and diplomatic problems created by gaming multi-lateral coalition warfare but the player should be given an one-time option to teleport or pay a price for remaining in place. The new issue will be getting a consensus on what that price should be…

Best Regards

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

We know for example that the Army Napoleon used in Italy had veterans of his Egyptian adventure and yet determining how those soldiers actually got there with the RN dominating the Med is not as clear. It’s a safe bet they did not teleport in real life but having them teleport in a game solves a multitude of problems and would probably pass unnoticed by the less discriminating gamer.

... actually I had to look that one up a few days ago... it seems that the French troops were intially left behind by good old Nappy as he scurried back to France... (which I knew but never realized what happened to them) The troops were eventually defeated and as one of the surrender terms... the British Navy gave them a lift home! but they were not teleported.... [:D]

[SlickWilhelm]

First off, I'd like to point out that Hard Sarge is a very nice guy, and if he comes across as being mean or impatient, it must be purely unintentional. All you have to do is take a look at all of his helpful posting on the Hired Guns forum to see that he's plainly a very helpful guy. And Sarge, thanks for the $20 you gave me to say those nice things about you! [:D]

But seriously...while I'm new to CoG:EE, I have been gaming online and participating on forums for fifteen years, and I must say that the war gamers here on the Matrix forums are by far the most polite, reasonable folks I've ever had the pleasure gaming with.

Barbarossa is a customer, and there's nothing wrong with voicing constructive criticism when the object is making a great game even better. He's been very polite and reasonable while still being direct about what is, imo, a valid concern. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

I purchased the original CoG, too, but before I got around to learning how to play it properly, CoG:EE was released, which I immediately purchased. So, I'm ignorant about the whole teleporting bruhaha from CoG. It would be nice if someone who has experience with that issue would come forward and explain why it's necessary to use the teleporting method of troop withdrawal. I'm sure that if someone would be kind enough to explain, we would agree to disagree and move on to whining about some other issue! [:'(]

[gdpsnake1979]

Probably the best solution is to leave the armies in place (after all, all your supply depots remain in place - ever notice that?- you have to delete those depots in the next turn or pay for them - I missed that a few times) and start assesing a glory penalty for each unit left in the surrendered nation on the next and subsequent turns - a sort of ad hoc get your troops out in accordance with the surrender terms or suffer penalties. Then a player would have to select "share depots" and/or "free passage" clauses in the surrender treaty to avoid the foraging/glory penalties.
Because it is a royal pain to declare war on a nation while at war with another only to be teleported away the next turn due to surrender and be left at war with the other guy and not able to reach him now. And no, getting the choice of which province to teleport to sucks as well because ALL your troops go to that single place and are often horribly out of strategic position or cause supply issues for several turns.
Just leave them be and make some of the treaty clauses more useable/viable. Heck, I never use most of them anyway - now I might have too in order to carry the fight to the next 'bad guy.'

But I don't know if the teleport was a solution to other problems more difficult to solve if armies are left in place - can any beta testers/developers chime in here?

Speaking of treaties, where is the clause about loaning troops from the conquered country to the conqueror which was standard practice in thos days? Don't stone me - just asking LOL!

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

Give the Guys a Break!!

Merely my personal opinion, but the Guys at WCS & the Beta testers have worked their socks off to get this game out for us all and continual carping on (that sometimes verges on the edge of ridicule!) about issues is not going to get the probs sorted any sooner!

actually I don't think any of us are criticizing people at WCS nor the game… we are providing what’s generally referred to as feedback. I also don’t think raising an issue in one thread and politely discussing it is considered carping (let alone saying we are ridiculing them.) If the Beta Testers don’t feel like discussing an issue that’s fine by me… just don’t tell me I can’t raise an issue like everyone else to have one of the developers respond too. I would suggest you check your own responses before accusing someone of ridicule.

If you like the teleporting army function, great… that’s one vote for. The rest of us were discussing ways it could be changed. If you would like to provide some suggestions on how it could be changed we would love to hear it. But please don’t tell us to be quiet. The whole point of these forums is to discuss things. Otherwise get rid of them.

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm
First off, I'd like to point out that Hard Sarge is a very nice guy, ...

