Matrix Games Forums

Well, the war-historical vote, the wargamer.com review and India Games review has sold me now. I am putting in an order as I type.

What put me off buying originally was the bugs reported plus poor AI. As far as I can see the AI is still poor...so maybe the devs could at least try and improve that for a patch (I dont hold my breath...)? Although playing against a Human opponent is always going to be the best challenging option, I like to play with the AI when I have a free moment and dont like seeing it neglected (we wont mention HPS here..*cough*). I think AI development is an important part of strategy game design, and we know its hard to code, but it is possible to put a decent AI in strategy games; Civ IV, CC2, SMG/A..all those games have half-decent AI.

Anyway, enough ramblings...I am off to download CoG.....

I hope you enjoy the game, warts and all. I've enjoyed (and still do) the heck out of the game and have definitely gotten my monies worth and more!

As far as the AI goes... I've never met an AI I couldn't pummel unless it was allowed to cheat and in that case it wasn't that the AI was more cunning or devious, it just had more 'things' for me to trap, beat up, and eliminate. I will say this though, ericbabe has made some AI improvements and it does act better than it did upon release, but for the most part, like against any AI, you should win just about all battles.

some things to remember when it comes to the AI

at different times, it was giving me a pretty good fight (in detail battles) but Eric changed what we had over and over because of complaints in the forum on this or that

just had a battle yesterday, 240,000 Spainish vs 38,000 French (it was a trap, only my 130,000 man Army did not get there in time)

the AI spent most of the day, trying to out flank my line, instead of just closing and crushing what was there as a holding force, by 5 oclock that afternoon, my reinforceing army was on board and on the way to the front

it still ended up being a decent battle, 68000 losses between us and to be honest, it was not all one sided (was disappointed to not get a Leader out of it though !!!)

but, as I was trying to say, the reason the AI did what it did, was the complaints about it just chargeing headlong into battle, in this case it should of, it could of crushed my 4 Inf Div's and still of gotten to the map edge and wasted my reinforceing army as it came in, in ones and twos

Ah, I have a similar mild gripe about the new detailed combat.

I was one of those who kinda liked the old setup rules which tended to have your supply wagons posted somewhat vulnerably near your main cluster of troops. NOW it has been changed such that supply is set up 10-20 hexes in your rear.

IMO...boring! I really liked the old way better...vulnerable supply put you in a crisis mentality on turn 1 and made for much more interesting battles. I know I'm likely a minority opinion on this...but there you have it.

As things stand now, the new challenge is path-picking your wagons over 10-20 hexes of oftentimes bad terrain, before your troops start running out of ammo. Yawn! [>:]

Well, playing the game for the past week I find that the AI is not all that bad, not as bad as my impressions gained from reading this board. In detailed battles, I have been routed a few times, had some intense close battles, and won a lot more It does at least try and outflank you, and I have seen a few of my artillery divisions routed by cav.

The strategic AI is *ok*...but I have besieged a few cities and it doesnt seem to try and lift the siege very often, plus I have seen Turkey send its forces piecemeal into my territory, rather than build up a mass of troops.

All in all then, a good game and I think worthy of the war-historical vote plus I think wargamer.com review was pretty much spot on. A sleeper most certainly tho, and hopefully will fill the gap till cEiA is released...

Kev

Good to hear, Kev. The original poster also changed his mind after playing a bit more. I think CoG can win any wargamer over, given a chance. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

Let me see; Imperial Glory, MOO III, Civilization IV, AOE III, Cossacks 2... I can go on and on.

For CIV IV just like you told him then you haven't been playing games long enough. Cause CIV IV is the best in the series. It brings all the previous versions down into one OPTIONAL choice of how you want to play it. And then still even adds a few things like religon and tougher AI opponent into the game. Clearly you are wayyyyyyy wrong and out of bounds about CIV IV. sorry but you are.

