COG2?

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: arichbourg

Sorry to say, this post has made me lose all interest in CoG. To me you are adding additional chrome, while basic problems go unfixed. I'm sure many people will like CoG, but I think I'll leave it on the shelf.

Good luck!

After seeing these comments, I was a little surprised so I went back to see what problems or suggestions you might have posted that were being ignored. I did find THIS post in the Wish List thread that called for better hexwar AI. While it isn't specified above, a significant amount of effort went into improving the hexwar AI in FoF and I have to assume much of that will port over to an improved CoG. Other than that, your comments have been generally positive.

The post above referenced THIS glowingly positive post that also listed several suggestions, but the majority of them are pretty minor stuff talking about scenario adjustments and tweaking of reports. Am I missing something? Have you posted a message regarding the problems you are discussing? If they are the ones mentioned above, I don't understand the depth of your concern and I suspect many of these minor items could easily be addressed if you'll help the team understand why they are so important. And if those are not the problems you are referring to, I would be very interested in understanding what "basic problems" you are referring to.

Thanks.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I love the idea of a more detailed map. Originally I liked the period simplicity of the current map but over time it has grown a bit "flat".

We're experimenting with un-squishing Spain and Russia. I was always surprised that so many people complained about the squished Spain but nobody ever complained about the squished Russia, even though Russia was squished much more than Spain was.

Question - Any chance of General promotions? When I modded in a number of generals I had to choose whether to bring them in early, when they were one-stars, or much later after they were promoted to two-stars - no option to promote. Also, a way to remove Generals. When I tried to set up a 23 year game from 1792 to 1815, you can mod in the required generals (oh, such as Napoleon) as time progresses, but you are stuck with 90 year old Generals still in the game in 1815.

I'll have to look into promotions a bit to see how feasible that would be. A removal date for generals wouldn't be hard to add.







[/quote]

Question - Any chance of General promotions? When I modded in a number of generals I had to choose whether to bring them in early, when they were one-stars, or much later after they were promoted to two-stars - no option to promote. Also, a way to remove Generals. When I tried to set up a 23 year game from 1792 to 1815, you can mod in the required generals (oh, such as Napoleon) as time progresses, but you are stuck with 90 year old Generals still in the game in 1815.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman
Which book is it? Is it Joathan North (ed.): "Napoleon Options: Alternate Decisions of the Napoleonic Wars"?

Mr Z has it right now, so I don't have it handy to check on the name, but the title sounds about right.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I'll have to look into promotions a bit to see how feasible that would be. A removal date for generals wouldn't be hard to add.

The latter is for me more important, glad to hear that it isn't difficult. An inelegant but effective solution might be to activate your diedin field but place a default number of turns high enough that nobody died during the game, unless the date/turn was modded (by folks like me).

If you feel the need/desire is there to introduce Generals' death/retirements as a standard game feature, then an on/off switch for it would appease those who I believe you have stated elsewhere, won't appreciate their favorite Generals having the audacity to die on their due date [:'(]

[ericbabe]

I wouldn't want to add it for combat deaths, since those can happen anyway.  Berthier's murder/suicide might be more appropriate for a random event rather than happening on schedule.  Ditto for Bernadotte's transformation into [size="-1"]King Charles XIV[/size].

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I wouldn't want to add it for combat deaths, since those can happen anyway

Yes I was referring specifically to non-combat deaths, such as Kutusov in 1813, or retirements that were permanent.

So if I were modding a Grand campaign from 1792-1815, I'd use that field (or whatever mechansim applied) to have Suvarov move on in 1800, instead of still being around (great as that might be for Russia) in 1815 at the ripe old age of (I think) 87.

Since it appears to me that you are looking for ways to keep the game fresh and replayable (makes sense) via some random happenings, even this could be somewhat variable, now that I think of it; as a General approaches his historical date of death or retirement you could introduce an increasing percent chance every month that he dies/retires.

Just a thought.


edit: for atrocious spelling

[Ironclad]

Eric:

Your draft improvement list looks good stuff (plus the generals promotions).

I assume (hope) that the COG2 battle module will benefit from as many of the FOF battlefield improvements as is possible to accommodate including improved AI.

Some other changes that would be helpful are:

1. Limitations on the amount of funds an AI power will give through treaty exchanges (perhaps maximum of 10% annual income, or 15% for France, 20% Britain) in total each turn.

