CoG vs. EiA

[Panzeh]

Where did you read that?

[Le Tondu]

I think he is just posting his opinion.

[sol_invictus]

I remember Ericbabe saying that when you recruit Guard/Elite units it slightly lowers the overall morale of your regular units, akin to skimming off the cream. This must be what degaulle is talking about. Of course it all depends on how it is implemented as to whether it works well or not, like all aspects of the game. I have no problem with this feature as regular officers/ncos throughout history have complained that "elite" forces always skim off the cream from the regular units and end up degrading the effectiveness of the overall regular force. This was true for the Imperial Guard, Waffen SS, Stosstruppen, and the Rangers, to name just a few examples.

[Panzeh]

That feature makes plenty of sense. It would also be interesting to see elite units becoming less effective as more of them are recruited in relation to regular units. If a French player only recruited old guard units, would these units still be elite, or as elite as normal?

[Le Tondu]

If I may chime in here guys, I'd like to say that I agree with Arinvald to a point. The lowering of morale makes some sense. At the very least, it should be temporary. A one time recruitment of a Guard unit shouldn't keep an army permanently lowered. It wouldn't make sense.

As for elite units becoming less effective, that is a huge can of worms. The Russian Guard in 1805 existed with pretty boys from the aristocracy who didn't even train all that much. That was why the French handed them their hat at Austerlitz. I can see the Russian Guard's morale going down over time, for sure.

The French Imperial Guard is a totally different story altogether. They had very strict standards of service to even be a member. They had to serve in so many campaigns and also to have showed valor. They had more than one level of Guard status with different standards for each. Their morale, in my opinion couldn't possibly go down. Likewise, I think that the French having only Guard units is similarly silly.

I am not sure about other nation's standards, but the realities of the time must be observed and adhered to if this game is going to be any good, Napoleonicly speaking. The lack of that in regards to the uniform issue causes some concern for me.

The proof will be in the details of this game.

Lastly, while english is most likely a second language for 2gaulle, his insistence for high standards must be honored, even though his approach may not be all that refined.

Cheers,
[:)]

[Panzeh]

What I mean is, the more 'elite' units you field in relation to 'regular units', the less 'elite' these units will be.

I'm not saying elite units should have their morale go down merely by being there, but it should go down as more of them appear(due to lowering of standards).

[sol_invictus]

Ericbabe didn't go into any detail on how the whole Elite vs Regular recruitment would develope. I did ask him what would keep a player from making a huge number of Elite units and he said the system would self regulate because of the cost of those Elite units and the diminishing returns of large amounts of Elite units as it relates to the army as a whole. I took this to mean that a player could theoreticly create more than historical numbers of Elite units but would pay a huge economic cost and the Regular forces would become a hollow shell akin to militia, leaving you with an Elite core and a bunch of sub-standard units to flesh out your army. I imagine that after a certain tipping point is reached, the creation of more Elite units would start to decrease the overall effectiveness of those Elite units, as standards are lowered, and you would be returning to eventual parity to the Regular forces, as Elite now become the new Regular, all at a huge cost. Imagine if the US Army decided to send the entire Army to Airborne and Ranger school and thus bestow Elite status on the entire Army. Well, now Elite just doesn't mean so much and at what expense? This system might not have even been finalized when his statements were made so I figure he will be able to elaborate fairly soon.

[Le Tondu]

I see what you mean Panzeh. [:)] It makes sense.

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Ericbabe didn't go into any detail on how the whole Elite vs Regular recruitment would develope...........................................................This system might not have even been finalized when his statements were made so I figure he will be able to elaborate fairly soon.

Yes, we trying to be patient. Maybe we might get a Memorial Day update?? [;)]

[Mr. Z]

Yes, we trying to be patient. Maybe we might get a Memorial Day update?? [;)]

We are very hard at work finalizing some things, but I think the weekend should bring some down time where we can post some screen shots or something.

[sol_invictus]

That would be most appreciated![&o]

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald
Ericbabe didn't go into any detail on how the whole Elite vs Regular recruitment would develope. I did ask him what would keep a player from making a huge number of Elite units and he said the system would self regulate because of the cost of those Elite units and the diminishing returns of large amounts of

Unit morale is on a scale from 1-10.

Infantry below 1.7 morale are considered to be militia. They don't get to use the nation's upgrades (so, for instance, the upgrade "Bayonet Practice" which gives infantry +10% charge damage is not applied to charging militia units.)

