My current game and POW's

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


How's this for intellectual honesty?

POW's are simply not that big an issue. It doesn't unbalance the game; it doesn't break the game mechanics.

I remember reading a thread here dated back to the beta days of COG. One guy was arguing that, because the little pixelated uniforms of the troops in COG weren't perfectly historically accurate, the game was bad.

When it comes to petitioning the game designers time for serious development issues, it's important to focus on - lets be intellectually honest here - the issues that truly affect the quality of the game's playability, and less so our individual personal wish-list of "this game would be better if..."

Why then do POWs even exist?

I've not at all said this issue, or any other issue which I've commented on, breaks the game or makes the game "bad" or otherwise unplayable.

I've asked "Why" and I've stated my reasons and made suggested alternative methods to handling the issue.

This is a discussion forum. It's not limited to fanboy central. I've been polite, rational, and to the dismay of at least a few of you, vocal in my observations and the presentation of my arguments.


I like COG, I enjoy playing the game. Yes, I do have issues with certain elements of the mechanics, that in my opinion, can be improved.

Much like those who had an opportunity to vocalize their opinions prior to release or immediately after, I wish to have an opportunity to do so now.

Maybe the issues I bring up won't be improved in this incarnation of COG. Maybe, though, Eric will have more food for thought as he designs future games using the current and future versions of the COG engine.

Are my suggestions out of the realm of historical realities?

No.

Are they meant to unbalance the game?

No.

Have they been presented in an insulting manner?

No.

They are framed as constructive critisism, complete with suggestions and thoughts to assist in resolving them.

Do I expect Eric to salute and jump to the tune I beat?

Hell no.

Do I want his praise and adoration for my brilliant obeservations?

Only in the opinions of those who desire to think so of me.

I would like for COG to not have any nasty loose ends that aren't tied up as neatly as possible.

You can, of course, agree or disagree.

[Russian Guard]

Hardly dismayed by anything you've said, although your use of the term "fanboy" is disturbing from someone who claims to be a person once "on the inside".

I am a published artist/writer. I have signed autographs for hours while hundreds of fans lined up eagerly waiting for their chance to meet and greet and get an autograph. It always sickened me when fellow artists snickered behind closed doors about the "fanboys". In point of fact, "fanboy" is a particularly nasty phrase when used by those who claim to be a part of the "insiders" in any particular creative enterprise.

But I digress; that's obviously a hot-button for me. [8D]

POW's had an original design intent that was found to be undesirable (I only know this from reading other posts). They were then neutered while the designers went on to other more pressing issues (which apparently remain - like the TCP/IP issues). Thus, they exist as they currently do.

I enjoy and welcome your comments, not that you need either, of course. I find alot of your ideas quite excellent, if not overly complex in implementation and at times clearly less "needed" in the game, than "desired". You obviously have a decent grasp of game theory.

Occasionally, you grate, however unintentionally, with phrases like "whether players want to be intellectually honest or not, this is why they..." and other such. If it happens in a thread where I have contributed, and if I happen to find it worthy of comment, you are likely to find yourself challenged.

[canuck64]

I support Kornish on this one. Russian Guard, don't get where you're coming from AT ALL.

Following that reasoning, once the game is released, we can simply fold up the message board entirely. No one is bashing the game nor putting down the hard work that went into it. I THOUGHT this was where one waxed philosophic, wondering the why's and whereto's and what might bear improving, or what works great.

In your view, there's no point to the upgrades, because the game was fine after the beta-testing, which as we all know, is infallible a process, as are many human endeavors.

Kornish makes a valid point that POW's might have (I subscribe to that opinion) a little too low an impact on a nation's ability to make war, afford war, both politically and economically.
If that makes you impatient with the subtlety of debate, don't read the thread? Or bother with the message boards at all...

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: canuck64

I support Kornish on this one. Russian Guard, don't get where you're coming from AT ALL.

Following that reasoning, once the game is released, we can simply fold up the message board entirely. No one is bashing the game nor putting down the hard work that went into it. I THOUGHT this was where one waxed philosophic, wondering the why's and whereto's and what might bear improving, or what works great.

In your view, there's no point to the upgrades, because the game was fine after the beta-testing, which as we all know, is infallible a process, as are many human endeavors.

Kornish makes a valid point that POW's might have (I subscribe to that opinion) a little too low an impact on a nation's ability to make war, afford war, both politically and economically.
If that makes you impatient with the subtlety of debate, don't read the thread? Or bother with the message boards at all...

Missed the point. Don't know how you got the idea that I was claiming no further discussion or recommendations are warranted. See above. Expressing ones ideas about the game is all fun and good and interesting. I'm doing it too.

