Ideas/Votes for Sequel

[ggallagher]

My votes:

1. Enhance Multiplayer: The option during a multiplayer game to change a computer player to a human player, or a human player to a computer one

3. Supe up strategic AI: Provide AI strategies for high level Ais

4. Supe up detailed battle tactical AI: Some decision making based on strategic and tactical considerations,
Better use of fortification vs fire-and-0movement decisions

5. Super enhance supply system: Separate ammunition from other supplies

6. Permit battle resolution at the demi-brigade level

7. Supe up leaders

9. Supe up Minors: Permit enhanced minor diplomacy: treaties with minors

10. Army/corps/fleet orders: Set a destination, as can be done for a division; Set an enemy stack or city as a destination;
Add intercept option to an army or corps that didn't move (by definition, neighbouring area)

11. Refine treaties/surrenders: ALL RECOMMENDATIONS

14. UI Enhancements: Make the various lists sortable; Hyperlink to online help text; A "find" button for physical locations and/or units; Right click in detailed combat to give info about the terrain, as well as of the unit (if any) under the cursor, AND some info about the general attached AND garrisons to state their nationality; Jump from military screen to that unit on the map; Make cossack super-avoidance of battle an optional rule


Heckuva list...not clear to me from your posting as to whether these improvements would be applied to CoG, or just to the new project...or is the new project, a CoG add-on? I'd hate to see an enhanced version of the engine for a TYW game, while CoG languishes with the original.

Gregg

[Mynok]

The biggest needs are in enhancing multiplayer functionality:

• Replay feature for PBEM.
• PBEM needs shotgun not sequential turns. Everyone submits turns, game processes and send replays back out to individuals with next turn.
• Export detailed battles from game so PBEM players can fight them out mano-a-mano. Need a replay for this too.

Those three are probably sequel features, but they would make an excellent game outstanding.

[ggallagher]

Hear, hear on the PBEM replay and "shotgun" turn submission. Critical needs for effective PBEM, which now proceeds at a snail's pace (at best).....

[Gil R.]

Gregg, this thread is most definitely for COG. The point I was making was that it's unlikely that ALL of these suggestions would make it into the next patch, but some of those that don't might end up in the next WCS project, and then, down the road, perhaps a COG v2.0. If we implement every single suggestion for improving COG now, we'll never finish the next game. And since many of the people who visit this forum will be quite interested in that next game, it would be an awful shame if the WCS staff were to spend each day waking up to "I've Got You Babe" and then adding code and graphics to COG all day long, and then going to bed, and then waking up again to "I've Got You Babe"...

ORIGINAL: ggallagher
Heckuva list...not clear to me from your posting as to whether these improvements would be applied to CoG, or just to the new project...or is the new project, a CoG add-on? I'd hate to see an enhanced version of the engine for a TYW game, while CoG languishes with the original.

Gregg

[ian77]

NOBODY should have to wake up to "I've got you babe" - unless their crime is major and their guilt beyond doubt!!

Ian

[Ralegh]

Shotgun for PBEM is a great idea - wish I had thought of it.

I see no reason why particular battles couldn't be resolved using TCPIP hexwar - although there are 2 issues to think through:
(1) How about players could specify that their default would be resolve battles using hexwar, and then if all players involved in the battle have that option set, it waits for hexwar resolution? (We could turn the option on for AI players.)
(2) We'd probably want to prevent people playing the battle multiple times before submitting a result, and yet allow them to save the battle to resume it later. Tricky. Perhaps a destructive read... hmmm.

[Mynok]

Shotgun PBEM is a staple of the 4C games (space conquest). Not my idea in the least.

Detailed battle is easy to resolve. Only allow one export from the shotgun turn. Saving from then on only keeps the current state of the detailed battle. Sure, players could save a copy of the export, but the only way to revert to it is if BOTH players agree. If they do, so what. I've no problem with them reverting then.

[Ralegh]

Actually Gil, I'm not sure any of the ideas in this thread would make it into a patch (unless the code had already been written for the sequel I suppose). I'm mainly thinking of "battlefield of the west" (or whatever that code name was) and COG2.0, if there ever is such a beast. I just wanted to enlist the aid of the player community in identifying good ideas and ranking ideas I had already heard about.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Will some of you official and semi official guys be more specific about this B... of the West game you're planning please? [X(]

I did what Gil suggested, and entered "Backstroke of the West" in the Google. It appears that this phrase is some sort of inside joke in Star Wars community (some bootlegged copy of SW3 movie got translated into Chinese, then back into English, producing all sorts of ridiciolous translations, thus Revenge of the Sith became Backstroke of the West for example).

Will the next game really be SW based?? Don't you need to buy a franchise from Lucas for that? [:D]

Sorry to (kinda) hijack the thread like this, but you made me do it, throwing subtle hints etc. [:D]

O.

[ericbabe]

Has nothing to do with Star Wars; GilR has an, uhm, <outre> sense of humor. (I had just sent him a link to the "Backstroke of the West" website.)

