Matrix Games Forums

Probably not!! But pretty damn close, and I have been buying wargames, both traditional and computer, for over 30 years.
I am sorry to be so negative in my first post on these forums but I cannot believe I have just spent £32 on this ********.

The economic, diplomacy and political systems are totally user unfriendly and unfathomable, and that is after ploughing through 80 odd pages of the manual. I cannot bring myself to comment on the so-called "detailed battles" as anything I said would probably be actionable in court. Let me just say that having spent about an hour, or it certainly seemed that long, setting up The Grande Armee with corps commanders etc I was somewhat surprised to find my army deployed with four Marshals commanding divisions in the same corps and Napoleon leading a light cavalry division!! Having played all the Talonsoft Battleground games, including the wonderful add-ons available from the NIR Project maybe I was expecting too much, but I am amazed that in this day and age of computer gaming that what this game offers as "history" can be rated as acceptable.

I can only hope that some kind person can tell me how to get a refund as this is the first, and probably the last, time I have downloaded a game rather than purchashing in a shop.

Wow! I guess some people get it and some don't. I've been playing wargames for over 25 years myself. I can think of only two other computer games that have occupied so much of my attention. Colonization and Civilization (the original). I find myself completely obsorbed when playing this game. The hours fly by like minutes.

THe game does take some investment of time to understand how all the variables work. And so much is going on behind the scene that it just isn't always obvious why some things happen. And I think that is where the game loses people. Most people are not going to be comfortable with the FOW extending beyond detailed battles into the economic and diplomatic models.

But that's okay. Different strokes for different folks. Obviously this guy is in the minority. This is one happy camper here. Now my wife and kids aren't real happy about the time I invest, but that's another story. "Dad you've been on the computer all day. Can I play Warhammer now?", "Dear can you PLEASE take down the Christmas tree before February get's here?" Hey kids, dear, it's Ericbabes fault.[X(]

Hi
I think that you must probe the experience playing against other player way tcpip or pbem (in this case it doesn´t exist detail battle) so you woul feel better about of you little spent. Until now I only had felt that you feel with Napoleon 1813 of EMPIRE but this software is superior in all the matter. Here the focus is recreate a game where all the Major Powers have probabilities of win. If you wish another thing, then you must wait for Empire in Arms and join in that forum.
Regards

Although I am critical towards CoG, this is not a manner on a forum, especially the forum of the developer!
[:-]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
The economic, diplomacy and political systems are totally user unfriendly and unfathomable, and that is after ploughing through 80 odd pages of the manual.

Nope..

It's not Total War.

I recommend you go to the War Room and read through Ralegh's guides. I just got the game a few days ago, and just by going through his "Tip Guide" it got me going.

Don't give up so easy.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Probably not!! But pretty damn close, and I have been buying wargames, both traditional and computer, for over 30 years.

Then you haven't played enough games. I can give you a very long list of games that don't hold a candle to COG as far as my enjoyment and value are concerned.

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

I am sorry to be so negative in my first post on these forums but I cannot believe I have just spent £32 on this ********.

Have you played EiA? Third Reich? Squad Leader? Did you immediately know how to play the game with exactness the moment you opened the box and punched out the counters?

COG takes a few hours of play before you can begin to grasp most of the economic, political, and military variables. After several days of play you should be able to play a given scenario with a certain confidence as to how the elements will interact with each other.

Did you read Ralegh's guide to starting a new game? It's here in the forums and is helpful to a new player.

The economic, diplomacy and political systems are totally user unfriendly and unfathomable, and that is after ploughing through 80 odd pages of the manual.

Although I feel the UI could have been more user friendly, I don't agree with you here. Your advisor windows allow you to either micromanage or not, it's your choice. There is a lot of information that is presented to you each turn. Some of which is crucial to your decisions for the following turn and the rest is more for your long term planning.

Did you examine the end of the manual closely? There's a LOT of info there that is useful to a beginning player, especially the command lists.

I cannot bring myself to comment on the so-called "detailed battles" as anything I said would probably be actionable in court. Let me just say that having spent about an hour, or it certainly seemed that long, setting up The Grande Armee with corps commanders etc I was somewhat surprised to find my army deployed with four Marshals commanding divisions in the same corps and Napoleon leading a light cavalry division!!