I am not so sure
I have played all the Civ games and loved I and II, for me IV is just not any fun, you build, you take you explore and you build and take and so on, it ends up more like a job then a fun game

I have won a number of games playing Civ IV and can't say I enjoyed it, I have won lots of games of COG and have run many beta test games and I got to say I enjoy it,I had fun doing the testing and I had fun playing the game

Civ IV is strange, everything is there, most of what it has is a improvement on what it was before, but it just is not fun

to each there own

Jumping in kinda late in this topic but I always felt that the best way to get into CoG is to play Sweden as your first gaming experience....everyone wants to jump headlong into playing France, Russia or England and they can quickly become overwhelmed....Sweden is the perfect country to start off with as its' economic, development, and military objectives are quite managable and will allow you to learn the game mechanics easily.....so if there are fence sitters reading these posts and wondering whether or not CoG is a good game to purchase, well it most definately is, but I suggest learning the ropes with Sweden.....[:)]

ORIGINAL: Agrippa

The defense of COG seems to be well in hand, but I thought I would just second Khornish's comment about Imperial Glory and Cossacks II. I also made tthe mistake of buying both games. It's true that COG in not without flaws, but It is by far the best Napoleonic grand strategy game I have ever seen.

Any chance for some insight why these games are not that good? Are they useful for anything such as having decent battles?

I'd like to understand more about the tactical aspects of the Napoleonic era and I do not currently think that COG has the most exciting engine for that part (it's pretty fun though).

--Mikko

Actually from a Napoleonic tactical strategy standpoint, COG is better than IG. I can't comment on Cossacks II as I haven't played it.

In COG the different formations for the different units actually work correctly, as opposed to IG where they do less so.

COG is much better game than IG in my opinion. The real time, 3D battles are the only thing going for IG. Myself, I prefer turn based games.

I feel the lure of 3D and fancy graphics...

The real time, 3D battles are the only thing going for IG. Myself, I prefer turn based games.

I feel the lure of 3D and fancy graphics...

Hey guys,
Just wondering: Is the appleal b/c of the flashy gfx or because of the real-time aspects?

The reason I'm asking is there is a lot of add'l overhead associated w/ making stuff all 3d based, which used to be viable only if you were doing a big RTS. But now there are starting to be 3d - turn based games (Such as 'Shattered Union', Civ 4) and it seems to maybe be the way things are going.

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher

Hey guys,
Just wondering: Is the appleal b/c of the flashy gfx or because of the real-time aspects?

The reason I'm asking is there is a lot of add'l overhead associated w/ making stuff all 3d based, which used to be viable only if you were doing a big RTS. But now there are starting to be 3d - turn based games (Such as 'Shattered Union', Civ 4) and it seems to maybe be the way things are going.

That's a two-sided answer: IG has great graphics and a rewarding rts style play because the player had enough control to make a difference in the battles by choosing his defensive ground etc. coupled with a turn based "strategic layer" to flesh things out.
Money? Sure...but they ended up not following up with any support which in turn made the initial investment redundant IMHO.

Civ4 and Shattered Union: Good graphics, great gameplay and decent support...very "fun" albeit ahistorical.

Cossacks 2: Unforgiveable show stopping campaign bugs that ruined the whole "grand campaign" feel...too little, too late!

COG: Very Historical with awesome potential for the turn-Based tactical battles but mired down with a "real-time" complicated/opaque Europa "x" style gameplay that wasn't "pretty enough" IMO to validate an excessive amount of time(due to the constant tweaking) to make it rewarding enough to stick with for an extended amount of time. Certain features that were supposed to work(Lancers anyone?) were overlooked to tweak other aspects which just were implemented to make the general public feel "more smarter"(yes...i am aware of the grammar Billy Bob) and yet the whole Army/Corps issue was also left "vague" and required much patience(every re-start) to await the jelly-like units to solidify like Jello.


So to answer that question: you need both in todays market...the perfect combination...we're getting closer.

