What's next now that the patch is out

[Anthropoid]

Who said we like it? We're just getting all the dirt on it so we an really take it apart [;)]
 
. . . well, yeah. Now that I think of it, it _is_ a pretty good game.

[gottagofish]

Gil R. you are right to some extent.  Napoleon was rushed to power because the Revolutionary leaders were losing support from the people.  Maybe if you could add a feature where Napoleon only enters if the National Moral drops below -500 or some such occurance?  If the revolution kept the people happy and winning in battle, he would have become a general only by some such necessity, not being born in France.

[ptan54]

Just noticed that Lannes is still in the 1812 scenario(he's in Poland). He should be dead. I'll post any more inconsistencies if I find any.

[ptan54]

In the 1815 scenario, Austria has Styria (Graz) as the capital, rather than Vienna, which is what it should be.

Also for 1792 Poland, the capital ought to be Warsaw. Poland moved its capital from Krakow to Warsaw in 1596.

[DaveP]

I am somewhat disturbed by the supply sources.  The new rules make things VERY difficult for the English in the Med.  Either the English will have a very long supply line, or will be forced into strange behavior, like invading Morrocco.  Should Gibralter at least be a supply source, given how major of a base it was for the English?

Thanks,
Dave

[Franck]

Gil,
 
I had pointed something out when the game came out, seems you forgot to fix it...
 
 
I made you guys notice that Britain would be willing to trade any amount of money for 1 of most comodity... (Every power might actually do that).
 
You said you'd try to put a cap on the amount of money a country would give for one resource. It's not a big problem as the problem mostly only exist in 1v1 and a player can easily NOT abuse this feature... But you might get complains about it. (personnaly I exchange 5 for 1 with britain and I don't think I'm stealing from them that way... But they would accept 20 for 1...

[Anthropoid]

I presently have about three deals with Britain at ~25 to ~33gp for 1 wool; one with France at about 29gp for 1 wool; and one or two with Turkey for about 21gp for 1 wool. One thing I've noticed is, that, as I've made more and more of these deals the prices have come down. Moreover, this does not seem to be generalized to all trade goods, just my Russian wool (finest quality i assure you). Based on this I assumed it was actually a decision that was WAD and reflected a calculated 'willingness' on the part of the AI to pay that much?
 
I figured it was just because they have lots of excess cash, and they also need raw materials to make textiles? Is this not WAD? Frankly I was shocked when Mus tried to offer me 2gp per wool in our PBEM; that is an insult! They worth _at least_ 10gp!

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Frankly I was shocked when Mus tried to offer me 2gp per wool in our PBEM; that is an insult! They worth _at least_ 10gp!

They arent worth that much to a thinking breathing human.

You cant bring irrational expectations based on the irrational behavior of the AI in single player to a rational marketplace filled with human trading partners.

The same kind of thing has frustrated my efforts to get trades with other players. Lenin (prussia in another PBEM) is the only person whos come to the trade table with realistic expectations... that of BOTH sides of the trade getting something of more relative value to them. He traded me a bunch of horses he had in excess. I traded him 2 money that I had in excess per horse.

I believe I was also eventually able to get some horse trades from Kingmaker (Spain) after he wasnt able to find any other takers. But our first attempt at getting some trade going was derailed by expectations based on what the AI trade advisor thought was fair instead of the humans involved.

There are several other powers in the PBEM games Ive played so far that dont take ANY advantage of their surplus raw materials. They get greedy and price themselves out of the market or dont even enter the market. A couple people I approached never even responded to me contacting them about trade in any way.

[:D]

[Anthropoid]

On the contrary. Textiles are the most scarce resource in the game. The raw materials to construct those technological wonders are worth their weight in gold. I'm fine if you don't want to pay a reasonable price; just means more textiles for me [:'(]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

On the contrary.

Since you still have the excess wool and iron that I was interested in and nobody has emerged to pay the "reasonable" price you asked its self evident that you overvalued your commodities and priced yourself out of the market.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: DaveP

I am somewhat disturbed by the supply sources.  The new rules make things VERY difficult for the English in the Med.  Either the English will have a very long supply line, or will be forced into strange behavior, like invading Morrocco.  Should Gibralter at least be a supply source, given how major of a base it was for the English?