I agree and I meant no disrepect... but a number of us did have a question for the developer and everyone keeps telling us to basically be quiet... [:D] I have used a lot of HS's advice plenty of times and greatly appreciate it.

[barbarossa2]

Kingmaker,

I agree with your statements.  Each one of them. 

This is a fun game.  I still enjoy playing it.  And I am still recommending it to my friends.

But no wheel gets oiled if it doesn't squeak.  So we're squeaking.

I am working to make sure that my "8/10 review" of CoG:EE stays on the front page of their forum so people stopping by get to see that I DO think it is a great game! In fact, in my humble opinion, the BEST Napoleonic grand strategy game ever offered to the gaming public. It is a milestone in Napoleonic gaming. I feel I have made myself clear on that I do agree with another poster here who calls it "a triumph!" And everyone who has taken part in its creation should be reminded of that. [&o]

Cheers,

-B

[ericbabe]

I don't think of it as teleportation but more like strategic movement.  I've played a lot of table games that have strategic movement rules -- even for 18th century units -- and so these sorts of rules don't seem that unusual to me.  I can see how they might be unusual if one hasn't seen these types of rules before.

The vacating of armies from conquered nations solves a number of things that would otherwise be issues in the game -- the most significant being that of trapped units.  Say a French corps is in British Malta when Britain surrenders to France.  Even if the French are violating British territory, a French fleet still cannot enter Malta to pick up the French corps there.  The corps is stuck there.

When Hard Sarge recommends playing early versions of COG1 -- before we added this sort of rule -- I believe what he's saying is that people who complain about the side-effects of the vacating rule now ought to compare those side effects to those of the game without this rule.  The issues you're describing now are very mild compared to the actual game-play problems the game had before we added this system.

[dude]

ericbabe, thanks for the feedback... that helps clarify the problem a bit.
 
If troops can violate neutrality can it be coded to allow ships to also?  Or is there a major coding problem with that? [:)]
 
Your example of Malta is a good one... If you look at an historical example the French were stuck in Egypt after surrendering to the British there.  Those troops didn't suddenly reappear in France... they had to ask the British to give them a lift home since the French fleet was uh... unavailable... 
 
Now I'm not very knowlegeable about 18th + 19th Century naval operations... but did ships ever get embarked without being in port?  (I don't have a clue...)  Could units be moved to ships in an adjacent sea zone?
 
Now before someone asks... what if the French don't have any ships left... my answer would be then I guess they better disband those land units that are stuck... that's the risk they take in relying on ships for transport off islands.
 
I mean I think that's a risk anyone takes in sending troops overseas... you'd better have a way to get them home or you'll need to disband them.  Just ask Nappy about his troops in Egypt...
 
(The last table top war games I played were nearly twenty years ago and those were Empire in Arms and World in Flames... so I can't remember how they handle surrenders.)
 
 
 

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: dude

ericbabe, thanks for the feedback... that helps clarify the problem a bit.

Agreed.

[barbarossa2]

Thanks Ericbabe. Now, we can move ahead one step in this discussion.

So, the next question is...can you code other parts of the engine to give us conditions which would better approximate conditions after a surrender so that there would be no "trapped" units and we could keep our units in place as victors?  If so, how much effort will this take?

Or, how about teleporting only units which would be "trapped" until a more complete solution can be developed? That's an idea! [:D]

-B

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I don't think of it as teleportation but more like strategic movement.  I've played a lot of table games that have strategic movement rules -- even for 18th century units -- and so these sorts of rules don't seem that unusual to me.  I can see how they might be unusual if one hasn't seen these types of rules before.

The vacating of armies from conquered nations solves a number of things that would otherwise be issues in the game -- the most significant being that of trapped units.  Say a French corps is in British Malta when Britain surrenders to France.  Even if the French are violating British territory, a French fleet still cannot enter Malta to pick up the French corps there.  The corps is stuck there.

When Hard Sarge recommends playing early versions of COG1 -- before we added this sort of rule -- I believe what he's saying is that people who complain about the side-effects of the vacating rule now ought to compare those side effects to those of the game without this rule.  The issues you're describing now are very mild compared to the actual game-play problems the game had before we added this system.

