Top Suggestions for COGEE Rules/"Bugs"?

[Gil R.]

I just thought I'd pop in here to thank everyone for their detailed comments. I'll continue to let Marshal Villars run the show, though, since he has my proxy in this discussion.

[Mus]

Something that I observed some time ago but forgot about, plundering a territory seems to lower morale in the participating units to 4.0 rather than raising it as the manual states.

[evwalt]

I would like to see "violate neturality" of a major power have more effect. I have seen powers "violating neutrality" for over a year in PBEM with no effect.

First (and mentioned elsewhere): you should not be able to DoW any country if you have forces in that country (ie. violating neutrality). This should be the case even if the violator has a Pledge of Defense with another country.

Second, have the violating country lose GLORY each turn they are violating a country at the end of a movement. Not too much, perhaps - 5 glory each turn. There should be some cost for violating neutrality.

Third, the country being VIOLATED, if a major power, should also have a penalty to represent the fact the are doing nothing about the violation. Perhaps -1 NM a month, growing by -1 NM a month (ie. -1 NM, -2 NM, -3 NM....) up to a max of -20 NM per turn.

Fourth, a country being violated must ALWAYS have the OPTION to DoW a violator, even if under an 18 month enforced peace for end of a war or under a treaty obligation.

Also, I would like to see added to the diplomatic term choices one preventing one country from allying with another AND one required a country to break an alliance with another. I think 2 seperate clauses would be better.

In addition, I think that all clauses in a treaty must be activated within say, 5 years, of the treaty.

[Marshal Villars]

I like these suggestions concerning violation of neutrality evwalt.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Eric as I understand it a Major in PBEM will go to war if it's territory is Violated provided it has its in game PBEM Policy set to 'Be aggresive' against the Violater, so I'm guessing that you have turned that off v's my Sweden in GA II [:)]

That said I agree with all your points and that there should be a high penalty for violations.

The same applies to 'Sneak attacks'; in 2 PBEM games I've been forced to take unwanted actions because of forces belonging to a known 'Sneak attacker' being close to sensitive stratigic areas/forces.

Personal opinion but I feel that there should be no 'sneak attacks against the 8 Major Powers, they all (except Poland, and this should be another reason why Poland should have a Diplo) have Diplomates & Diplomacy to work through; I suppose it could be argued that 'Sneak attacks' v's Minors is OK as those channels are not open but feel that in the main it's used in those cases to cercumvent the posibility of a Minor asking for Protectorate status of some other Power on a DoW by a Major, ie it's "Gamey".

The penelty for an ordinary DoW should also be raise substantially.

All the Best
Peter

[Marshal Villars]

Kingmaker,

I am curious as to why the penalty for declaration of war should be raised? I would just like to hear your opinion on the matter, because of your experience in playing the game.

It would be nice if the penalty could be raised in cases where there is no casus belli, but it should really be close to zero in cases where the is a casus belli.

Don't know how we could differentiate between these two cases, although there are already some mechanics in the game which come close to doing this. For instance, invading a protectorate, etc.

[terje439]

Also, and this I would say is a must,
the documentation of how upgrades and doctrines affect QC must be released.

Terje

[evwalt]

On DoW's, first in PBEM in my experience, a 'violating neutrality' will NOT result in a DoW, even if set on 'be aggressive.'  I don't believe you can ever DoW if within the 18 month enforced peace period after a war as well.
 
I do agree with Kingmaker that the cost of "sneak attacks" should be raised by quite a bit.  I think now they only cost about 5 more glory than a regular DoW.  Should be twice as much.
 
I also like the casus belli.  Perhaps if a country has a certain size army adjacent to your country, the cost for a DoW is 1/2?  I believe you already have the option to DoW a major power with large troop strength next to your country in SP.
 
I don't really agree that regular DoW should cost more.  Seems about right to me.  HOWEVER, DoW by treaty SHOULD cost glory (I think now such DoW are 'free').
 
Also, (if not mentioned elsewhere), secret treaties should remain secret.  Their should be NO notifications of most of their terms (ie. pledges of defense, access, and especially loans and money) until something happens that would reveal it (ie. a DoW that activates the pledge of defense should reveal the entire treaty).  That being said, perhaps a diplomatic mission to 'uncover secret treaties,' where success reveals one secret treaty of the target to the world? 
 
Also, I am not sure you can do this or not (never tried) but treaties ending a war (ie. "must accept as a result of a surrender") should NOT be allowed to be made secret.

