Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

ORIGINAL: ptan54
You mean make all of Finland like Lapland / Switzerland / Pripyet marshes?

Yes, that would be my idea. Then neither side would likely mass a large Army in Finland, which was historical.

I had this exact thought yesterday. I agree.

Well, I respectfully disagree that logostics needs more attention.  The currect system, especially with the addition of the supply sources, is effective in what it does.  One of the problems with the original COG was its complexity.  Many people just couldn't get into the economy, so they quit playing.  The same would be true if we tried to make the logistics of the era "more realistic," i.e., more complicated.
 
If you want a supply source somewhere, you should go into COG2Provinces.txt and put a "1" in the supply source column for the province you want.  Then, play the game several dozen times, changing countries each time, to see what the AI does with that new source.  Adding Gibraltar may seem like a wonderful idea to the British player, but when you're playing Turkey and you see 120,000 British AI troops invade Egypt as a result of your change, you'll begin to think that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.  But, if it seems not to cause any great problems, and the game plays well, then leave it there, post what you did in the "Mods" thread, and let everyone get the advantage of your work.
 
I would not want to see other logistical features added, however.  The existing system is a tremendous simplification and abstraction, I'll agree, but generally has the effect in the game (at a strategic level!) that the real logistics had during the period.

I am wondering if minor countries like Bavaria, Denmark, Saxony and Piedmont who have larger armies will take foraging casualties since they don't build depots. Winter snow in the province their army is sitting in would cause a lot of casualties.
 
If they are taking foraging casualties; my suggestion would be that they are always in supply when inside their territory and sitting on or adjacent to a supply point.

ORIGINAL: Dab

I am wondering if minor countries like Bavaria, Denmark, Saxony and Piedmont who have larger armies will take foraging casualties since they don't build depots. Winter snow in the province their army is sitting in would cause a lot of casualties.

If they are taking foraging casualties; my suggestion would be that they are always in supply when inside their territory and sitting on or adjacent to a supply point.

Or maybe make barracks of a certain size able to support a certain number of troops in that particular province.

BJ, I have to admit, whether the supply system needs more attention certainly is a matter of taste.

However, what I miss in wargaming is the need to actually plan your operations months in advance in some cases. For instance:

1. Victualling (preparing/loading the supplies) for your naval expedition was something that had to be planned in the fall of the preceeding year. You had to know how many ships you would have out and for approximately how long. Why? Because packaging and salting the food could only be done in the winter months. Which meant that the orders had to be placed around October of the previous year at the latest. In CoG:EE navies are ready to sail anywhere anytime at the drop of a hat. Yet there are several instances in 18th century warfare where due to lack of victuals, British fleets were forced to turn back or abandon operations. Indeed in the 1660s (yes, another era entirely), the English fleet was forced to give up the successful and useful blockade of the United Provinces after one (1!) month because the supply system virtually collapsed because the ships were "more than 100 miles from their base". Interestingly, the English navy had hundreds of ships at its disposal to send home for supplies. In addition to a vast merchant fleet (growing by the day due to captured Dutch vessels), they actually had over 100 ships in battle for some engagements! But a 100 mile supply chain was too complicated to deal with.

2. Somehow players should be able to decide on which points (for instance, which islands in the Mediterranean) become naval and supply points for their fleets. If the location in question wasn't a thriving port of trade (the preferrable situation) capable of discounting bills and providing everything you needed, you had to ship everything there at no minor cost--yes, even "major cost". Indeed, naval supply bases are so important I have read descriptions of admirals falling back on them to keep them in friendly hands rather than continue a blockade. There is absolutely no incentive for this in CoG:EE. Of course, the role of naval bases is totally under represented in CoG:EE. Large benefits flowed from carrying out operations in a region with a friendly naval base or with one which you could purchase supplies at. Sure, you could "forage" for some food in neutral and friendly regions and this was done, but the essential supplies of twine and spare masts and canvas could only be brought in from home.

