CoG and EiA

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

I am not new to the boards, I just seldom post.....

I have been looking here every week for some time.

As the only other game I have bought from Matrix(yes I bought it all those years ago!!) was Steel panthers I suppose I am being a little harsh but I am getting a little frustrated. I am very much looking forward to EIA for the PC and thought COG may keep me going till then but I am put off by the crashing.

You are completely correct in saying that it is a not the same guys but still, it has put the nagging doubt there I'm afraid. Too many burnt fingers with Napoleon on the PC, that 1813 game being so buggy as to be a joke.

All in all, I am just getting frustrated that with all todays PC power there aint really one good Napoleonic game.

Huh?

CoG is a great game... While you may be having difficulties with detailed battles for now, the game should still be playable using quick combat and it's still very fun.

[9thlegere]

I am not the only one having problems and why should I only use the quick battles?

You buy a product with the expectation it will work.

Small bugs and odd things I can cope with , take Civ3 for example. It was released and had plenty of bugs but the orginal version still works without major crashes, the patches just iron out the small faults.

COG could be a great game if they can sort out this error that myself and others are having.

[carnifex]

I am shelving CoG for a while. As a matter of fact, I'm sorry I bought the game and won't recommend it unless several things change.

1) The damn manual sucks. Whole sections are totally missing, or unexplained with any detail. I was trying to learn the game and it was a totally frustrating experience. I have Americans declaring war on me - no Americans in the manual. How is waste generated and how do you control it? Beats me! There are tons of other examples.

2) The interface is cruel and unforgiving. I can't alt-tab out to read the manual. I have 55 provinces to administer, each with like 10 improvements and a half dozen sliders to manage. Is there a report screen where I can sort stuff? No. I have to individually manage all of them, nearly every turn, by clicking next/previous province. Can I sort my trades? No, I have to hunt for them in the trade screen. Can I pause quick battles or step through them? No, of course not, they wouldn't be quick otherwise, right (/snicker)?

Also, everything in the game is final. You click it, you bought it, you moved it, etc. There is absolutely no undo. I am constantly unintentionally moving units, leaders, and ships because of the crummy interface.

3) Bugs. Last month my display told me next turns income would be 134223 gold. Then my newly built Corps disappeared. Etc.

Anyway, bugs don't really bother me much because that's what patches are for. But the interface is harder to patch, and I really don't feel like scouring the forums for bits and pieces of documentation that should have been included in the game to begin with.

Marshall Ellis, if you are reading this, please take note. The game must prosper BECAUSE of it's interface, not in SPITE of it. This seems to be a trend with small developers. They get all wrapped up in the gameplay, but forget that in order to enjoy that gameplay the gamer must interact with the interface continuously. Every second of every moment that I am in the game, I am clicking this, opening that, getting information on this. If I can't get to that information quickly and issue my orders without thirty clicks then what the hell does it matter if I pull off a successful outflank.

[9thlegere]

As am I "shelfing" my COG as it is potentially very good but ultimatley deeply frustrating, especially when it crashes!

[Montbrun]

I hate to say that, I too, have shelved CoG for the time being. I'm pinning my hopes on EiA now...

[Hanal]

Well I have not shelved CoG yet but I do understand where all the frustration is coming from....perhaps the reason I have not given up on the game is that I am taking my time learning all the features by playing Sweden in small scenarios, losing every time, but no matter as I slowly climb the learning curve with a really inadequate manual.....I would not even bother trying to play France, Russia ect. right out of the box but I realize that many people want to do just that which will make this game difficult to enjoy.....I await EiA like most people here but do not think I wasted my money on CoG.....

There is one lesson learned however which hopefully Marshall and the EiA crew are aware of: The problem with game designers writing manuals is that they have such a working knowledge of the game, that many rules and issues, ingrained in their subconscious, never see print. They playtest the game so often that many game rules and procedures are taken for granted.... for example, try explaining the rules of baseball to someone who has never seen a game. You will overlook so many rules because they are so obvious to you, but by not explaining these nuances, makes the game seem more confusing to a newcomer. Now apply this to the arcane retreat rules in CoG which is confusing many people, but testers are helping to clarify.....as an earlier poster indicated, there are so many rule explanations scattered about the CoG forum that if one took the time to cull these fragments into a cohesive narrative, you would have a hell of a supplement to the original manual which would make the game much easier to play right out of the box....

Perhaps there should be a manual testing beta team organized when this, or any game, is almost completed. Their job would be to learn the game from the manual and question all of the areas that are confusing. These testers would not have played the game previously, and their only job would be to run the manual through the paces and see if they understand all the aspects of gameplay.....the manual could then be edited and updated accordingly to clarify any issues. The end result is a better manual and gaming experience for everyone....the testers who have played the game cannot really do this adequately, because they subconciously fill in the blanks without realizing it....that's not meant as a knock, just an acknowledgment of a byproduct from continuous playtesting...

