Matrix Games Forums

I have been a dedicated WW2 player for a few years now, and this would be the first napoleonic style era I would play...ever. [X(]
I am looking, among other things, for a good diplomatic game. One in which the ending of a war does not necessarily involve the wiping out of a nation.
I am also, of course, a little distrustful of what matrix games and the Crown of Glory developpers say about the game, since it is bound to be laced with propaganda.

Therefore I would appreciate some first hands account of the game play, as well as the game's strong points and its weak points.

Hi
Is good software for you money, if you decide buy it, please drop me a line to play TCPIP
Regards

what does the game do best? the political intrigue part or the strategical battle part or are both good?
How long does a regular game normally take?

ps: it seems rather similar to empire in arms... what do you think about this? (I have played neither)

I am on the beta team, so I am an insider, but I don't get money or anything like that.

In COG, you get a full range of diplomatic activities (including using diplomats and making treaties), a complex and invigorating economic system, development of capabilities both through improving 'buildings' and learning technologies ('upgrades'), trade, as well as both strategic and tactical battle.

In COG v1, defeating an enemy nation is mainly about hurting their national morale - not hunting down their units - and AI (like humans) can surrender earlier if they choose (or make a cease fire). There aren't many diplomatic options for ending wars: I'd like to see the treaty system extended into this area. There are plenty of ways to try to avoid wars starting, however.

I often try to not hurt an enemy too badly, and in the peace treaty force them to become my ally and/or declare war on one of my enemies (or take an army on loan from them).

Does that help?

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

I have been a dedicated WW2 player for a few years now, and this would be the first napoleonic style era I would play...ever. [X(]
I am looking, among other things, for a good diplomatic game. One in which the ending of a war does not necessarily involve the wiping out of a nation.

Well I'd definitely say this game is for you then. This is among the best and perhaps richest diplomatic games I have ever played. And exactly as you said - ending a war does not involve wiping out a nation.

Rest assured I am no CoG fanboy. In fact I'd like the game to be more combat-heavy as I personally don't like tinkering with diplomacy, treaties, emmissaries and such. So, what's not-so-enjoyable for me, is obviously enjoyable for you. If you enjoy diplo options you can't miss with this one...

O.

I have bought just about every Napoleonic game out there, and I think CoG is the best of the bunch. Setting the era aside, I would rank it as one of the best war games for the PC. As a fellow Canadian, I would recommend you getting it. The diplomatic side should be to your liking.

it sounds very interesting, but 1 more question (ahem, 2 more actually). 1) What is the complexity level like. I am currently leaning between this and Gary Grisby's World at War for my next buy, and I would like a game simpler than, say, War in the Pacific, which I know you play Oleg. Although I love WiTP, it is not always a game I want to play after a hard day of work, when I am both physically and mentally tired. So is there a lot of micromanaging of units here? The official site talked about some 12 resources... in WITP there less, and yet managing these resources is extremely hard (mostly because they are divided into primary and secondary sources). How difficult is the economic system in this game?

Ralegh, you mentionned the game wasn't very combat oriented... are the combats that are there still interesting? I must say, although I like diplomacy, a good brawl is always fun...

Well, it turned out to be more than 1 or 2 questions, but enlighten me, please...

I think the game is much more interesting than GGWaW, although it does carry an edge in a few "production" areas in that it is slicker and a bit more polished. Nevertheless, it left me a bit cold for a few reasons. Namely, the seeming necessity to always have to take the same actions during the first few turns to achieve the "best" result.

Now CoG is complex, but I think much of this comes from interpreting the information provided since it requires synthesizing data from a few report sources. The good news is that the advisors, especially the trade and diplomacy experts can handle their jobs sufficiently to only require a brief review and the occasional tweak without a great loss compared to human micromanagement.

There is plenty of combat depending on circumstances, some have said perhaps too much combat. At higher difficulties, the challenge is supposed to be racheted up, but my latest game at this level has not progressed enough to be able to make that determination. There are a number of game and combat tweaks that are in the works for a patch that is forthcoming and this leads me to the last point of positive opinions.

The development team has been constantly monitoring and responding to the feedback supplied on this board and through private messages. They have been very courteous and open to both correcting unintended features and considering the implementation of improvements to the game. They genuinely do a good job at interacting with their customers in pursuit of improvements to the product.

BDH

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

it sounds very interesting, but 1 more question (ahem, 2 more actually). 1) What is the complexity level like. I am currently leaning between this and Gary Grisby's World at War for my next buy, and I would like a game simpler than, say, War in the Pacific, which I know you play Oleg. Although I love WiTP, it is not always a game I want to play after a hard day of work, when I am both physically and mentally tired. So is there a lot of micromanaging of units here?

Well it's now my turn to be biased, so watch out [;)]

I happen to be beta tester for WAW, I love the game very much, so it's not really fair to ask me which one I prefer LOL WAW is for me the Strategy of the Year (so far) so any game compared to WAW will lose the comparison.

WAW is definitely simpler and more fitting the description of "play after work when I am both physically and mentally tired". WAW has no diplomacy, just research (military oriented research) and production, and of course combat. Research and production are the core of WAW, and are in my opinion done much better and are much more fun than research and production in CoG.

