Events? (COG2)

[ericbabe]

One of our ideas for a COG sequel is to add many more random/historically scheduled events. I think this could give the game a lot more historical flavor as well as allowing the game to represent some historical things that would otherwise be difficult to model. The biggest problem with events, I think, is that I know that some players don't like random events in games. To give you an idea of the sort of things we're thinking of adding, here's some of our brainstorm list for 1792-1793:

• King Gustav III assassinated
• First use of guillotine
• La Marseillaise composed
• Storming of the Tuileries
• September Massacres
• French Legislative Assembly dissolved
• Storms in the English Channel
• Abolition of the Monarchy in France
• John VI becomes Prince Regent in Portugal
• Franz Xaver von Zach publishes "Tables of the Sun"
• Claude Chappe demonstrates semaphore system
• Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" is published in Britain
• Louis XVI is guillotined
• Republic of Mainz formed
• Committee of Public Safety est. in France
• Louvre opened to the public as a museum
• Reign of Terror (event)
• Paganini gives first public concert
• William Wordsworth tours Wales and England

Is something people would be interested in seeing, or do you'all regard such a thing as an addition that would be a distraction from the main game? Would we better spend our time adding some other game mechanism/element?

[MilRevKo]

"Committee of Public Safety est. in France"

Great idea, the 1792 scenario is already amazing. With addition of the COG2 update 6 player games will be smth worth looking forward to...

[Russian Guard]

I am one of those players that would strongly oppose any random events that might have significant impact on game-play, for example, some ahistorical Coup d'etat in Russia that requires half the Army to put down, or a plague that wipes out 25% of the Army...nothing worse (for me) than an ahistorical random event that destroys lots of planning and work...

Historical events would be fun to incorporate, but without an understanding of how these events would actually impact game-play, it's difficult to comment on whether I'd like it.

If the event had trivial (but measurable) impact, or was simply a notation for flavor, I'd like it.

For example, the creation of the Republic of Mainz (which could in theory only be created if that city was occupied by French Revolutionary Army forces, say before 1795) - could be handled fairly easily. The Republic of Mainz would be anti-Prussian I'd assume, and that city would be out of control of Prussia, and pro-French, until conquered by Prussia and/or Austria.

But what game-impact, if any, would the storming of the Tulieries have, or the first use of the Guillotine, beyond a notation of it?

[jimwinsor]

I like the idea of random events, for generic repeatable events (ie, Storms at Sea, etc..)
 
I've never been much a fan of scripted historical events, ie, inevitable one-time events that neither side controls, but both sides roughly when/where/how are coming and are able to prepare for with ahistorical foresight.
 
I think a better alternative to scripted historical events is to make more "player controled options." Emamcipation in FoF is an example of a player controled option. Major historic Events such as "Legislative Assembly Dissolved" would be something that could be triggered by the player by pressing an option button somewhere (or playing a "card" amongst a set of option cards dealt to the players); certain options might not appear right away, others might have certain pre-requisites, some might lead to other options opening up, etc.
 
You could get very creative with such a system, with option trees and branches leading not only into historic paths but plausible alternate history paths as well.
 

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

I like the idea of random events, for generic repeatable events (ie, Storms at Sea, etc..)

I've never been much a fan of scripted historical events, ie, inevitable one-time events that neither side controls, but both sides roughly when/where/how are coming and are able to prepare for with ahistorical foresight.

I think a better alternative to scripted historical events is to make more "player controled options." Emamcipation in FoF is an example of a player controled option. Major historic Events such as "Legislative Assembly Dissolved" would be something that could be triggered by the player by pressing an option button somewhere (or playing a "card" amongst a set of option cards dealt to the players); certain options might not appear right away, others might have certain pre-requisites, some might lead to other options opening up, etc.

You could get very creative with such a system, with option trees and branches leading not only into historic paths but plausible alternate history paths as well.

I agree that random events like stormy seas are not an issue - in fact, weather in general is already modelled in the game, and certainly there have been times when snow or rain has caused me problems in terms of my planned strategic movement schedule. Weather is a"normal", and certainly not "ahistorical" random event.

I'm more concerned with random events that might have a profound effect on many months of planning, such as a plague that wipes out half your Army, or your best General catches the flu and croaks.

You are quite right about historical issues being - with the knowledge of hindsight - easily anticipated. The reason I used the Republic of Mainz example was to illustrate exactly that point. In that example, it required player (or conceivably, AI) action to cause the event - occupation of the city of Mainz within a certain specified timeframe, by Revolutionary French Army forces.

These are, in my view, the best types of events to include - ones that require player choice or action to cause. If it doesn't, then either leave it out, or let it happen as a matter of "flavor" but the event has no impact on game-play.

[Gem35]

What about adding weapon upgrades to units in the field like FoF does?
At first I thought this more micromanagement but after thinking about it, it would further the customization of your elite forces and give them even more appeal and hardship if they get caught in a bad spot after a poor decision.[:)]

[jkBluesman]

And what kind of upgrades could that be?

[Ironclad]

Yes there does seem to be far less scope than in the American Civil War where there was a genuine choice for mainstream infantry between smoothbores, rifled muskets and later on for the USA repeating rifles. In contrast the great mass of Napoleonic period infantry (even most elite units) were limited to smoothbores.

The difference between armies during between 1793-1815 tended to be more about leadership, staff and troop qualities combined with training and different organisational and tactical approaches. Plus the ability of the powers to sustain the numbers of troops required.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Yes there does seem to be far less scope than in the American Civil War where there was a genuine choice for mainstream infantry between smoothbores, rifled muskets and later on for the USA repeating rifles. In contrast the great mass of Napoleonic period infantry (even most elite units) were limited to smoothbores.