Yeah I can definitely see how it is legitimately thought of as strategic movement. That is a very common game device, and not unrealistic on the whole. Just means fast movement as a result of unconstrained logistics, and no demands from combat or some such.

I can also see how NOT having them vacate would produce even worse problems.

Maybe there is a kind of middle ground that could be coded without too much hassle in patch though?

1. Allow players the choice of whether or not they want to move a unit(s)
2. Allow players to move each container separately.
3. Move the units on the map during a special strategic movement phase, instead of just having them "teleport"

Maybe coding all that would be a real bugbear? But if if could be done, it would combine the best of both worlds. Players who want to play 'more realistically' would get the chance to do so every time there was a surrender, and at point (1) leave them inside neutral territory if they want to, and take the hit from breach of neutrality if they want to. At point (2) players could move each container to a different province if they want, thus not having them all dogpile in one province. At point (3) players would understand that it was 'post-surrender' strategic movement, and not just 'teleporting.'

If some wiseguy leaves units in Cyprus after the war like the problem you mention Eric, then nobodies fault but his own.

But again, maybe too hard to code?

As a shirker of my own beta-testing, erm, 'duties' . . . [:o] I can only imagine that fine-tuning of stuff like this is the least of a team's concerns when what they are trying to do is get a product to market. As someone said, there are always patches. In this case, we are talking about (maybe, assuming devs agree it is worth doing and is doable) a slight tweak for the sake fine-tuning, not major overhauls to make the game playable.

Just wanted to say that to clear the air a bit.

I don't get the impression there is a single one of us on here who is currently an active poster who has ANY serious criticism of the game. As the one guy said, "It is a triumph," and it most definitely IS a triumph. To me, one of the best strategy games ever, at least a 9/10 maybe higher . . . though having only played from 1792 to 1796 in a grand campaign, I need to reserve judgement on whether I would call it a 9.5 or a 9.75. I had played 3 or 4 games (all starting 1792 and as France) through a year or so to figure it out, and now I'm on an actual Diff setting campaign that I intend to finish. I _HAD_ been feeling like the AI was a bit of a pushover, but in the last year, he has surprised me quite a bit, so I'm going to withdraw that implication altogether. AI for a game that does not run on a supercomputer is never gonna be as challenging as a human, which for me is always a slight annoyance because I find PBEMs just too slow and cumbersome most of the time. But this AI seems to be well-balanced and resourceful. A well-designed game can compensate for an AI that is actually pretty simplistic algorithmically by anticipating ongoing game dynamics and programming some of those simple algorithms in ways that can create challenges for the player. From what I've seen so far, WCS HAS achieved that here quite well!

I know some guys have been trying out all kinds of different starting times, and different nations and stuff, and that is of course fine. But to me, the game was primarily designed as a simulation of Napoleon's explotis, and so for me, for now, I'm focusing on finishing one complete long campaign as France on a fairly challening difficulty level. I'll reserve 'trying out' all the sub-possibilities until later. After all, the game has only been for sale for a couple months, right!?

I consider some of these issues that guys have brought up as 'criticisms' ALL quite minor, and for me, not in any way spoiling game play. Minor annoyances? Sure, but with any complex strategy game there are always going to be slight tweaks to be done even after the best, most extensive design and beta-testing.

I applaud WCS and the beta-testers for an incredible work of art!

[ptan54]

Surely the solution would be for the defeated power to automatically grant military access to the victor. This isn't so unrealistic, after all, if you win, you still have to march your troops home (through the lands of the defeated power) or onwards towards enemy territories (from Prussia to Russia for example). This period of military access should only last a few months.

As for the Malta example, maybe change the way troops board ships. If the ships are in a sea zone adjacent to that province, allow the troops to board.

[MorningDew]

What about simply offering the victor a choice? A simple Message Box and "If answer = yes" so the coding is easy (I know, it's never that easy:)

But that way the victor can decide if they want to leave their troops there with the associated risks of getting stuck/violating neutrality or have them strategically moved.