2. A better AI awareness of the power relations across Europe and its borders - so will give much higher value to bordering provinces than more distant ones or will, where desirable, assist/entreat a current superpower to restrict the growth of neighbouring countries.

3. Protectorates only being offered to countries that have sizeable forces within movement range.

4. Scope to select two target centres for an allied force - a major and minor one (perhaps two thirds and one thirds split). This would allow an offensive and defensive split or two offensives against the same or different powers. Also reduce a target force the further away from home territory it is ordered to move.

5. It would be great on the battlefield to be able to bring on reinforcements from different directions where the power concerned had won the scouting check and possesses a major cavalry superiority. To be effective the detached reinforcing force would probably need access to its own supply caisson(s).

6. On the economic screen, alert the player to any provinces where labour is available following completion of developments.

On prisoners (after experiencing FOF) I have changed my view - if included have them as a paper exercise. To reflect the temporary escort requirements, there could be a removal of a lower graded unit(s) from the victorious army (returned after one turn).

[sol_invictus]

I am glad to see that a COG2 is planned. My main problems with the original were the interface being a bit of a chore and the fact that the troop levels grew to rediculous levels. It seems that the interface is being streamlined, but has any thought gone into introducing a mechanism to limit or cap troop levels to approximate historical levels?

[ericbabe]

Putting some sort of stronger limit on troop sizes (based on number of provinces) is, in fact, on my list of things to do.

In the original release of the game we had very harsh waste rules to try to keep the size of the armies from increasing too much, but players didn't like to be limited too much by the waste system, so we reduced much of the waste.  So maybe we should try another mechanism.

Much of the issue with the troop levels is simply the income bonus that the AI receives at higher difficulty levels -- this bonus allows for larger troops than would otherwise be possible at the lower levels.  This is a very standard sort of thing to do in these types of games... the material bonuses for the AI in COG are smaller at the higher levels than they are in games like Civ IV, for instance.  Frankly I don't want to make the game too easy at the harder levels, so in instituting tighter limits on troop quantity I would want to make allowances for AI difficulty settings.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Putting some sort of stronger limit on troop sizes (based on number of provinces) is, in fact, on my list of things to do.

In the original release of the game we had very harsh waste rules to try to keep the size of the armies from increasing too much, but players didn't like to be limited too much by the waste system, so we reduced much of the waste.  So maybe we should try another mechanism.

Much of the issue with the troop levels is simply the income bonus that the AI receives at higher difficulty levels -- this bonus allows for larger troops than would otherwise be possible at the lower levels.  This is a very standard sort of thing to do in these types of games... the material bonuses for the AI in COG are smaller at the higher levels than they are in games like Civ IV, for instance.  Frankly I don't want to make the game too easy at the harder levels, so in instituting tighter limits on troop quantity I would want to make allowances for AI difficulty settings.

Certainly France had a huge Army historically at certain times, part of the issue here (IMO) is that AI Nations will mass everything they have in one massive Army and march on an enemy, leaving nothing at home for defense of the homeland and Capital, or to face other potential threats.

Many times I've seen AI France (and other Nations) lose a war because their entire Army was far from home while some other Nation DoW'd them and sieged their Capital.

An idea might be to have an AI Nation always retain "xx" percent of its forces in a "home Army" that defends the Capital/homeland. This would have the added effect of lessening the size of Armies that march on their enemies, although it doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

If nothing else this would likely make AI nations harder to defeat.

[Godkin]

I was wondering is it possible to add an extra setting to the game manu to start a bonus scenario in which everything is random such as the location of countries, relationship between them and resources destribution, and that without the time limit. So  I don't have to stick to the rutine. I am sure this can promise endless replayability.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Godkin
I was wondering is it possible to add an extra setting to the game manu to start a bonus scenario in which everything is random such as the location of countries, relationship between them and resources destribution, and that without the time limit. So I don't have to stick to the rutine. I am sure this can promise endless replayability.

Interesting... so the Prussian player might have most of his territory in Italy, or something like that?

This wouldn't be hard to do in principle. It may be hard on the AI. A lot of the AI optimization was made based on the map situation.

[Godkin]

That idea comes from the game serials called Imperialism with two options one is for historical accuracy the other fancy world. For many years the game stays on my hard disk for the novelty with which I start the game once in a while.
 
As far as I remember  Knights of Honor can sart with resources randomly destributed, which inevitably leads to various ending and which means I have to fight with different big-boss everytime.
 