Oh, and if Matrix felt that giving the manual beta testing team a free game for just doing this one job would be too much, then a 50% reduction in the price would be adequate compensation!....[:D]

[wodin]

Such a shame. The first impressions where fantastic.

Still thats why I always wait a week or so.

[NeverMan]

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

[Pippin]

Not that EiA will have documentation on the same level as COG, but assuming it was, I don't think we'd have to worry. EiA is a well known game, and many rules manuals are scattered around the internet regarding the game. True, there are numerous rule changes here and there, and even EiA under MG is mixing some features across versions, the game is not going to vary TOO much.

[Jordan]

From Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

Will EiA need a patch? You bet! AND yes it will be more than one! Why? Because EVEN if you've tackled ALL of the bugs (Which you will not) then you will always have improvements that can be made and if you can offer improvements to a product without your customer having to buy another product then that my friends is called customer service and I personally think Matrix is doing a great job in this area. The developers tend to work harder after release than they do before. I was never aware of a policy or preference against patches at Matrix???

Simple board rules? WOW! The 48 pages in the rule book are what makes this thing a monster. A lot of interpretation in this game that makes it quite complex (At least for me) then add the EiH system and you get genuine migraines! How long does it take? As long as it takes is my answer.

In fairness, a couple of months could be a couple of years. My ability to predict the results of a design or piece of code make it difficult to comply with a timeline.

Thank you

[carnifex]

I don't need a bug free game I suffered through Europa Universalis and it's 7 major patches (1.07 in my opinion is when the game was truly major bug free), and I still enjoyed the heck out of it. I do sofware QA for a living, so I know all about defects, and how impossible it is to clear every single one.

What I need is a manual that (a) contains every element of gameplay and (b) provides specific game mechanics, either as tables or formulas. Single player games I can stomach figuring out. But CoG and EiA to me are multiplayer games which require a considerable investment in time. So as far bugs go, they will affect all players nearly equally, and I don't really have any beef with that. But incomplete documentation means victory in a multiplayer game will likely go to the person who invests large amounts of time through trial and error experimentation to discover hidden game mechanics and arcane rules not described elsewhere.

JPFalcon brings up an important point about the developer writing the documentation, which I see played out in real life all the time. Many devs will simply assume the end user has familiarity with certain concepts and will neglect to document them. This is why, in my opinion, it's desirable to have the actual documentation written by a specialist who consults with the developer closely but who has not actually worked on the code. Of course with budgets and time constraints as they are it's very difficult to implement the ideal solution and compromises have to be made.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

I find CoG quite enjoyable. As most games it can use (and will get) some work but is very playable as is. For those who need to know every detail before the first click of the mouse it will be a problem - but what games don't have a few problems with the manual?

Agreed that starting out as Britain or France may cause folks to take a step back in shock. However starting out as one of the lesser major powers gets you into the game nicely.

All of this must be tempered by the fact that I have played only solo games vs the AI. No online or PBEM yet - this is because of time constraints not playability (though I am not sure anyone has gotten enough folks together to play a full game online).

That being said, I am still looking forward to EiA (from the looks of things I have to look waaaaay forward by several months).

[James Ward]

JPFalcon brings up an important point about the developer writing the documentation, which I see played out in real life all the time. Many devs will simply assume the end user has familiarity with certain concepts and will neglect to document them. This is why, in my opinion, it's desirable to have the actual documentation written by a specialist who consults with the developer closely but who has not actually worked on the code. Of course with budgets and time constraints as they are it's very difficult to implement the ideal solution and compromises have to be made.

You'd think given all the playtesting a game gets they'd playtest the manual at least once [X(] Give an uninvolved person the manual and the game and let them give it a go.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

I am not the only one having problems and why should I only use the quick battles?

You buy a product with the expectation it will work.

Small bugs and odd things I can cope with , take Civ3 for example. It was released and had plenty of bugs but the orginal version still works without major crashes, the patches just iron out the small faults.

COG could be a great game if they can sort out this error that myself and others are having.

The game does work...

I too am having the CTD with detailed battles but am still able to play and am having a lot of fun. The detailed battle ctd error is a minor bug imo. I can play games to completion using quick battles and can still get some detailed battles to work as well.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

No cog isn't a bust...

You have to understand that some people are perpetual whiners that will complain about the smallest thing no matter what it is. Others are so anal retentive that they make my wife appear easy to get along with in comparison... [;)]

COG has some problems(never played a game that doesn't have them), but most of them can be worked around or figured out. The manual is more than adequate to get a person playing and understanding what is going on. Does it explain everything? Nope. Are some things left out? Yep. Will this leave you lost or unable to get the answers from the game developer? Nope.

This is an important point imo. The answers can be gotten and quite quickly too. The game developer or someone from matrix or another player can get you the answer to an issue or question you have.

[9thlegere]

Okay Reiryc, your right. The game does work. Just like a bike with no seat, that works too.

Everyone, please ignore any of the issues I have raised, apparently, if you complain you are a whiner. We should all just put up with any problems with games and not mention it on message boards.