3. Preparing frontier magazines with flour for hundreds of thousands of man-months took time. If you were France and planned your operations for the Belgian frontier and suddenly decided that you wanted to send your hundreds of thousands of men south into Italy instead, it could take months just to redeploy the food. Louvois, who worked for Louis XVI and developed the magazine system, demonstrated that feats of organization and logistics were not 1 month affairs. For an amazing look at some of the issues of supplying an army, see "Feeding Mars" by Lynn--its really the best 1 volume work on logistics I have ever seen. Lynn specializes in 18th century logistics and does a lot of primary research in the field (he is in Paris right now as I write this, doing primary research on the fascinating aspects of supply in the era).

4. In CoG:EE it is impossible to prepare specific points (magazines/fortresses) in the game to withstand a several month long siege...unless they are supply sources. Although they are supply sources in the new CoG:EE patch, the fortress of Berlin and Breslau had at least a year of supply for 60,000 or 70,000 men by the time of Frederick the Great's death. Players should be able to do this in any frontier region with enough time.

5. In CoG:EE, there is no way to represent over-extended or compromised supply lines. You are either "in supply" or out of it. In the Russian advance into Prussia in the Seven Years' War the extended supply line over very poor roads often threatened the advance with total collapse. Yes, they were still "in supply", but barely. And every captured magazine was surely a godsend.

6. The problem of the supply of food, fodder, ammunition, naval stores, and victuals each put totally different demands on the system are required different kinds of advanced planning.

It is such aspects of war which separated the men from the boys. And the victors from the vanquished. Just as much as any maneuver on any battlefield ever did.

Such elements make the problem of warfare interesting to me personally. However, they may be dry as pants to others. But switching lines of communication at the drop of a hat and not having to plan out operations months in advance is rather boring to me and lacks real challenge. That is just my two cents. But I am still a fan of the game.

Actually, what I am for is a "basic" supply system (leaving CoG:EE as is) and an advanced one which takes the issues discussed above into some account.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you Barbarossa2.  In fact, I wish ALL wargames were like WITP, detailed almost to the point that the game is a true simulation.  Weekly or even shorter turns, weapon type modifications, more comprehensive formation effects, more leader effects, a FULLY developed political subsystem, ... I could go on and on.
 
But, that shouldn't happen and won't happen with COGEE.  It's a strategic level game that only takes a few days to play when against the AI, even when the time limit is set to 23 years.  For MOST people that's important.  MOST people don't want a lot of complexity; they just don't have the time or inclination to learn the details.  Gaming companies must make a profit, and that means volume of sales compared to development costs.  Some believe that the original COG was less successful that it could have been because so many people didn't like the advanced economy.  Enter the simple economy in EE.  If logistics had been more realistic in COG, I'm sure EE would have simplified them.
 
My point is that once the decision is made to have a relatively easy to play strategic game that appeals to large numbers of people, it's folly to then start adding in all types of "unnecessary" complexity.  Develop something that is pretty faithful to the strategic options that were historically available, and then move on.  And, saying that a particular piece of complexity could be turned on and off as an option does not always pan out because of the extra development costs involved in developoing that compexity (realism).  It's tremendous.  Besides, once one piece is done, a few players will want something else added, or something changed, or will complain that it's not realistic enough.
 
I spent many years (more than a decade) developing a strategic Napoleonic board game.  It was detailed in every way that it could be.  But, the rules alone were over 100 pages long, and when computer games came along, I just gave up on the project, knowing that eventually such a game would exist electronically.  Sadly, I'm still waiting.
 
I would like to see a very detailed civil war game, too (no, those on the market aren't even close).  And I would LOVE to see a very detailed Napoleonic game, where virtually all important variables are included.  COGEE could not be that game because it is, after all, an extension of an existing engine, not a new game.
 
Maybe at some point in the future it will happen, perhaps once younger players today evolve into true grognards, and development techniques become more sophsticated.  But, there are just a lot of players who currently like role playing "shoot-em-up" type games, so that kind of grognard may never develop in sufficient numbers.  More complex games may just never hit the market any time soon.  I think WITP is one of a kind.
 
Don't think that this is a criticism of EE in any way.  I think it's the best game of the period.
 
Maybe if there's a COG III that is developed with a new engine ....
 

BJMorgan, I have to say I have a tremendous respect for you.

1) I definitely agree 100% that a game like CoG:EE (not specifically CoG:EE) cannot be shipped without a simplified logistics model as we have here with CoG:EE.