But when you imply that others who disagree with you are not being "intellectually honest" about why they may play the game a certain way, you might find yourself being challenged.

[Khornish]

Occasionally, you grate, however unintentionally, with phrases like "whether players want to be intellectually honest or not, this is why they..." and other such. If it happens in a thread where I have contributed, and if I happen to find it worthy of comment, you are likely to find yourself challenged.

The point about being intellectually honest is that a number of the players who post here make certain decisions regarding game play (which you can see from their comments) that support (in this case) my arguments but they then challenge the validity of my (or any)argument in one way or another.

For example, my comments about subsidies in another thread. One popped up and said that some people have stated they feel paying out subsidies is [not worth doing]. I then got a bit of angst about my questioning why subsidies even exist.

I am not saying it is an intentional avoidance of the truth, but rather a defensive reaction to a perceived slight of the game or of a person.

Hardly dismayed by anything you've said, although your use of the term "fanboy" is disturbing from someone who claims to be a person once "on the inside".

I'm pretty much a person that can't be insulted, so I often use words or phrases that some might find offensive or a little intrusive because from my point of view and usage, they are neither.

My intention is not to be insulting, but rather to provoke thought or comment through logical argument.

The reality of this online medium is such that you have various catagories of posters. Those who react poorly to any perceived slight of their current fad of choice does, in many ways, exhibit traits of what many now call "fanboy". For me, the word defines a behavior, and is not a slur.

I refuse to bow to the wishes of others in selecting my vocabulary from their personal list of approved words. I do not go out of my way to be impolite or insulting, so if they choose to take issue with my word choice, while they are free to do so, they are not obligated.

If I may, do you have any published works of a historical nature? My personal library is in excess of 3000 books, and I am always looking for another good book on military history.

[garoco]

[quote ORIGINAL: Khornish
If I may, do you have any published works of a historical nature? My personal library is in excess of 3000 books, and I am always looking for another good book on military history.
[/quote]

Very impressive library[X(], I hope that you invite me someday read some good book and . My poor library is more or less of 20 volumes [&o]

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: garoco

Very impressive library[X(], I hope that you invite me someday read some good book and . My poor library is more or less of 20 volumes [&o]

It would be even larger, except about 20 years ago my parents tossed out a number of my books while I was in the military.

I'm a voracious reader, in fact, I read about 6 books a week. No, I don't purchase them all, I can't afford it, but I do use the library weekly.

[Russian Guard]

I refuse to bow to the wishes of others in selecting my vocabulary from their personal list of approved words. I do not go out of my way to be impolite or insulting, so if they choose to take issue with my word choice, while they are free to do so, they are not obligated.

If I may, do you have any published works of a historical nature? My personal library is in excess of 3000 books, and I am always looking for another good book on military history.

Of couse you are free to use whatever terminology you wish. Nor did I suggest that you could not, merely pointed out that you will likely be challenged if your comments are perceived as such (several already have).

For myself, in the interests of quality communication, I try to avoid using words that common sense tell me will likely be inflammatory, unless there's no reasonable alternative. Nor have I found it of long-term value to attempt to stimulate discussion by allowing myself to appear arrogant. The rule of thumb I use (and this is not an original idea to me) is, "don't sacrifice truth on the alter of sensitivities" but othwise be polite. Works for me; your mileage may vary.

Alas nothing so heady in my list of published works. As far as I'll go in a public forum - I worked in comics and animation, and a little toy design.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

For myself, in the interests of quality communication, I try to avoid using words that common sense tell me will likely be inflammatory, unless there's no reasonable alternative. Nor have I found it of long-term value to attempt to stimulate discussion by allowing myself to appear arrogant. The rule of thumb I use (and this is not an original idea to me) is, "don't sacrifice truth on the alter of sensitivities" but othwise be polite. Works for me; your mileage may vary.

Too each their own. In my view people of today are vastly too sensitive and allow their emotions to rule their reason.

Intent matters to me more than how the intent is assembled, at least at a communication level.

If people take my self-assured style of debate as arrogance, c'est la vie. I'm not here to win a personality contest. Good thing I didn't choose politics as my vocation.

[canuck64]

we've let ourselves stray from the point of the discussion now. Hopefully we don't need a library-measuring/vocabulary argument to last too long.

Russian Guard, apologies-thought your original post was tearing down all suggestion as being a merely selfish 'want-list'. Kornish, if you're challenging people's intellectual honesty, then you're right that you shouldn't have gone into politics (grin)....