Can't say too much about the sequel yet... we're still mostly in the gather-ideas phase of it, sketching up some maps, that sort of thing. Mostly we're still quite busy with the COG updates.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

GilR has an, uhm, <outre> sense of humor.

So he's the guy who designed CoG UI? LOL [:D]

O.

[Gil R.]

No, I'm the one who told Eric to make COG a game about Cossack hordes sweeping through Europe. Didn't think he'd listen...

But seriously, I figured that some of you would instantly pick up on the "Backstroke of the West" reference, and the rest of you would be glad to know of it once it was explained. I was trying to share. Sorry about the confusion.

[bresh]

I prefer they fix pow, minor countries(including conq ones you wanna release to create a protectorate) etc, cossaks give them limit of range 1-2 zones from an army.

[ericbabe]

Would you give the limited range just to cossacks, or to any division? (Players can swarm with divisions other than cossacks -- it's simply that the AI chooses to use cossacks [and guerillas] in this way.)

What would happen when a division is no longer within the range? (Does it become stuck? Destroyed? Teleported?) Would this be enforced every movement sub phase, beginning of the movement phase, end of the movement phase?

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?

[carburo]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


Would you give the limited range just to cossacks, or to any division? (Players can swarm with divisions other than cossacks -- it's simply that the AI chooses to use cossacks [and guerillas] in this way.)

What would happen when a division is no longer within the range? (Does it become stuck? Destroyed? Teleported?) Would this be enforced every movement sub phase, beginning of the movement phase, end of the movement phase?

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?

Eric,

I wouldn’t go with the movement restrictions. As you point out, it creates a lot of trouble. What I’d do is give any not-in-corps/army division a relatively high probability of “disolving” when in enemy territory and “disconnected” (more than 1 province away) from their parent army/home or controlled province. After all, local militias would probably harass and destroy any weak isolated unit. I’d also give them a very low ability to avoid combat/high probability of surrendering, and big combat penalties, so that they could be easily chase down by small forces.

Wandering units can be useful for disrupting unguarded enemy depots and scouting, and I think we should keep this option.
What I in particular find most annoying about wandering Cossacks is not their presence, but their endurance and ability to roam free for years avoiding everything I throw at them.

[pixelpusher]

Would you still allow players to give movement ORDERS when a division is not within the limit, on the notion that an army may move into range subsequently during the Movement Phase and thus allow a division to move at some point in the future, or would you prohibit both MOVEMENT and ORDERS for divisions/cossacks outside of the limit?

Maybe you could make them have a really severe penalty for being out of supply not in home turf. Like 10x normal foraging casualties, maybe. So, the player could do it if they wanted to, but it would pretty much burn up the Cossack in doing so. That way, players could still use the cossacks to chew at the edges of their territory, but couldn't make massive incursions deep into enemy turf. (casualties might represent desertions in this case) <just throwing out ideas, here>

[ericbabe]

Two things would be easily done then and may address the concerns.

(1) decrease the ability of units to avoid combat. My preference is to do this by allowing cavalry (of any sort except heavy) a much higher chance of forcing combat

(2) increase the surrender rate of unattached divisions that surrender into enemy territory

I'm not sure I would apply (2) to guerillas, or at least not to revolt guerillas and other guerillas that are operating in their home territory.

[carburo]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


Two things would be easily done then and may address the concerns.

(1) decrease the ability of units to avoid combat. My preference is to do this by allowing cavalry (of any sort except heavy) a much higher chance of forcing combat

(2) increase the surrender rate of unattached divisions that surrender into enemy territory

I'm not sure I would apply (2) to guerillas, or at least not to revolt guerillas and other guerillas that are operating in their home territory.

I think that would pretty much do, but I'd add a big combat penalty, so we don't need a Roaming Corps to chase down the now willing to fight Cossacks. I'm sure you'll see some heavy words here if in addition to wandering, Cossacks start finishing off our militias on a regular basis. My idea is that a couple of militia units should be enough to deal with them.

[Ralegh]

Another one, spawned by comments on another thread:

Increase ways to develop strategic cooperation between human and AI players: for example, instead of only one rally point, somehow permit more fine grained cooperation (only between allies at war with the same foe). But how?

Perhaps a negotiation process similiar to the treaties, with the player and the AI proposing and counter proposing strategic plans over a map until agreement is reached? What should such a plan look like? Other ideas?
Then we could even get one side offering a treaty as a bribe to get their way in the strategic negotiation? Or is that silly?

[Archinerd]

(Ralegh)
(2) We'd probably want to prevent people playing the battle multiple times before submitting a result, and yet allow them to save the battle to resume it later. Tricky. Perhaps a destructive read... hmmm.

Maybe it could be a mechanic not unlike Laser Squad Nemesis, where orders are submitted and players are able to get a good idea of how they will be resolved, but aren't actually resolved until after all orders are in...?

Also, most of the upgrades listed above look good. I think one of the most important tho is making the UI more user friendly. Tooltips, 'find' tools, and more intuitive navigation through the various windows. A zoom function on the world map would also be nice.