[Hard Sarge]

I agree and I meant no disrepect... but a number of us did have a question for the developer and everyone keeps telling us to basically be quiet... I have used a lot of HS's advice plenty of times and greatly appreciate it.

first off, please remember that the BIG GUYS can be busy and are not always on the puplic forums, and when they do show up, they may miss some of the posts were questions are asked

some of the beta testers try to hang around and help out where they can, some times it helps, sometimes it don't, or comes across the wrong way

when most of my answers were being met with more questions, I asked Gil if he could have Eric or Mr Z drop by and read the post and try to answer the questions, some of what you guys wanted me to answer, are in the NDA area, and I am not really allowed to get into those areas (the haves and the whys, did we agree, did we disagree, why did we, why didn't we and what not)

and above all, I hope nobody took any of my posts or replies to be meaning be quiet or shut up, none of that was the intent

most of us that try to reply to questions, are trying to be helpful, not trying to get the issue to be dropped or covered up

(Slick, will be happy when the next patch comes out, i need to relax and blow some troopers away

[barbarossa2]

Don't worry Hard Sarge, no offense taken here

I know NDAs can be a bitch.

I am wondering which other situations units get "trapped" in with the old system.

If we can violate neutrality now, I don't really understand how a unit on Malta would be trapped. Can't it just be picked up? Or are fleets not allowed to violate neutrality?

[dude]

Ditto... no offense taken here HS... I write and test software at my office so I know the limits and how busy people are.  I would just describe it as frustrating and leave it at that… [:)]
 
... to everyone else... the limit in the game that is hampering the surrendering issue right now is Fleets accessing ports.... If I recall you can only access another port if you are allied with someone else.  So just violating neutrality will not get you port access.  So as the example above was stated, if you had troops sitting on Malta you couldn't get them off even if you violated neutrality, your fleet can't enter the port.  There would have to be a coding change to allow fleets to enter neutral ports... (something I don't think happened historically?)
 
To me the simple solution would be to allow fleets to enter ports to pick up troops... just don't know what this takes for coding or how historical this was?
 

[barbarossa2]

Dude,

It seems to me that allowing fleets to violate neutrality would be less of an unrealistic hassle than the "teleportation" issue.

Maybe if a fleet violated neutrality the violating nation would be penalized more?  But I hardly see it as a reason to implement the forced strategic movement (a.k.a. teleportation).  Teleportation puts a major cramp in my game.  Whereas allowing a major power who is already violating my neutrality on land to also violate it with his fleets, would be MUCH less so.

-B

[dude]

I agree with you that letting fleets violate neutrality would be much better than teleporting armies (I was just curious if there was a historical precedent one way or another).  I'm just wondering now if there's more of a problem with the coding to allow ships to violate neutrality.

I also feel that if someone takes the risk to transport units to an island and then has no way to remove those troops that's their fault.  The troops should then be disbanded.  That's the risk you take and will make attacking islands a risky proposition.

In a game I played I just found it too much of a gimmick that the French army was at Moscow on one turn and the next was back in France.  I ought to take them a few months to march back.  Again... that would make the French player think twice about sending a large force all the way to Moscow.  As it is now... if he make it there and knows he can defeat the Russians he also knows his army will magically appear back in France to attack someone else or defend France.  He doesn't have to worry about the long march back and possibly leaving France venerable for longer than neccessary.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: dude

I agree with you that letting fleets violate neutrality would be much better than teleporting armies (I was just curious if there was a historical precedent one way or another).

Im fine with the option of special rule "strategic movement" or "teleportation" whatever you want to call it after surrenders to avoid certain trapping situations.

I just dont think it should be mandatory, and it should take a certain amount of time, depending on the distance moved. 1-2 turns for very short distances (Malta to Genoa for example), 3-4 for moderate distances (say back to France from middle Austria/Prussia), 5-6 for long distances (Moscow to France).

I dont know that it would be deemed worth the effort from the powers that be, but the example given of the Grand Armee teleporting instantly from Russia back to France to pull Nappys fat out of the fire back home I have seen happen in numerous games and I just dont like it.

If there was a way to make it so that teleportation would only be an option IF the force involved was somehow trapped that would be even better, but thats probably even more work.

Really its about whether or not the problems teleportation causes is enough to justify the work needed for a fix.