This wargamer votes to spend the time, energy and money on AI and NOT 3d graphics. I still play a helleva lot Century of Warfare, which is calssic icon counters.

Besides the counter graphics make it feel more like a board game. I know I am probably in the minority here, but gameplay is so much more important than graphics. The graphics I care the most about are the maps. Again, because beautiful maps give it a board game feel.

I would like to see napoleonic game with counter graphics using Clash of Arms type graphics for the counters.

So in summary, money for AI and gameplay, go with counters and beautiful maps.

The main problem with this game is the absence of interactive tutorials and perhaps demonstration videos to ease new players into what is a demanding but engrossing game-playing experience.

Perhaps the developers could address this?

Richard

I guess that is the breakdown; those of us that got started as boardgamers and these youngsters who have been spoiled with fancy graphics. I think that graphics have progressed to the point that they are no longer an issue. Hell, I was very happy with V4V/W@W graphic levels and those games are almost fifteen years old now. So I agree, the next holy grail for computer wargaming is in the direction of AI.

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
COG: Very Historical with awesome potential for the turn-Based tactical battles but mired down with a "real-time" complicated/opaque Europa "x" style gameplay that wasn't "pretty enough" IMO to validate an excessive amount of time(due to the constant tweaking) to make it rewarding enough to stick with for an extended amount of time. Certain features that were supposed to work(Lancers anyone?) were overlooked to tweak other aspects which just were implemented to make the general public feel "more smarter"

This expresses what I think is the balance of feedback we've received both from the American print-magazine reviews and from the majority of players on this forum: that players -- including the majority of grognards -- prefer simpler, more transparent gameplay systems. For the sequel, we are working to make these sytems more transparent and simpler to understand without sacrificing any of the fullness or robustness of the game model. This shift in development doctrine, incidentally, will allow us to include more in-game help.

I, as some players from whom I have received feedback do, prefer more opaque, much more complex, systems -- but we seem to be in a decided minority. We're hoping to provide some game options to allow players to adjust some of these sorts of aspects of gameplay.



Eric

To clarify my response to the question regarding "3D Graphics", my answer is based on what i perceive is the inevitable direction of wargaming...not my personal opinion. I would take 2D counters/maps any day over their 3D counterparts and i still think there is nothing sexier than a good old fashion "hex". When i bought my first gaming PC a 32 meg card was the "norm" and was more than adequate. When Alienware sent me a new GeForce card to replace my FX5900 Ultra 128mg, almost 2 years old and still under my warranty, they replaced it with a 6800 GT 256mg like it was nothing, LOL. I have to keep up with the times even if i don't want to...oh well...it's not being wasted[;)]. I hope that things don't change too fast because if there are no hexbased/2D sprite wargames in Heaven then i shall not go!
I still think COG is a beauty, the map both strategic and tactical, but in the end i just wasn't man enough to overcome the work required to stay the course...
I have come to terms with that and decided to step aside to let my younger and/or more diligent brethren do what they do so well.

ORIGINAL: Arinvald
I guess that is the breakdown; those of us that got started as boardgamers and these youngsters who have been spoiled with fancy graphics. I think that graphics have progressed to the point that they are no longer an issue. Hell, I was very happy with V4V/W@W graphic levels and those games are almost fifteen years old now. So I agree, the next holy grail for computer wargaming is in the direction of AI.

The more options a player has, the more difficult it is to program good AI. The difficulty actually becomes exponential -- literally -- with the number of choices a player has.

Would you and other Matrix players prefer games with simpler rule-sets if they had more challenging AI?

Let me provide some benchmarks...