The difference between armies during between 1793-1815 tended to be more about leadership, staff and troop qualities combined with training and different organisational and tactical approaches. Plus the ability of the powers to sustain the numbers of troops required.

Yes this was my assumption also, although this is not my particular historical forte' as regards Napoleonic warfare (weapons and such).

Thus, it seems to me the the upgrades currently in the game fill the bill quite nicely - although (just my opinion) I would break the upgrades list into 3 component parts, and make them available as follows:

1) The upgrades any Nation can use
2) The upgrades some Nations have to pay a premium to acquire (such as an additional $$ cost) to reflect historical tendencies and the cost associated with implementing a radical new tactic or organizational abilitiy
3) The upgrades that a few Nations flat cannot have (such as Turkey using the Guard upgrade).

Is this worth discussing? Anyone care about a somewhat "historical" application of upgrades? I brought it up, but I'd rather see improvements to the game's handling of Protectorates and such, before a revision on this.

Similar to the activities on the FoF forum, we'd need to have some input from players as to which upgrades some Nations should have easily, others have to pay a premium, and the few that might be disallowed for certain nations.

[jkBluesman]

I think with the economics every nation starts with it is already more difficult for some to get upgrades at all. It would be another discussion if the economic system had been changed.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman

I think with the economics every nation starts with it is already more difficult for some to get upgrades at all. It would be another discussion if the economic system had been changed.

Hmmm, well I've not played a Nation where I haven't managed to get 5 or more upgrades over the course of a 10 year campaign, but then I never play above "General" level of difficulty, nor short campaigns, so maybe that's it.

The more I think about this, though, I think I'd prefer the designers concentrate on fixing/improving/adding other things previously discussed, such as enhanced Naval combat, improved Minor Country/Protectorate behaviors, etc...

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
Thus, it seems to me the the upgrades currently in the game fill the bill quite nicely - although (just my opinion) I would break the upgrades list into 3 component parts, and make them available as follows:

1) The upgrades any Nation can use
2) The upgrades some Nations have to pay a premium to acquire (such as an additional $$ cost) to reflect historical tendencies and the cost associated with implementing a radical new tactic or organizational abilitiy
3) The upgrades that a few Nations flat cannot have (such as Turkey using the Guard upgrade).

This is a good idea. It would be easy to forbid some upgrades from particular nations. The premium would be a bit harder to implement -- though as an additional 1-time cost it might not be so hard to do.

One idea we had for COG originally that we never had time to implement was to allow players to pay to abandon an upgrade they already know, so as to free up the slot for a new upgrade. Any thoughts on this?

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


This is a good idea. It would be easy to forbid some upgrades from particular nations. The premium would be a bit harder to implement -- though as an additional 1-time cost it might not be so hard to do.

One idea we had for COG originally that we never had time to implement was to allow players to pay to abandon an upgrade they already know, so as to free up the slot for a new upgrade. Any thoughts on this?

Glad you find the idea of value. If a one-time cost isn't too difficult to implement, you could eliminate the need to prohibit certain Nations from certain Upgrades. Just make the cost really high for some Nations. Of course it would be interesting to see how the AI then made these choices

Would it make sense to provide Upgrade availability by level of Upgrade? That is, you didn't even get access to the Guard Upgrade until you had qualified for at least "xx" levels of Upgrades? This would work well for access to the Upgrade II and III that some have (like Artillery). And de facto increase the cost in money and materials to gain access to them (higher levels of Barracks, Culture, etc).

I'm sure some players would like the ability to "unlearn" upgrades in order to dump it and select another one. I'd personally prefer to be stuck with my choices, and thus have to give (IMO) more thought to what strategy I pursued with my Army upgrades. Maybe a one-time-only option wouldn't be bad.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
Would it make sense to provide Upgrade availability by level of Upgrade? That is, you didn't even get access to the Guard Upgrade until you had qualified for at least "xx" levels of Upgrades? This would work well for access to the Upgrade II and III that some have (like Artillery). And de facto increase the cost in money and materials to gain access

I don't know why I've never thought to do this... that'd be great.

[Ironclad]

I would like to see a system whereby tactical upgrades only apply to units if they meets certain criteria eg quality level, training upgrade or unit attribute or led by a particular category of general. This could include more than one level of application as they become more qualified.

This would avoid the current unrealistic situation where every unit in the nation has all relevant upgrades obtained and there is no possibility of deterioration. History wasn't like that as demonstrated by the differences between the French armies of 1804-6, 1812 and 1813. Contrast the superb training and preparation for most of the 1804 French infantry to their counterparts in 1813, many of whom had brief stints in training depots that left them deficient in weapon usage and tactical formations.

I can't recall if the game has upgrades applicable to particular areas but if not such a change would be useful for upgrades or attributes eg improved heavy cavalry from possession of prussian or equivalent breeding provinces.

What about troop care and horse management for unit and leadership attributes as well as strategic/tactical proficiencies?

[ericbabe]

Right now units that are militia-level morale or worse don't receive the benefits of any upgrades.

[TexHorns]

Getting on this one a little late. I like random events that add uncertainty to the overall progression of the game. But I prefer the events be applied as a result of choices given to the player. For instance a event set to occur prompts an option menu for the player. How the event affects the game is based on the response to the event or the choice of the player.

Another option would be to put options in the form of "cards" that players can play say on a quarterly basis to affect the game.