As for me, I'd like to see POW's and their effect on NML, however that was decided upon, as well as the upkeep issues, tied somehow- to feudalism level. I believe that the higher the feudalism level, you'd gain from colonial levies more. Your trade would be less. You'd be in effect more centralized, like the Czar. Shouldn't matter to Russia too much how many POW's you have in camps. Just go get more illiterate starving peasants to fight.
But Britain? I'd think after several trouncings of the fine British troops at the very least you'd have a serious morale issue-and it should augur badly for British efforts in Ireland and possibly colonial effects?

I don't recall Britain ever not making clever use of its' allies to prosecute land wars. British presence at Waterloo was at its peak, and that was still 50% an allied army. This actually had Blucher and Gneisenau debating about English trickery at one point after Wavre if I recall-Losing actual scores of Brit troops would be bad, very bad. Britain picked her spots to get involved, since she ruled the sea, and was untouchable on the island. But she was not invincible to the vagaries of war.

[Hard Sarge]

I think you guys need to play the game more and see what happens

I reinvaded England, 3/4 of the troops in England were Mil, they weren't when I had captured them, England ended up losing the War, because there troops were hurt by being POW;s

half of the battles, before half of the troops got close to the line of battle, they broke and ran, there morale was too low, again, loss of Morale, due to being POW's

the game works as designed

now, if you wish to get Eric to make some more changes, fine, have fun, Eric has made many changes to the game, based on how the players feel

overall, I think the POW rules work well, but to my point of view, it is too easy to take POW's, not every battle is a disaster

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I reinvaded England, 3/4 of the troops in England were Mil, they weren't when I had captured them, England ended up losing the War, because there troops were hurt by being POW;s

Are you saying that you released infantry and cavalry units from POW status and they changed into militia units?

This has not been my experience at all and I've been paying very close attention to this, as you probably gathered, since the day after I purchased COG.

half of the battles, before half of the troops got close to the line of battle, they broke and ran, there morale was too low, again, loss of Morale, due to being POW's

These newly changed militia units broke and ran, you mean?

overall, I think the POW rules work well, but to my point of view, it is too easy to take POW's, not every battle is a disaster

I agree that units surrender quite easily in many instances. One particularly bothersome instance is where they rout past a static fortess and surrender to the garrison there.

I've not seen any regular units changed from POWs into militia, nor have I seen a significant drop in morale in those same units.

I think we can all agree that for the duration of a war POWs equate to KIAs for the purposes of not being available to the nation that produced them. This being the case, what is the purpose for the existence of these POW units in SP and MP?

I think they should exist, as this would be in line with historical reality, but there should be a cost vs benefit ratio here to each of the involved parties.

It is not readily apparent that when a unit surrenders it causes a NML hit against the nation.

The combat casualty report seems to not reflect the loss of surrendered units, so I ask whether or not these surrendered units even count towards the NML hit a nation _does_ take for a losing battle and the resulting casualties.

I am sure that it would be very easy to create a NML hit for each unit surrendering in the events log, but I am not sure that this one time hit would be a fair way to handle the issue. Reason being that the player gaining the POWs can currently just delete the unit and get rid of it.

In my view there should be offsetting reasons to keeping/releasing POWs for both SP and (most especially) for MP games.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: canuck64
Kornish, if you're challenging people's intellectual honesty, then you're right that you shouldn't have gone into politics (grin)....

Oh, I don't have any problem challenging anyone's intellectual honesty, especially in politicians.

It's the fact that I don't care about someone's opinion of me, that makes it good that I didn't enter into politics. [:D]

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: canuck64

But Britain? I'd think after several trouncings of the fine British troops at the very least you'd have a serious morale issue-and it should augur badly for British efforts in Ireland and possibly colonial effects?

I'm not so sure I agree that Britian would have been more likely to surrender to Napoleon (or anyone else) if their Army had been trounced in an ill-advised land campaign. After all, Britains' Army was in essence destroyed in France in WWII - less what escaped at Dunkirk - and most of their equipment was abandoned there as well.

Britain didn't surrender, even under the blitz, as long as she felt she couldn't be invaded and would have a chance to rebuild her forces.

I understand that the times were different and perhaps there would be political implications to control of colonies and such, but the fundamental issue of surrender, no, IMO.

Now, destroying her navy? THAT, in my view, would have HUGE implications for a British surrender...

[Hard Sarge]

WEll, again to be honest, I think we are beating a dead horse right now, POW's to whatever extrent work some what how they were wanted to be worked

I would rather have Eric work on getting the AI to build what it needs, then to get a POW release system up and running and working

the AI does not want to build what it needs to stand any type of a chance in the game, it wants to build walls, guns and roads, it needs to build Art and Courts and barracks

it needs to use the system the player uses, it wants to upgrade a road ? , great 24 months later, it may be able to start building something else

as for you questons

yes, those Mil England was fighting with, were the POW's that were released to it, I didn't take Mil as POWs, I also took a Guard unit, England had no Guard unit during the 2nd attack

also, have you noticed any of your released POW's ever rebuild ?

the AI getting POWs back cripples it, it does not help it

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

I'm not so sure I agree that Britian would have been more likely to surrender to Napoleon (or anyone else) if their Army had been trounced in an ill-advised land campaign.