Your leaders are assigned randomly to the divisions. You can move the leaders to a different division by pressing "G" when mousing over the unit unit you want the leader to attach to (this is done when the unit with the leader is active).

You don't really need more than 1 or 2 leaders per army/corps at the beginning of the game.

Having played all the Talonsoft Battleground games, including the wonderful add-ons available from the NIR Project maybe I was expecting too much, but I am amazed that in this day and age of computer gaming that what this game offers as "history" can be rated as acceptable.

I did not at all like the game mechanics of any of the Talonsoft games. The graphics for the troops were nice, but that's about all I can say that is positive. Also Talonsoft had a much larger budget to work with as well as a larger development team.

I can only hope that some kind person can tell me how to get a refund as this is the first, and probably the last, time I have downloaded a game rather than purchashing in a shop.

You've really not given the game a chance, IMO, but that's totally up for you to decide. I've had the game for 32 days now and I've played it 31 of those days.

Is COG the end all/be all? No, but it is a decent product which fills a niche that needs attention.

The developers have been _very_ responsive to the community. Due to player request several changes have been implimented as well as new features added. It would have been nice to have this kind of response from a bigger company, say Atari or Microsoft.

You are fully entitled to your opinion. You can choose to delete COG from your HDD and wash your hands of the matter entirely. Or, you can choose to spend a little more time with getting to know the game better.

If you have questions about game play, you can post them here. Several players would readily answer you let alone the developers.

COG isn't perfect, but it is hardly a waste of money or one of the worst games ever. Given time, you could come to agree with me.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Let me just say that having spent about an hour, or it certainly seemed that long, setting up The Grande Armee with corps commanders etc I was somewhat surprised to find my army deployed with four Marshals commanding divisions in the same corps and Napoleon leading a light cavalry division!!

BTW...

I've been playing wargames for 30+ years as well. I had no problem what-so-ever properly assigning leaders correctly to Armies and corps, without looking at anything.

A tip here... the set-up is a long and tedious task that takes time. I spend several hours just on the setup for the game I am playing. Once I have completed the setup, I then save it for future use and or change.

Once you get your setup.. ah.. setup, I think you will find things much easier going. But read through Ralegh's guides first, especially the post on the 10 steps he makes on the first move (essentially how he sets up).

It is a tough game to get under your belt, and I have been plodding away trying to get it all figured out, but I think in the end you will find it worth it.

Ray (alias Lava)

I presumed that I would get a negative response to my post but thank you those who tried to give me some helpful advice.

Although I am critical towards CoG, this is not a manner on a forum, especially the forum of the developer!

I did not realise this is a "developers" forum so I apologise if I might have offended anyone.

Then you haven't played enough games. I can give you a very long list of games that don't hold a candle to COG as far as my enjoyment and value are concerned.

Let me see; Imperial Glory, MOO III, Civilization IV, AOE III, Cossacks 2...

I can assure you I that I have. I have never played the games you have listed. I have, however, played the Europa Series, many other extremely accurate board wargames and on the computer the Talonsoft series and the HPS Panzer Campaign series amongst many others. I did not realise CoG was to be compared to RTS games such as those you mention, I thought it was at a different level to them.

Have you played EiA? Third Reich? Squad Leader? Did you immediately know how to play the game with exactness the moment you opened the box and punched out the counters?

Actually most games I have purchased YES, because they reflected accurately the history of their period and had understandable procedures.

Did you read Ralegh's guide to starting a new game? It's here in the forums and is helpful to a new player.

Yes I did and without their help I think I might have deleted the game already!!

Your leaders are assigned randomly to the divisions. You can move the leaders to a different division by pressing "G" when mousing over the unit unit you want the leader to attach to (this is done when the unit with the leader is active)

What is the point of assigning commanders to Corps if they are then assigned randomly. Indeed what is the point of going to the bother of organising your armies into Corps etc as they are then seemingly deployed randomly? Incidently all the generals I have so far found available to the French were corps commanders or above so why are they commanding divisions and appear to have no role to play in their proper responsibilities. If you want named divisional commanders I can turn to anyone of about 40+ books I have on the Napoleonic Wars and supply them.