Infantry with morale greater than or equal to 8.0 are considered guard units. Regular infantry can gain morale as a result of winning battles, but they cannot become guard this way (they max out at 7.5 morale). When a new guard unit is built it strips .66 morale from every non-guard infantry owned by the player. In addition to having a higher morale, guard have the special ability of bolstering the morale of nearby units in detailed combat (and abstractly doing the same, in quick combat). However, the effects are not cumulative for multiple guard units, so that having multiple guards is often a simple redundancy in regard to this effect. Well-trained regular infantry units can approach the morale levels of newly created guard units (maximum of 7.5 for a regular infantry, 8.0 for a new guard) so I hope the system is self-regulating.

Infantry units in the range 1.7-3.9 have some distinct performance penalties in comparison with infantry in the range 4.0-7.9. Although most game effects for which units are rated by morale use the morale linearly in their calculations, there is a jump in quality at 4.0 for such things as involution into line formation, forming an impromptu square, and similar.

I've always had the concern that players would produce disproportionate numbers of guard units and thought to address the issue with a more absolute rule limiting the number of guard. But the beta testers haven't complained about this and their saved games that I've looked over don't seem to have disproportionate numbers of elite units, so I have let the current system stand. If we release the game and it becomes an issue with players, I can patch in the new rule with only a few lines of code.

Thanks very much for your interest.

Best,
Eric

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

.................for such things as involution into line formation, forming an impromptu square, and similar......................

Thanks very much for your interest.

Best,
Eric

I was under the impression that the units were divisions. In your example above, are you referring to an entire division going into line formation or an impromptu square?

Thanks for the clarification Eric.

Rick

[sol_invictus]

Thanks for fleshing out the whole Guard vs Regular recruitment question. Sounds like it would simply be a waste of resources to produce to many Guard units.

[ericbabe]

I was under the impression that the units were divisions. In your example above, are you referring to an entire division going into line formation or an impromptu square?

Units are divisions. The formations which they assume can be taken to be the preponderate formation of the battalions that compose them; assumption of impromptu square the preponderate response of the battalions to a cavalry charge, etc.


Eric

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Units are divisions. The formations which they assume can be taken to be the preponderate formation of the battalions that compose them; assumption of impromptu square the preponderate response of the battalions to a cavalry charge, etc.


Eric

Eric,

I see. It seems very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this is a part of the game that shows combat at the "operational level" as opposed to what could be called a "tactical level."

The operational level deals with Corps & divisions while the tactical level deals with infantry battalions & infantry companies, or gun batteries & gun sections (2 guns), or cavalry regiments & cavalry squadrons.

It seems easy to confuse the two words when one thinks of the "tactical map." Perhaps I added to this confusion in earlier posts when I called it the "tactical map."

Rick

[ericbabe]

I see. It seems very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this is a part of the game that shows combat at the "operational level" as opposed to what could be called a "tactical level."

You are quite right. I reckon when I speak this way I simply have a sort of spectrum in mind, with "strategic" at one end and "tactical" at the other. But you are very correct that I should use operational level.


Eric

[hlj]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I can never understand why someone who doesnt like the look of a game in development would continue to post constantly on the forum on why they dont like it.

If I were todo that I'd be registered on every forum known to man and be moaning constantly until the day I fie.

Well I cant se why you shouldnt post if you dont like the look of the game. As long as you point out what you dont like about it.
That way you get:

1. A chance to show the developers how you would like the game.

2. A forum that don't look like an adverticement for the game, and give hopefull gamers a chance to make up their own mind.

On the other hand. If you like the look of a game you have exactly the same reasons for posting what you like about it. ^_^

[Titanwarrior89]

New isn't always better. But I think COG will be a fine game. [:D] Matrix tag! So it should be good.[;)]

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

Yeah, the uniforms suck, but that is only a VERY small (almost tiny) part of this game. It shouldn't be shot down because of it. With the possibility of modding, it is almost non issue.

uniform is one but the biggest problem is the resolution of the tactical battle.

So far we know nothing, or so few, about the strategic/diplomatic part of the game and when we have some detail there is a lot od reason to be septic

the relation between the number of elite/guard and the overall army moral have nothing to do with napoleonic period, don't thing the austrian army had the best moral.

Were you a beta tester for CoG?....I am only asking because of your Avatar.......