Thanks,
Dave

Gibralter is very important certainly yet it's also extremely tiny in actual size and in fact itself needs to be supplied quite heavily to supply the fleets it supports.

With that said I don't disagree that it's difficult however I do not think it impossible. You can easily capture one of the neutral supply points along the way. As for the historicity of the situation, I will leave that discussion to the experts.

[Franck]

Seriously, 1 wool for 2 gp is a rip off... As is 10 GP for 1 wool.

For me, most commodities should trade at about 1 for 1. Except for GP, Wool (or it's equivalent) and textile.

Gp would go at (about) 2 for 1 for almost all commodities.
Wool would go between .75 to .4 for 1 of all ''normal'' commodities.
textitle beieng worth 5 (or 4 I might have forgotten) wool you can make the calculation yourself.

Rating wool or textile lower then that is highly underating wool. Going higher is a bad idea too.
But if I understand the CPU's thinking the problem is this:
They make him calculate the marginal benefit of an additionnal unit of what you ask them for versus an additionnal unit of what you offer them.

Since the CPU as a tendency to stack alot of cash it consider the marginal benefit of cash to be really low (it as so much on hands, why would it need more...) The fact that it accept tremendiously stupid offer come from this feature. (seriously, you can get 40 gp for one horse from Britain... Don't tell me you think this is WAD!) At first I tough that feature was in to ''force'' england to lend you money since historically they lended alot of money to european powers to fight napoleon. And I have been using this ''Feature'' to fund my anti-bonaparte nations. Still, I don't use it when I'm not playing anti-bonarparte. Seriously, these are ridiculous price! Sure the CPU should devaluate it's perception of the value of money if he as so much... But the problems here comes mostly from it's bizarre stacking habit. Just build stuff if you got money (at worst build BANKS for god sakes!).


Anyways, when you understand the economic model in this game you'll be much more willing to trade around the prices I said. It is a sure thing that most nations, beieng starved for some resources might be charging different price. For exemple, I just tryed to play spain in the 1792 scenario... It's so starved for cash in the beggining (loosing 20 a turn) that you have to trade with someone. Still, if someone goes way over the price I have stated here I'll just raise my taxes and loose a bit of production instead! While some other nations (england) are overflowing with cash! They should be much more willing to exchange cash for other ressources. This beieng said, in our new game, I will choose my allies on our ability to get good economic deals going + the strategic aspect... But there's nothing worst than someone who doesn't want to make viable economic deals as an ally. Sure, you can change most nations to be self sufficient in the game... Yet it is way more efficient to get some good trade going.


Another problem I find with the game is that Textile is supposed to be the most important ressource. (I think prices might have changed with the patch tough... I tough Corps required Textile before and seems they don't now...) Yet, because of the way the economic model is done this make Wool and Cotton the most important ressources of the game! Building Farms is way better than building factories!!!! (usually the deciding factor in how many textile you can build is the amount of Wool and Cotton). I do not know alot about that period... But I tough that building factories should be better! (My idea for this is to make Factories give a boost of 20% to the production of Cotton and Wool and drop the 10% bonus to wool and cotton from farms!)

[Franck]

I have also started to experience some crashes from time to time now that I installed the new patch... During the resolution the program will just ''close'' because it experience a problem...

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Franck
Seriously, 1 wool for 2 gp is a rip off... As is 10 GP for 1 wool.

I was using 2 money per resource partially in lieu of subsidy since as Great Britain Im only trading with people I want to stay at peace with.

I agree with you completely on the irrational way the AI values money, but I noticed it devaluing wool and cotton in my game as Turkey by a little bit as well. I think the money devaluation sticks out the most because of the large amount you are allowed to stockpile compared to other resources.

See this post for some examples of completely irrational AI trade: fb.asp?m=2141053

[Gil R.]

Franck, please report any crashes in the Support sub-forum so that we can try to deal with them. Thanks.