No, but they most likely would have asked for a ceasefire and hopefully a prisoner exchange, which Napoleon probably would have accepted.

Even with POWs causing NML penalty Britain would remain in good shape, even with a large negative modifier. Since Eric confirmed that Britain, in effect, gets a bonus against surrender die rolls, Britain would have to be losing in a lot of different ways to get her NML into dangerous territory.

Combining the loss of 3/4s of her navy, and 9/10's of her army, and the fact that France was besieging Plymouth and London, I don't feel lasting 7 turns at -987 NML was well balanced.

I've yet to have the AI ask me for a ceasefire, so I'm not sure it ever does. If it _does_ it's sure a rare event.

After all, Britains' Army was in essence destroyed in France in WWII - less what escaped at Dunkirk - and most of their equipment was abandoned there as well.

They had an air force and a navy to give them enough time to recover from their losses.

Britain didn't surrender, even under the blitz, as long as she felt she couldn't be invaded and would have a chance to rebuild her forces.

I don't believe the NML (to make the comparison) suffered much even under the darkest days of the Blitz. Had the RAF been demolished, then it would have been a different story, even with the British Navy. They would have learned early on what later events proved, that naval forces can't long stand up under attack by land based air.

Now, destroying her navy? THAT, in my view, would have HUGE implications for a British surrender...

I don't think COG yet takes this into account. I believe it should, as an offset to the difficulty of getting Britain to surrender, even when besieging London for months in a row.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I would rather have Eric work on getting the AI to build what it needs, then to get a POW release system up and running and working.

As long as these minor issues are eventually addressed, I would heartily agree.

the AI does not want to build what it needs to stand any type of a chance in the game, it wants to build walls, guns and roads, it needs to build Art and Courts and barracks.

Which is why I'd like to see this modifiable by players.

yes, those Mil England was fighting with, were the POW's that were released to it, I didn't take Mil as POWs, I also took a Guard unit, England had no Guard unit during the 2nd attack

Do you still have those saved games? I'd sure like to see the before and after. In the game that I based this thread on, Sweden got her POWs back as exactly the same types of units as they were before I'd captured them.

also, have you noticed any of your released POW's ever rebuild ?

As in receive replacements? Yes.

the AI getting POWs back cripples it, it does not help it

I think it may partly depend on the economy of the owning nation at the time. If the released units can't be supplied or maintained, they suffer later forage losses enough to force them to disband. This eventually happend in my game, to Sweden, as I'd left her with but 2 provinces to support this huge army. Had I not be as successful as I was though, or had I to cut my war off sooner due to other threats, then I don't believe it would have been as much a problem for Sweden to reabsorb all the units.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

WEll, again to be honest, I think we are beating a dead horse right now, POW's to whatever extrent work some what how they were wanted to be worked

I agree completely, and don't think the POW issue is an important one. My comments were more for discussion than any petition to actually make changes to the game. There are - IMO - far more important issues to address.

Khornish - just FYI, I have seen England surrender a number of times in my solo campaigns, even to Spain - but it has been rare indeed.

[canuck64]

Just to make it clear, I wasn't arguing specifically for surrender in the event of massive POW's. I was arguing for the idea that this would/should cause most of the powers to want to come to the peace table more willingly.

As stated, the loss of Britain's navy would be another matter altogether. There we're limited to the loss of Glory that such battles accrue. I doubt there would be massive POW's in that event-apples to oranges to an extent.

But in general, while the concern for the average soldier was minimal at best in the Nappy armies of the day, I'm wondering if there'd be a way to implement it easily. Most important would be the relationship of numbers of POW's to draftable population to begin with....yes?

[Hard Sarge]

Khornish - just FYI, I have seen England surrender a number of times in my solo campaigns, even to Spain - but it has been rare indeed.

LOL
I have seen England Surrender in every game I have ever played (except when I was England)

(and not just to me)

of course, as a tester, I have a hassle of never getting to see the end of a game

Strange Knornish, maybe we play a different style, most times I see POW's go back, they never get a chance to rebuild, that is why you see Armies of 35,000 men and 7-8 Divs in them

no, don't have any saved games, I got 3 save game folders filled with testing games

LOL to be honest, I have not played the Real game since right after I bought it