Consider chess: on a player's turn he can move one piece of the 16 pieces that he has, and each piece can move to one of maybe, by way of estimation, 10 sensible locations. That's only 160 options per turn. It's possible on a PC to make decent AI for chess -- nothing that a really skilled chess player couldn't beat -- but decent enough to give most chess players a good workout. This is due in large part to the fact that decent AI routines for chess use libraries of opening moves that have been worked out by human chess grandmasters -- if you've ever played chess against an AI that doesn't use libraries you'll know what I mean. A good algorithm to beat a chess *grandmaster* requires networked supercomputers, but most players aren't grand masters.

Now consider Go: Go is played on a 19x19 grid and players place one stone each turn. That's about 200 choices per turn -- more choices at the beginning of a game when choices are more crucial, fewer as the game progresses. Yet Go, it turns out, has so many options that it is difficult to write an algorithm to run on a PC or even a supercomputer that will be of a challenge to any player who is not a complete novice.

Go doesn't have that many more sensible options per turn than chess, yet because of the exponential relationship between choices/complexity the small increase in options results in a game system for which it is very, very difficult to write good AI. There are computer scientists who have spent 30 years of their career developing algorithms for Go, yet the best algorithm for Go as of 2001 only ranks a 10-kyu in the Go ranking system (the ranking given to weak amateurs.) Some good Go AI has been written ... for a variation of the game played on a 9x9 grid, which brings the complexity down to an average of 40 choices per turn (or about 80 choices during the crucial opening game.)

Now imagine a game rather like chess but with a random starting configuration of perhaps 30 pieces per side played not on an 8x8 featureless grid but on a 40x40 map with forests, heights, roads and rivers. In addition to moving, allow pieces to change formation (which effectively changes the entire map for them), fire at any hex in range, or charge at many points along their movement paths. Instead of moving one piece per turn, you can move all the members of your corps with certainty, and may be able to move more before the other player has a chance at a move. Throw in fog and rain and resupply, proximity morale rules and reinforcement. I don't even know how to estimate the number of choices available to players per turn but it's a lot higher than there are per turn in a game of Go.

The absence of a really killer AI for wargames is not a matter of developers' deciding AI isn't important; there are mathematical impediments fundamental to the reality of the situation.

One reason that RTS games are ubiquitous, I believe, is that it is not necessary to have a good AI in RTS games. The computer can process information faster and can "click" on its units at millisecond intervals. Playing a good game in RTS often comes down to having good mouse/keyboard skills and being able to click on things very fast -- learning all the keyboard shortcuts to maximize the orders/second that one can issue. To make RTS more challenging, the program just has to give players more things to click on, more enemies to consider, in the same constraint of time. Even a mediocre chess algorithm can be pretty good when the human player is playing with a 2-second time limit.

Really in an RTS game model the computer just has a "material bonus" -- the bonus is in calculations per second. It may make very simplistic calculations, but it can do millions of them in the time it takes a human to add two numbers together. Turn based games nearly all rely on material bonuses for the AI built into the rules -- more money for the AI, more units, and so forth: the Civilization games are enjoyable but aren't really challenging until the AI is given a huge production bonus and can produce and support several times the number of units as the human players.


To make a game that has very challenging AI without AI cheats, my estimate is that I'd need to reduce the effective choices per turn to between 50 and 100 sensible choices. By compiling huge libraries of moves (as good chess algorithms do) I could possibly increase this to 150 choices, more depending on how the libraries/rule-systems relate, but the opening move libraries for chess are taken from books written by chess grandmasters and so it seems unlikely that any game I might design would have such a readily available resource.

I'm asking the question of whether or not you would enjoy a game with a much simpler rule-set if it had very challenging AI because I'm genuinely interested in such games. This is one design model we have considered pursuing in the future. The games would have to be decidedly much "gamier" and less like a simulation. My guess is that games with a very simple set of rules and an elegant but simple UI would probably have a very small niche market -- as wargamers in general seem to prefer more rules, more pieces, bigger maps, longer games -- but such games might be easier enough to produce (fewer rules means less overhead all around) that even a very small niche could still support them. (And, frankly, I'd personally enjoy developing such games.)