Much more fun for people to pay the money and find out for themselves what is wrong with it.

[malcolm_mccallum]

I'm also someone who was amused by CoG but am shelving it until it gets debugged.

The interface is one of the problems for me. Target unit A (for any reason) and anywhere your mouse moves on the screen you get a movement arrow pointing to there. clicking anywhere else makes an irrevocable move order. Even clicking another unit will (if possible) make unit A march to unit B and join it. So even if you target a unit and want to then roll your mouse down to the interface at the bottom of the page, you are seeing big green arrows pointing at the bottom of the map. There is a constant fear that you will misclick and ruin your game. For me, at least.

Another thing I'm having problems with is the ahistorical results. On turn 2 of the 1805 scenario, Britain invariably lands in Brest, brushes aside any defense that can be put there and is in Paris in a couple of months. Likewise the Austrians hunker down in the Tyrol massing huge amounts of troops there knowing that the french can't fight them with their strength in the mountains. Then they blitz Switzerland and push units through the soft underbelly of France and on to Paris in a couple of months. Even moving the entire Army of Italy into Switzerland cannot prevent this and it happens even if Napoleon is besieging Vienna. Oh, and they have dropped a line of depots ahead of their attack, inside france, so there is no surprise even as to where they are going.

Defeated units run amok behind the lines. There seems to be no rules encouraging broken units to retreat toward supplies. Even if I can defend Paris and decisively defeat the English and Austrian armies in France, I know that I will then be forced to spend the next 6 months using disproportionately large numbers of troops trying to put an end to these forces.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Okay Reiryc, your right. The game does work. Just like a bike with no seat, that works too.

Everyone, please ignore any of the issues I have raised, apparently, if you complain you are a whiner. We should all just put up with any problems with games and not mention it on message boards.

Much more fun for people to pay the money and find out for themselves what is wrong with it.

Nah... you're over-exagerating again.

No one said it doesn't have problems, but it is playable. It's nowhere near a bike without a seat and you know it. One can easily get through the game using quick battles, which aren't as fun as detailed battles, but fully functional without crashes and still fun in their own right.

This is much different than sitting on a bike with no seat and you know it. This is what I'm talking about. The over-exageration that over-blows the problems of the game.

[Reiryc]

Another thing I'm having problems with is the ahistorical results.

I think in any game you can come up with this sort of argument. The question is, given the type of game, is it feasible for this to happen at all historically? I would argue that it was possible but not probable for the british to land and march to an undefended paris.

Also, anytime you involve a computer AI that isn't scripted or a human, you're going to get ahistorical results. I don't know about you, but I personally haven't met a wargame yet, either on the board or on the computer where I haven't heard a charge of 'this game produces a-historical results'... I think what it comes down to is the individual's tolerance level for their own brand of acceptable abstractions.

Likewise the Austrians hunker down in the Tyrol massing huge amounts of troops there knowing that the french can't fight them with their strength in the mountains. Then they blitz Switzerland and push units through the soft underbelly of France and on to Paris in a couple of months. Even moving the entire Army of Italy into Switzerland cannot prevent this and it happens even if Napoleon is besieging Vienna. Oh, and they have dropped a line of depots ahead of their attack, inside france, so there is no surprise even as to where they are going.

I used to encounter the same problems with france after my first few games. Now the austrians usually get pummeled by me in either switerzland or tyrol and they all head back to styria as I march my armies straight for it. It's a function of how the AI works... they will try to push for your capital or defend it's own. If you occupy his capital first, then it's more than likely he will send his units back to defend it asap. If not, the AI is generally more aggressive and will push to your capital. It reminds me of the austrians in the 1796 italian campaign where they launched 4 offensives and each time were driven off, even though they took higher casualities over and over. After arcola, they scuried back to tyrol since they were sensitive to that area.

Defeated units run amok behind the lines. There seems to be no rules encouraging broken units to retreat toward supplies. Even if I can defend Paris and decisively defeat the English and Austrian armies in France, I know that I will then be forced to spend the next 6 months using disproportionately large numbers of troops trying to put an end to these forces.

Try a different strategy...

Surround the attacked province(il defrance) with single unit division/militia and what you'll usually get is the defenders to surrender. I will usually pull them out of the cities and this does the trick for me more often than not. If I have to fight the retreated units, then I use the call reinforcements button.

[Reiryc]

Oh and just wanted to say...

I'm not trying to be argumentative just for arguments sake. I just think that some of the issues raised by some, not all, can be resolved either through greater understanding of the game through gameplay hours(similar to witp) or by altering what a person's expectations are to what the game designers tried to implement and judging the game in that way. An example was a review posted wherein the reviewer criticized the main map for looking like a board game. Well of course, it was meant to look more like a board game map! However, the reviewer, with his own expectations didn't review that graphical feature on whether or not the game designer achieved what he set out to do, but rather injected his obvious dislike of the boardgame look.