As for the trade issue, I know that this was indeed tweaked, though I guess there might still problems.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Franck


Another problem I find with the game is that Textile is supposed to be the most important ressource. (I think prices might have changed with the patch tough... I tough Corps required Textile before and seems they don't now...) Yet, because of the way the economic model is done this make Wool and Cotton the most important ressources of the game! Building Farms is way better than building factories!!!! (usually the deciding factor in how many textile you can build is the amount of Wool and Cotton). I do not know alot about that period... But I tough that building factories should be better! (My idea for this is to make Factories give a boost of 20% to the production of Cotton and Wool and drop the 10% bonus to wool and cotton from farms!)

Well, the way the model works, you need farms AND factories. Farms increase the production of Wool and Cotton, but factories are required to transform it into Textiles. So, to increase textile production, you'll need to do both. When you see your stockpiles of Wool and Cotton increase, it might be because you have too few factories to convert it to Textiles. For me, the conversion capacity is usually the problem.

And yes, the Textile costs for some units were reduced to address several problems/concerns in the game. It may have lost some of its importance, but the changes were necessary to make COGEE a better game overall. Textiles are still required for a number of other things, so they are still vital to produce.

[Franck]

yeah noticed for the reduced cost in textile.
 
bjmorgan,
I do not agree about the need for factories. I have yet to see a single country start to stocpile cotton or wool (when I'm playing it). And I have a tendency to build about 50% bank and 50%farms as fast as possible. I keep building that until most provinces have 4-5 level in banks/farms...
 
And never noticed problems with stockpiles!

[sapper_astro]

ORIGINAL: Joram

ORIGINAL: DaveP

I am somewhat disturbed by the supply sources.  The new rules make things VERY difficult for the English in the Med.  Either the English will have a very long supply line, or will be forced into strange behavior, like invading Morrocco.  Should Gibralter at least be a supply source, given how major of a base it was for the English?

Thanks,
Dave

Gibralter is very important certainly yet it's also extremely tiny in actual size and in fact itself needs to be supplied quite heavily to supply the fleets it supports.

With that said I don't disagree that it's difficult however I do not think it impossible. You can easily capture one of the neutral supply points along the way. As for the historicity of the situation, I will leave that discussion to the experts.

I am not a widely read person on Napoleonics, but I have read more than one naval story about the problems of supplying Gib, especially after Spain joined France. If you wish it to be historically accurate, then Gib should need to be resupplied via sea, not be a supply source.

[Anthropoid]

Honestly, I do not undestand why you guys think textiles are only worth 1 or 2 gold?
 
Wool and cotton are not produced everywhere, Gold more-or-less is. An 'average' province probably produces about 6 gold. An "average" province produces about 1 wool with Textiles on max (I actually have the Province.txt values installed in an Excel, so maybe I should not just be speculating and look at some actual descriptive stats for you, but these are my anecdotal impressions). The "average" province that has a wool production slant may produce 4 at max Textile allocation and unimproved with additional farms. Now granted, you start adding some farms, and you can get that up to 10 or 11 wool per province. Also, there are some provinces that are GREAT wool producers (some of the Russian provinces are massive producers), but not all  provinces can produce much wool or cotton.
 
In short, one resource (wool/cotton) is more universally scarce in the ecology of the map, and is more concentrated in small clumps. In general economic terms, and assuming equal utility, this makes wool/cotton more valuable than gold. When you add to this the fact that, you must have textiles in fairly high quantities relative to the rates at at which it is produced at game start in order to be able to produce various powerful units, AND that you need to have four of one of the raw materials to produce just one textile . . . Well obviously textiles are even more valuable than wool/cotton (at least four times more valuable) but cotton/wool are certainly worth more than 1 to 1 relative to gold. Horses are also worth more, indeed, maybe even more than wool/cotton depending on specific situations. My sense is that iron is relatively abundant compared to horse and wool/cotton, and the value of the sumptuous goods, while certainly higher than gold, is largely dependent on pop size and national morale.
 