Your leaders are assigned randomly to the divisions. You can move the leaders to a different division by pressing "G" when mousing over the unit unit you want the leader to attach to (this is done when the unit with the leader is active).

You don't really need more than 1 or 2 leaders per army/corps at the beginning of the game

See my previous comment about corps commanders commanding divisions. I do not understand your point about needing only 1 or 2 leaders per corps. Surely a corps only needs one commander and when that corps deploys on the battlefield he should be commanding IT not a division from another formation!!

I am going to give this game another chance as so many of you have spoken so passionately in its support. I trully hope I "get it" one day.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I can assure you I that I have. I have never played the games you have listed. I have, however, played the Europa Series, many other extremely accurate board wargames and on the computer the Talonsoft series and the HPS Panzer Campaign series amongst many others. I did not realise CoG was to be compared to RTS games such as those you mention, I thought it was at a different level to them.

I wasn't making a comparison, I was listing games that would better fall under a "worst game" category than would COG.

Actually most games I have purchased YES, because they reflected accurately the history of their period and had understandable procedures.

So, you instinctively understood each of these games before reading the rules or after a single read through?

I'm not bashing you here, I am trying to show you that there's a lot of depth to COG that isn't readily apparent and since you're not seeing it presented in a manner you are used to, you've become frustrated.

What is the point of assigning commanders to Corps if they are then assigned randomly. Indeed what is the point of going to the bother of organising your armies into Corps etc as they are then seemingly deployed randomly? Incidently all the generals I have so far found available to the French were corps commanders or above so why are they commanding divisions and appear to have no role to play in their proper responsibilities. If you want named divisional commanders I can turn to anyone of about 40+ books I have on the Napoleonic Wars and supply them.

You're seeing something that is quite common in miniature wargames rules for the period, a higher level commander "attaching" himself to an element for a benefit. In my view the design considerations were such that a multiple hour detailed combat resolution wasn't desired. So the player doesn't get to place his units on the battlemap at all, this is done randomly (within certain parameters) and this includes leaders.

Players, including myself, have asked for more player control over setup, but we'll have to see if it'll be included in a future patch or wait for a sequal. I personally don't mind multiple hour detailed battles, as long as I can save during it.

See my previous comment about corps commanders commanding divisions. I do not understand your point about needing only 1 or 2 leaders per corps. Surely a corps only needs one commander and when that corps deploys on the battlefield he should be commanding IT not a division from another formation!!

Leaders are a sub-unit that provides certain bonuses based on rank. I do not look at them as representing the physical location of the leader on the map but more as the influence of the leader named being utilized at a certain location.

Since you are able to generate, and lose, leaders over the course of a game, it is very possible that you will have more leaders available than corps or army containers at some point. It would be a waste of resources to NOT use the leaders, so assigning them to a corps/army that already has a leader is a good idea. It is also very possible to not have nearly enough leaders to lead all your container units as well, this depends on combat resolution and how many containers you end up building.

The manual will tell you what bonus become available at each leader rank, the bonus is slight, but can be important in any given battle.

You can also end up gaining the help of a captured enemy leader, who then chooses to switch sides. This did happen historically, the switching sides, so it was nice to see it represented in COG. Funnily enough, I've had Wellington fighting for the French after thoroughly trouncing Britain for 10 years.

I am going to give this game another chance as so many of you have spoken so passionately in its support. I trully hope I "get it" one day.

I think part of the design entails giving the player a lot of information, but not everything. Meaning, you're not going to KNOW every last detail to your satisfaction, you'll be able to identify trends and tendencies, but it won't be a guaranteed outcome each and every time. This is a good thing, IMO, as it helps keep the game slightly more challenging.

Hi, There are no Corps or Army HQ in detailed battles so leaders will be with a division. The division should belong to the Corps for Corps commanders but the Army commander can be with any unit. If Nappy was with the Lt Cav he was likely up front during the march to contact.

You can also end up gaining the help of a captured enemy leader, who then chooses to switch sides. This did happen historically, the switching sides, so it was nice to see it represented in COG. Funnily enough, I've had Wellington fighting for the French after thoroughly trouncing Britain for 10 years.