[evwalt]

More thoughts:
 
For replacements: the "target number" for replacements states in the game that it is draft + training pools.  This is NOT the case.  The game only looks at the training pool to determine if the target has been met.  Thus, you could have 100,000 trained replacements on a draft rate of '1' and the game would still keep drafting new Men as the number in the training pool dropped.  This should be fixed.
 
Also, if the draft rate is reduced to '0' a country loses ALL replacements (though ones already 'in the system' just become untrained again).  I think that no matter what your draft rate is, a country should ALWAYS receive the 'feudal levy' replacements, as these represent trained troops directly levied anyway.  How your draft rate is set shouldn't matter.
 
I have noticed in some of the 4v4 games that computer controlled protectorates still levy.  I have also noticed that these levies involve a LARGE number of specialized troops (ie. light infantry, light cavalry, etc.).  I would like to recommend (and I believe this is done to some extent), that the types of troops levied should be altered.  You could also develop several different levy percentages to give the countries more flavor.
 
Something like the below:
1) Determine the number of units to be levied by minors.
2) For each levied unit, determine the type:
 
If Portugal, German, Italy or any minor bordering the Baltic (outside of Finland)  country:
*5% of corps container
*40% regular infantry
*30% regular cavalry
*10% artillery
*5% light cavalry
*5% heavy cavalry
*5% light infantry
 
If Finland or North Africa/Middle East country
*5% corps container
*50% irregular cavalry
*15% regular cavalry
*20% regular infantry
*10% light cavalry
 
If Balkans country (including those to the east through Russia)
*5% corps container
*25% irregular cavalry
*40% regular infantry
*5% artillery
*15% regular cavalry
*10% light cavalry
 
If Poland or a Polish area minor
*5% corps container
*15% lancer
*15% jager
*35% regular infantry
*10% artillery
*10% regular cavalry
*5% heavy cavalry
*5% light cavalry

[evwalt]

Yes, even more  [:D]

For leaders, I have NEVER seen a leader killed or wounded in Quick Combat (and thus PBEM).  Obviously, there should be a chance for that to happen.  If it is determined a leader is injured/killed, you should then pick a leader at random BUT the chance of injury should be depended on the number of stars a general has.  In my opinion, a 1-star should have about a 55%, 2 star a 35%, 3 star a 9%, 4 star a 1%.

Also, I would like to see leader deaths introduced in naval combat, INDEPENDENT of if a ship is sunk or not.  If a leader is killed at sea, one ship in the battle loses either Nelson, either type of admiral, a legendary captain or surgeon (chosen at random).  The obvious example is Nelson, who died even though the Victory survived.

Addressing the problem with 'empty fleets', I think one of our games has come up with a solution. Treat all oceans (occupied or not) as enemy territory. Thus, in the same way as empty land containers can't move through enemy territory, no empty fleets could move to sea at all. This takes care of all the 'empty fleets blockading' problems. We have also discovered empty fleets can be used to draw off enemy fleets by activating their interception. Empty fleets can also be used to scout. All should be a 'no-no.'

Doing the above would create a problem. Fleet containers can currently be captured if a blockaded port is taken and now have no way to flee. Simply make fleet containers like land containers; they can NEVER be captured (though the ships in them could, of course). If a port with a fleet and ships fell while blockaded, all the ships would be captured. The now empty fleet container would be frozen in place until a ship could be placed in it (which would require the port to be liberated).

I never understood how fleet containers (representing command staff and supplies, etc.) could be captured anyway. What do they do, hold a pistol to the Admiral's head?

[Marshal Villars]

Okay. Thought I would let everyone know that Eric and I had a five hour meeting today to discuss just about everything in this thread (and then some). Will repeat in a week.

[evwalt]

In a PBEM game, I had a leader CAPTURED (yes, captured) because it was moving through hostile territory that contained an enemy diplomat on "capture/expel."

At the end of our war, the captured leader was NOT returned, simply eliminated.  Also, I THINK that because I requested that my forces not be automatically withdrawn from the defeated country that all my POWs held by that country were also eliminated rather than being returned to me.  This needs to be fixed.

BTW--On that "not capturing empty fleet counters" suggestion above, if done, individual ships would need the ability to "violate neutrality" to retreve empty containers from neutral territory.

[bush]

Marshal Villars,

Care to speculate on when a possible patch/upgrade would become available?

[evwalt]

Putting some more thought into inflation and its effect on textiles use....

1) As mentioned before, make use of textiles for increasing NM OPTIONAL (check a box) instead of required at a certain point. This would allow stockpiling of textiles for getting high textiles units at higher inflation levels.