I have not done the math to reach some sort of estimate about the relative value of goods, and that would in some sense be a spurious estimate because ultimately their value depends on a particular nations needs. France and GB NEED lots of textiles to produce the various units they need to engage in Empire building. Smaller powers whose goals may be to simply survive, and whose strategic approach may be more geurilla warfare or diplomacy or trade, may not find the important strategic goods like horse, wool/cotton, textiles to be quite so important.
 
The behavior I see from the AI follows along with this overall economic analysis I'm writing down. The first time I set up a wool for gold deal with Britain she gave me about 33 gold for 1 wool. Next deal she would only give me 31. France at the same time (only two existing wool deals going) would only give me 26. Next deal with GB stuck at 29, and so on. I presently have about 10 wools going out for about (probably) 250 gold coming in, mostly with deals to GB and France. At the same time, Sweden, Austria, Prussia, any of the small countries would only trade me a max of about 3 or 3 gold and usually only 2 gold per wool.
 
This does not IMO suggest that "wool for gold trading with GB or France is broken." Indeed, the fact that the value they were willing to pay declined as the commodity was less stockpiled, and that France and GB (two of the biggest antagonists in the game) would pay high, but no one else would, and that they had slightly different 'high' rates they would pay all suggest to me that the algorithm is working and WAD.
 
Now maybe 31 gold for 1 wool _is_ a wee bit high, and I don't ever expect to get that much from a human player. But the general dynamics with the AI seem to be working fine, and I argue that those of you who are suggesting everything is more or less equal are off-your-rocker . . . Else you are just trying to delude your PBEM opponents into agreeing to highway robbery! [;)]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Honestly, I do not undestand why you guys think textiles are only worth 1 or 2 gold?

I never said textiles were worth 1 or 2 gold.

I would pay more for a finished product. My comments were about raw materials. Wood, iron, cotton, wool, etc.

Generally speaking nobody wants to trade finished goods. They want to keep the textiles they have the factories to produce and export raw materials like wool/cotton to other powers in exchange for money they dont have and then the more industrialized power turns those raw materials into textiles with their idle factory capacity.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

The behavior I see from the AI follows along with this overall economic analysis I'm writing down. The first time I set up a wool for gold deal with Britain she gave me about 33 gold for 1 wool. Next deal she would only give me 31. France at the same time (only two existing wool deals going) would only give me 26. Next deal with GB stuck at 29, and so on. I presently have about 10 wools going out for about (probably) 250 gold coming in, mostly with deals to GB and France. At the same time, Sweden, Austria, Prussia, any of the small countries would only trade me a max of about 3 or 3 gold and usually only 2 gold per wool.

This does not IMO suggest that "wool for gold trading with GB or France is broken."

Thats an astounding statement as no human player would *ever* consider trading anything as universally useful as money at a ratio like that for cotton or wool.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Indeed, the fact that the value they were willing to pay declined as the commodity was less stockpiled, and that France and GB (two of the biggest antagonists in the game) would pay high, but no one else would, and that they had slightly different 'high' rates they would pay all suggest to me that the algorithm is working and WAD.

That you are pointing out that France and GB would pay high but nobody else would reinforces the point I made in the other thread regarding the trade AI.

It doesnt correctly value money for both sides of a trade. It only places value based on its overabundance in one thing and lack in the other. Because it has a ton of money it devalues money greatly, not keeping in mind that all of its trading partners (and most of its competition for the same trades) are likely to be relatively cash poor. It also doesnt devalue the commodity its trading for by considering the fact that the other party has an overabundance of said commodity.

This would be like a rich person being willing to buy a commonly available $30,000 car for $300,000 just because they have a lot of money.

That doesnt happen in the real world, because thats irrational.

In the case of limited supply (lets say an auction or a situation where a commodity is truly rare, unlike raw materials in COG) the richer person would only pay enough more to win the bid.

But in this game we have the AI willing to pay through the nose because it doesnt properly value the commodities involved. If thats happening based off an algorithm it may well be working as designed, but the design is deeply flawed because the AI is making trades that no rational actor would.

PS Another factor to consider is that even at normal difficulty the AI Receives massive amounts of free money to keep it in the game. This probably throws the trading AI even further into the deep end when it comes to devaluing its money in a nonsensical manner.