Are you sure about that? I thought Eric cleared this up a while ago; as I recall the deal was a captured leader is a POW, and as such can be put in any container (not just a POW corps), but as a POW simply has no effect on your troops...even when placed in one of your armies or corps.

You can still get enemy leaders through the Unit on Loan bug, unfortunately.

Dear bdtj1815,

I agree the game is at first daunting because it is very complex, the rules are long (an index would be invaluable), and the rule book is not user friendldy because concepts and specifics on the same subject are found in different rules without the benefit of cross-referencing (write it in the margin of your rule book). The "detailed battle" is disappointing compared to a tactical game, but arguably a superior tool for player use than the EIA "pick a chit" system, especially if your national goal is to capture horses, artillery and leaders.

I also agree with other writers that observe that practice makes perfect.

I've been playing games for 47 years now and observe that what helps with COG is to turn it on and play and save, play and save to see how the game performs, and restart to see how to do it better. Ultimately you should become very comfortable with game play, especially after you see how politics, economics and development work; any wargamer can fight a battle. As in real life on these issues/concepts, you get a trend or flow, not necessarily specific and always predictable results.

What might help for your set up is to generate a series of "overlays" in the set up to freeze some things, allowing you to establish your "base" set up and then experiment with variations on a theme. For example first thing I do is go in and (1) set every unit to forage - starve city, then (2) adjust economics page (draft ages, tax rates, etc), then (3) rotate through all provinces setting production and development, then (4) go to diplomacy page and check the left hand box on countries to monitor messages to/from them. So far nobody has moved and if I want to make changes later I can do so without hindrance. Save game here.

Then (5) go to economy and do your trades and save, then (6) to your unit, leader, and strength assignments/manipulations and save, then (7) move all units and save. Then end turn and see what happens. If you don't like what happens over the next few months, you can go back to whatever save is appropriate and start from there without having to go back and start completely over.

I find that by doing something like this (and I may have left out some steps) I can easily adjust my game opening stuff without having to do everything.

Then play 3 or 4 months and see what happens. Then start another game. Do this three or four times and you'll have it.

Although constructive criticism can be offered on many aspects of the game, to me it is a real pleasure.

Considering the success of the game perhaps they should do a new deluxe edition with a time spent on user friendly interface. 10-20 years it would have been okay but nowadays "user-friendlyness" is an important part of the product.

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Are you sure about that? I thought Eric cleared this up a while ago; as I recall the deal was a captured leader is a POW, and as such can be put in any container (not just a POW corps), but as a POW simply has no effect on your troops...even when placed in one of your armies or corps.

You can still get enemy leaders through the Unit on Loan bug, unfortunately.

Yes, I am positive. This happened during my previous game that ended last weekend. Wellington was captured with a good portion of his army. After about 5-6 years in captivity he became one of my leaders. I was able to attach him to a unit during a detailed battle and I received bonuses from him.

When my war with Britain ended Wellington was still with my army. Which proved to me he wasn't a POW.

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.

I have perservered as suggested and am still at a loss to understand the attraction of this game as it stands. It may be as someone posted above the best Napoleonic Grand Strategy game available but I would hate to see the worst.

One fundamental task of any game is to put the player into the position of the person he is representing in the game and present him with the challenges and decisions that person would have faced. It doesn't matter if it is a F1 racing game or a world conquest game. As the leader of a nation, the role the player takes on in CoG, I would contend that the level of production of spices in Provence would not be a high priority decision; to use a much used cliche "it would be off his radar".Whilst some would no doubt suggest that is exactly what Napoleon did look where it got him, and I bet he didn't really enjoy himself!! There must be a simpler and better way to represent the economic, development and diplomatic functions. Should I trust the running of my economy etc to the AI advisors leaving me to get on with the real business?

I am afraid I cannot find any pleasure from the detailed battle resolution. It does not, to my mind, convey the impression of fighting a real battle. As for the quick resolution "how does that work"?!?

By the way am I doing OK? Playing as the French until mid-December 1805 I have a glory rating of 48, nearly twice that of any other nation, my economy seems sound, I have pressed the Prussians into a 5 year alliance and I have kicked the Austrians and Russians back to the Danube winning 3 minor and 1 major victory ( against a combined army 277,000 strong). I am a little worried though as a Russian and Austrian general, the Austrian is Hardegg who was a bit of a chump, have just arrived in the south of France with no troops. Tourists maybe!!