2) For inflation, I believe now that "total spent" uses money only. This amount is reduced by a certain number (varying by country) each turn to produce the inflation rate. What if "total spent" was now money PLUS textiles spent on a unit. That would stop high textiles country from going crazy on their production. To help counteract this increase on "total spent" increase the "amount reduced each turn" by 10% or so for each country.

3) For inflation, I think eariler I recommended an upgrade that reduced "total spent" by a certain amount. Perhaps instead, an upgrade that increased the "amount reduced each turn" by say 10% or so. Perhaps with 2 levels? That would provide a benefit but not a radical 1 turn one.

4) I am not sure this is mentioned elsewhere, but with merchant ships no longer in combat, the Merchant Marine I & II upgrades are now useless unless naval combat is changed. These upgrades should either be removed OR you could change their benefit, perhaps each could give a 10% to merchant income.

5) I am fairly sure that merchant ships can 1) be placed in fleets and 2) still gain merchant income. I don't think merchant ships (which represents 100s of small ships constantly sailing the seas) should be able to be placed in fleets. If you allow them to do so, they should NOT be able gain income while in a fleet.

[evwalt]

Lapse of war MUST be looked at.  The rules state that after 18 months, a war can lapse unless occupation or combat occurs.  Apparently (this just happened in a PBEM game), such combat or occupation doesn't restart the 18 month clock but only extends it a few turns.  In our game, Russia fought French troops helping to defend Constaninople approx 5 months ago.  The French troops then marched east, assaulted and captured Russian territory about 3 months ago before retreating back into Turkey.  Russia recaptured the province and then suddenly, our war lapsed in the mist of Russian troops marching to the Austrian front to help liberate Vienna.  VERY annoying.
 
My recommendations:
I do believe their should be lapses of war to prevent the easy pick-up of glory points from countries who rely on surrenders to their allies that their forces don't engage in (most likely in Prussian-Turkish Wars or Russian-Spanish Wars).
 
Reduce the "lapse of war" time to 1 year.  Have this year RESTART its countdown 1) upon any land battle involving both parties in which the combined casualties for those countries are over 10,000, 2) upon any land battle between the countries that results in the capture of a division of either country, 3) upon any capture (ie. occupation) of any territory by either country, 4)  upon any naval battle where combined casualties are over 100 involving both countries.  In addition, if any territory is occupied by an enemy forces, war can NOT lapse (even if at a year not having any of the above met) so if you don't meet any of the above, you can prevent a lapse of war by occupation.  It could immediately lapse if past the occupying forces were removed from the country (if no other conditions above met)
 
In addition, have the table that keeps track of turns at war (I know you can see it from the Treaties menu) keep track of 1) turns of enforced peace left (which it already does) and the number of turns remaining until a war can lapse (which it does not).
 
The above will put a little more realism on lapse of war.  It makes the time shorter but basically any combat outside of skirmishes would RESTART the clock.  It is restarting the 1 year clock that would be the most important.  That and giving players notice of how much time was remaining until war lapsed.
 
Note: for the combat: if involved in combat involving more than two countries (for example Turkey and France vs. Russia), you would compare countries individually.  Fight the battle, then look at Turkey+Russia losses.  Are they over 10,000 total?  If yes, then 1 year clock between Russia and Turkey starts again.  Go to France+Russia losses.  Are those losses over 10,000?  If yes, then 1 year clock between Russia and France starts again.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Marshal Villars,

Care to speculate on when a possible patch/upgrade would become available?

I'll field that one: Eric, our programmer and thus the only one who can handle such things, still has to complete work on some deadline projects. We are painfully aware of the need to address some of these issues, but especially since one of those projects involves a contractual deadline there's no alternative to delaying a bit longer. Again, we very much regret this.

[Marshal Villars]

I need to add that work is beginning and we have had almost 10 hours of meetings on the COGEE patch in the last two weeks.

But of course, I can't control Eric's schedule--and won't try. But something is-a-rumbling.

[Marshal Villars]

Edit.

[terje439]

Would like to see the defender bonus getting reworked as well (not sure if mentioned in here before and atm I am too lazy to read all the posts in this thread).

I think the defender should be considered the current province occupier, not the original owner of the province.
Even better still would be that an enemy army in one of my provinces should still be the defender even if he does not control the province since my armeis are basically arriving to attack the enemy positions to drive him back.


Terje

[evwalt]

I think that whoever controls the province should be the defender. However, I do NOT think that occupation of a province should make someone the defender.

It is one thing to be fighting in a province where you would have cities to rally to, etc. (ie. control of a province). It is totally another when there are no friendly areas in which a defeated army to rally.