In Spartan every AI country has a pre-set goal like stay alive for how-many truns or occupy how-many territories and only a few AIs are set to take the whole map. The number and quality of soldiers is comfined to the pre-set level of the city.
 
I think different elements and features can be integrated into a suceessful game. If AI optimization was based on the map situation is it possible to link the AI optimization to the different resorces distribution? AI with rich resorces at home tends to be aggressive and those with poor resources tend to be diplomatic-wise until they get rich. One thing for sure is that they always ready to gang up on the player if feel threatened.
 
Maybe random location of countries seems a bit too much for some players but random distribution of resources with corresponding AI behaviour can add a great lot to the varity of gameplay.

[ericbabe]

It actually wouldn't be to hard to mod the 1820 scenario to setup a random map.  Then we could test how well the AI did.

[jimwinsor]

Another idea for COG2 is maybe have monarchs represented somehow, with varying ratings. Would affect the economy, stability, etc of the country (major or minor) he/she rules over.
 
Monarchs could be toppled/replaced by conquerers and/or civil disorder.  France, for example, would start with a pool of Bonaparte family members (ie, Joseph, Jerome, Eugene, Louis, etc...) that could be put in charge of conquered minors. The old monarch of that minor would flee into exile. An exiled minor monarch would be restored if that minor got liberated. That restored monarchy might then be very friendly and loyal to the power that restored it.
 
An exiled Louis XVI monarch would take power in France should it decend into civil disorder. Etc..
 
There are certain details to be worked out, but you can see the bare bones of the concept here...

[ericbabe]

We do want to incorporate big monarch mugshots into the game, give the AI a bit more personality.  I don't know if a detailed monarch-rating and monarch-replacement system would appeal to people in proportion to the work it would take to implement it... I guess it just depends on how it was done.  We might at least hardwire a few of the big changes that occured in the period -- the transition from Czar Paul to Alexander involved an enormous change in Russian foreign policy, for instance, and it'd be nice to have at least an event to represent that.  (It'd be kind of neat to give Paul a chance not to be assassinated and to successfully implement his Chivalric Code for the Russian aristocracy... we could have Bennigsen executed instead in this case.)

[Godkin]

Thank you guys you are really listening!
 
What impressed me most is AI's behaviour in Imperialism. If one of the major AIs is defeated by other AI (or player) on battlefield or lag behind millitrily, which subsequently weaken its strength, the rest of world just gang upon that unlucky one without mercy to get a share until that target AI finally breaks down to pieces.
 
I remember in Civilization IV: BTS small AIs can start with research in separate direction only to provide the technology to the most promising one, which leaves the player far behind without cheat.
 
And in Imperial Glory, I was kept being invited by different AIs to join different ally against different target, and if I decline maybe I would be the target, so I should be very careful to take side. Soon the weakest one was wiped out or absorbed into big empire. Then the tricks go on and on until there are only two or three major AIs left. Player can also do whatever it takes to unit other AIs to set up an ally (with time limit) against the weak one in order to plunder its territories together with others. But he must be cautious about other AI's conspiracy against him. That is an excellent representation of dog-eat-dog world. The name of game is to sacrifice small AIs for the big ones in order to create some superpowers against the player.
 
I think the purpose of competition between AIs is not to weaken AIs' strength but on the contrary, to pick out the chosen one to fight against the player the most cunning. Let the player confront the whole AI world and try to devide and rule.
 
If there is such a bonus scenario please leave it with no time limit becuz I want to help create the biggest boss ever and defeat it. By doing so it takes time.  
 
 

[Eskil]

A feature request from me would be to include an option to allow different resolutions so we can make use of our nicer monitors these days.

/Eskil

[Peeking Duck?]

I don't know if this is the place to ask for features in a new CoG, if it is then here goes, otherwise please ignore...

I would like to see historical/real world topography on the detailed battle maps that relatively match real world topography.  I would also like to see AI that takes advantage of such features, be they natural or man made.  To me, this adds a serious level of immersion - knowing that as soon as you cross a certain ridge the same cannon that blasted you last time might be waiting there again.  Some cities could become reknown trouble spots for conquering armies (is there an urban terrain tile?)

I know it adds a lot of work to the game but perhaps it could be toggled between random maps for those who like them and historical maps for those who prefer that option.  What say ye?

P

[vanmi]

Another idea to improve PBEM :
is it possible that each player play his turn in same time and send it to a master ?
Because when we wait the turn with 4 and more player it's unplayable.