By my reckoning if I keep on at this rate I should reach a 1,000 points by May 1807 but maybe it gets harder

As the leader of a nation, the role the player takes on in CoG, I would contend that the level of production of spices in Provence would not be a high priority decision; to use a much used cliche "it would be off his radar".Whilst some would no doubt suggest that is exactly what Napoleon did look where it got him, and I bet he didn't really enjoy himself!!

You'd be surprised:

"It is generally desired here [in Flanders] that our ladies put fine linens back into fashion and not give an absolute preference to muslins. Since we wish to revive one of our most important industries, one that we possess exclusively, and thus give work to a large number of French families, it would indeed be a good idea to put cambrics back in fashion. Besides, have our fine linens not been in disgrace long enough?" -- Letter to the Consuls of the Republic, 1801

"The coversation having reached the subject of fashions and clothes, the Emperor said that once he wanted to forbid the use of cotton in France in order to encourage the cambric and lawn industries of our Flemish towns. Empress Josephine rebelled and made loud outcries: the project had to be abandoned." -- Conversation, 1816, related by Las Casas

Sorry to hear you do not enjoy this game. Perhaps it is just a matter of personal taste. I like the level of detail and the complexities of the economic system. The detailed battles I agree could use some work. With another human player the battles could still be fun, but the AI is too easy to beat. Other flaws in the game I don't think you have seen yet: like the roaming Cossacks and the unstoppable privateers. These faults however are insignificant in comparison to the games merits and can be worked out in future patches.

Oh well, I hope you find a level of play in this game that you enjoy. If not, as with woman, there are many other fish in the sea.[;)]

greetings, glad to see many wargamers and "Corwn of Glory" gamers thinking on this as i am, "CoG", for me, 15 years of wargaming is the best computer wargame about napoleonic wars, i think i'm going to enjoy it very much and it is moddable, too to be said.
only see what other "global environment napoleonic computer wargames" are on the scene, "imperial glory"?, well, this is only my mind, and not want to become under the skin of nobody but for me, "Crown of Glory" can be a 11 and "Imperial Glory" can be a -11 in a scale from 1 to 10 hehe, there are another "global napoleonic" in the scene that i missed?, and all we know how hard is to edit and develop a Artificial Inteligence in Every game on the market, maybe "CoG" is much ambitiotus and whatever more variables are on a game it's more and more difficult to can make the AI to work well, AI works very poorly on every wargame, this is my point here, a side note to say, generals ("in command")... for be in command of a corps/army must have 3 or 4 starts, well, generals in command of a formation give morale boost to all units in that formation, maybe i will still wrong in some point, please i apologice if this is the case, thanks for your time,

and with best regards,

Murat30.

Hey bdjtetc,
You may think wine and spice "off the radar"...but something has to affect your national morale other than victory or defeat in battles. 10 years of victories didn't make the french happy. But being short on commodities and trade for 10 years didn't make them any happier. Some things have to be abstracted.

You don't like the detailed battles. In this game...like in most, YOU are Napoleon and the corps commanders. In detailed battle they are just modifiers. In your Battleground games did Napoleon, Davout, Ney, or Foy...or even Wellington ever issue an order? Nope...you did...with your mouse. They were just modifiers. And here you can move them from Division to division. I think the only game I can ever recall where your corps commanders were ever expected to issue orders was that ancient @1990 SPS simulation of Waterloo.

The BG games were great... I loved em' until we all learned to stop movement with pithy little amounts of skirmishers. You can't have a battalion level game that will cover every nation in Europe.

Since you asked about the quick battles I'll tell you what I've found...the most important thing to them is having higher troop morale and a greater number of barracks upgrades.

The beauty of this game is that you can rewrite history with all of the powers of Europe...moreover you can do it with other people in quick-time without having to resort to ugly games like Cossacks. Hell, I run for coffee all the time and rarely miss a beat. If you want a fixed battle against a certain state, you need to stick to titles about certain battles.

This is a great game...I think it'll be around for a long time.