2) I agree that CoG:EE is the best grand strategy game about the Napoleonic Era out there.

I also have to say:

3) I feel that just as CoG:EE has an "advanced economy" and the players who really get into CoG:EE dig it (most PBEM games being set up are "advanced economy"), I also feel that a slightly "advanced" logistical system would fly with many of the same people for the same reasons.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Troops on ships don't take attrition/foraging casualties do they? Or is it just the ships themselves that are always in supply?

Yes they do. Bigtime.

In the "another PBEM game" I deliberately left a few Corps out of supply to kill off the low morale guys and fill them back up with 4.50 morale replacements.

They were taking 20%+ casualties sometimes.

Again, I dont know if thats because water is considered "zero forage" or what, but the amount of casualties taken by troops out of supply/at sea is amazing.

[;)]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

3) I feel that just as CoG:EE has an "advanced economy" and the players who really get into CoG:EE dig it (most PBEM games being set up are "advanced economy"), I also feel that a slightly "advanced" logistical system would fly with many of the same people for the same reasons.

Agreed.

I like the option of dummy rules if it helps make the game more accessible and increases sales.

But I also like the idea of advanced rules for the same game.

Agree with both of you. Unfortunately, the cost and development time to make sophisticated supply and communications rules (I believe this sounds MUCH easier than it would be to actually code) would almost certainly not make financial sense given the reasons bjmorgan rightly summarizes.


edit: spelling

ORIGINAL: Mus

Yes they do. Bigtime.

In the "another PBEM game" I deliberately left a few Corps out of supply to kill off the low morale guys and fill them back up with 4.50 morale replacements.

They were taking 20%+ casualties sometimes.

All together now;
Gimme a G
Gimme an A
Gimme a M
Gimme an E
Gimme an Y

[:D]

ORIGINAL: terje439

All together now;
Gimme a G
Gimme an A
Gimme a M
Gimme an E
Gimme an Y

[:D]

Well theres no way to do what the Brits actually did to increase the quality of their troops: Pay money to actually have them fire their weapons in training a bunch.

Go figure.

[:D]

Well I just found out how harshin' those little X-marked "high attrition" provinces can be EVEN when there is a supply depot in the adjacent territory and containers set to work on supply. I think I must have lost about 15,000 or 20,000 in ONE winter turn! Must've been an epidemic . . .

That little red X means no supply can be had in that province I think, so basically you are just foraging even if you have a depot next to it.

ORIGINAL: Mus

That little red X means no supply can be had in that province I think, so basically you are just foraging even if you have a depot next to it.

[:@][X(][:@]

Well, the red X means that a depot can't be built there.  There is still supply in the city and, of course, you can forage.  And, for those who don't like the rule, you can mod these back to normal, if you wish.  Sssshhhhh.  Don't tell anyone that I told you that.

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Well, the red X means that a depot can't be built there.  There is still supply in the city and, of course, you can forage.  And, for those who don't like the rule, you can mod these back to normal, if you wish.  Sssshhhhh.  Don't tell anyone that I told you that.

IF thats the case why would he have taken massive forage losses with a depot adjacent?

ORIGINAL: Mus

IF thats the case why would he have taken massive forage losses with a depot adjacent?

Well, if he was over the forage limit, he'd lose a lot of men. Winter lowers the forage limits. So, if he lost 20k men, then that tells me that he had a lot more than that. That's why I say he was over the forage limit.

So, let's see ... over the forage limit, no depot, winter, and I'm not sure if the X automatically means that the province is "high attrition" (I think it does), but if that's true, that would add even more losses.

I've had small numbers of troops 10k - 20k in provinces with an X for MONTHS and never lost a man. So, either my computer is the luckiest die roller in the world, or you can still forage in those hexes. Maybe somebody ought to put a single division in one of those provinces and see if you get a forage success. I bet you will.

You cannot draw supply into or through a red "X" province, period, even if a depot is adjacent. You are _always_ out of supply in a red "x" province, regardless of all other considerations.

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


You cannot draw supply into or through a red "X" province, period, even if a depot is adjacent. You are _always_ out of supply in a red "x" province, regardless of all other considerations.

Ok, thats what I thought.

No, I think you're in supply in the city, and you can forage.