CoG is very grognardy, and much more WITP-like. In fact, yes, I'd say of all Matrix games I played it's the only one approaching WITP in complexity (although it's still much simpler than that monster). Of course as I already said CoG beats any game I could remember when it comes to diplomacy, treaties etc. And it's combat is more involved than in WAW. Still, even in CoG combat suffers from some over-generalization (you fight with divisions, not brigades or regiments, so the "usual answer" to any perceived oddity will be "it's a division, so it's abstracted"). Since it's your first Nappy game I don't think difference between divisions and brigades in detailed combat should matter to you.

So it's really apples and oranges. Buy both. Both are excellent games and you can't fail really, you'll get your money worth (and then some) from both. Play WAW after work, and tinker with CoG treaties and diplomatic options durting weekends. (Would you say I have future in marketing? [:D])

Oleg

hehehe... in fact I do plan to buy both, this is just a question of which I will buy FIRST. Very very last question: whats the multiplayer like? Is there somehow a possibility of all out 8 player multiplayer mayhem over the internet, with one player being each country (sort of like empire in arms?). That would make me salivate... the sheer backstabbing potential of it all...[:D]

The 8-player game is not only possible but preferable, as 2-3 player games are crippled by the AI and the diplomatic system. Two-player games especially aren't very workable. Too much of the balance depends on the funtioning of the diplomatic system, which really only works with live players running each of the major countries.

As far as which is better, COG or WAW, they're both flawed games in my opinion.

so the AI is not good?

I'm obviously biased

However, the AI in both is superb. WaW will take you a very long time to win as the axis powers on normal mode (I guestiamte between 30 and 40 hours to win as both sides on normal, depending on how good you are at these kinds of games). CoG has very deadly AI in general management of its countries. If you read on the forums a bit more you will learn some feel the tactical battle AI is a bit on the weak side, which can be remedied by letting the computer resolve it.

Diplomatically the AI does some strange things at times, but I never felt it was overly lacking. It is just that you can't create the same kind of interaction between an AI as you could with a human opponent.

-Joe

ORIGINAL: JosephL
Diplomatically the AI does some strange things at times, but I never felt it was overly lacking. It is just that you can't create the same kind of interaction between an AI as you could with a human opponent.

Yet the "creation of interaction" between nations is the key, and it really falls apart when it's you and the AI fighting on the same side. Yes, the AI nations are good at ganging up on you when you're winning, but what the AI nations are absolutely unable to do is coordinate with a human player to keep another human player in check. This lack of coordination makes it much, much easier for a French player (who really doesn't need any allies in the 1805 scenario) and much more difficult for the Allied players, who suffer from having their AI allies doing odd and counterproductive things.

WaW will take you a very long time to win as the axis powers on normal mode

That's because the game is balanced against the Axis.

Depnds on how comfortable you are playing games that need patching to really get up to snuff. COG has the makings of a good game, but it seems to have been released very early and needs at least a couple of patches to really fill in the holes in the game.

Battles, economics, diplomacy, general reporting of info to the player, and a generally awkward UI all seem to need some work.

I really like the concept of this game. But playing it just became to frustrating to me, so I've drifted away from it until they get some more work done on it. They've done one patch that tries to address the crash issues, but I'm waiting on other patches that take on some of the game play issues before I really start playing it again.

So whether you want to buy it depends on whether you like to have your games finished, or if you are willing to play it while they do some more patches.

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

WaW will take you a very long time to win as the axis powers on normal mode

That's because the game is balanced against the Axis.

But it's not! I win nearly every game as Axis by AV, vs humans. Actually current discussion is to change couple things to balance to make Allied life easier. It is warranted (especially in case of Soviets).

CoG guys sorry for this rude thread hijack, but some statements can't pass unchecked [:-]

O.

Battles, economics, diplomacy, general reporting of info to the player, and a generally awkward UI all seem to need some work.

Specifically regarding the UI, what do you feel is awkward about it? We're trying to get a feel for what "awkward" means in this regard. Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z
Specifically regarding the UI, what do you feel is awkward about it? We're trying to get a feel for what "awkward" means in this regard. Thanks!

I hope the original poster responds, but just to throw my opinion in - the whole interface feels like it was designed in 1998. It actually reminds me a lot of Imperialism 2. The sliders in the development window are incredibly clunky. I have to estimate how much to more the slider to add 6 manpower or whatever to a particular area. Not having sortable summary screens is a big omission. And the lack of an Undo feature is really inexplicable. In general, for me the interface is "awkward" because it requires too much clicking from the player. The Trade screen is a great example. How many mouseclicks does it take to find a region, set up a trade, and propose it? A lot.

The sliders in the development window are incredibly clunky. I have to estimate how much to more the slider to add 6 manpower or whatever to a particular area.

I think I now know what makes them seem so--I'll put something on the bug forum about it.

Not having sortable summary screens is a big omission.

What do you mean by "sortable"?

How many mouseclicks does it take to find a region, set up a trade, and propose it? A lot.

What do you think might speed it up?