CoG and EiA

[Hanal]

I could do with a portabello mushroom and chedder cheese omelet right about now..........

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
If I read your statement correctly, that tactical battles does not work universally, then you are wrong. They work for most people but a few have issues that cause a crash, myself included. If I have read your statement accurately, then it only reinforces the view that you are ignorant of the situation as I contend.

You claimed that the non-working tactical portion didn't affect the game. I ask, why include it if it doesn't matter if it works or not.

Indeed it does...as evidenced by your posts.

All one needs is the ability to read to understand the problems with the game

Venomous language? [8|] Please... I haven't used any venomous language yet, although I wouldn't mind with a couple people who, imo, have earned some.

Yes you have. Your name stuck with me after reading that forum as someone consistently rude and abrasive. Perhaps it was when you told someone to ebay their game, or one of the other posts you don't consider rude, but you are at least consistent (which is more than many say about the game.)

But you've done be a favour. I got about half way through the ordering process before cancelling and seeing what the feedback was a week or so into the game. What I've learnt over the last few years is that when there are significant complaints of bugs, and a manic poster (or posters) with the pathological desire to shut anyone up who complains about their object of affection, then there's usually something seriously wrong.

So keep up the good work! Eventually, it will be you and the other 10 guys who still post in COG, and I'm sure you folks will support and pay for the next game.

[Reiryc]

You claimed that the non-working tactical portion didn't affect the game. I ask, why include it if it doesn't matter if it works or not.

I answered why it should be included, for entertainment. It doesn't work for some people, but for most it does work.

All one needs is the ability to read to understand the problems with the game

Sadly, you haven't demonstrated the ability to read and understand the problems. You've suggested that a portion of the game does not work universally. This is absolutely incorrect. Like I said, you are demonstrating ignorance of the game and it's problems. No doubt my pointing out your ignorance makes me a fanboy, but such is life... [8D]

Yes you have. Your name stuck with me after reading that forum as someone consistently rude and abrasive.

Yeah, mean 'ole reiryc... he should just jump on the bandwagon and exagerate the problems. Daring to hold anyone accountable for their overblown hyperbole toward the game is just oh so venomous. [8|] In fact, I was so mean, that when 9thlegere first posted his problem, I dared to try to help him with some tips that were being passed around as possible work arounds. tm.asp?m=890361&mpage=2 Yep, doesn't get much more venomous then that....

However, want to see a post with rudeness? Then look no further than your first foray into this thread. With now demonstrated ignorance of the game, you jump and accuse someone of being a "fanboi for defending a game which doesn't work for half the people." This statement is both rude and wrong on my view of the game and the problems it has.

But you've done be a favour. I got about half way through the ordering process before cancelling and seeing what the feedback was a week or so into the game. What I've learnt over the last few years is that when there are significant complaints of bugs, and a manic poster (or posters) with the pathological desire to shut anyone up who complains about their object of affection, then there's usually something seriously wrong.

Well I have to hand it to ya... you're an excellent poster at being able spouting off false non-sense consistently and continuously.

However, you are missing out on a fun game, despite it's problems. The game seems to be doing pretty well, atleast according to paul vebber who, assuming his position in the matrix staff would put him 'in the know'. http://prochelo.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb ... php?t=8073 "Everybody has an opinion...Many Like it, Many Don't. Doing an "advanced version allows the things those that don't like the "basic version" to have a chance to get what they want, without "ruining" the game that many do like (its currently or top seller - bu quite a margin - though Crown of Glory looks to be catching up."

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: oldtimer

If you compare PC products to cartridge based systems where patches are not available, the difference in quality at release is striking. Essentially all companies are using us as their unpaid testers and counting on the fact that they can issue a patch to correct any problems. Of course, this development is our fault as consumers since we have generally accepted the lower level of quality and continue to buy products that are not truly ready for prime time.

Jchastain, you have to remember when you are programming in a cartridge environment you don't have to worry as much about all the variables of hardware and software that one must consider for a PC. That makes programming a little easier.

That is absolutely true. Programming for a cartridge is easier. But it still doesn't change the fact that quality levels in PC games has declined significantly over the past 20 years as it has become easier and more accepted to distribute patches. If anything, the hardware environment has been simplified a bit since those early days since we didn't have windows abstracting everything. Back then, each game had to have "drivers" for each sound card and video mode that was to be supported. There is still a ton of variability in PCs and it is certainly harder to ensure a quality experience for everyone. But there is also very little incentive to really try in earnest and most (if not all) gaming companies are taking advantage of the current lax expectations. And some (*cough* paradox *cough*) seem to take that flexibility to rather significant extremes IMO. There is no doubt in my mind that if consumers demanded a higher level of quality, companies could provide it. But so long as there is no demand for them to do so (and to be honest, often times boards like this are clamoring for release - not pressing for continued testing), companies will continue to release "good enough" products instead of "nearly perfect" ones.

[oldtimer]

But it still doesn't change the fact that quality levels in PC games has declined significantly over the past 20 years as it has become easier and more accepted to distribute patches. If anything, the hardware environment has been simplified a bit since those early days since we didn't have windows abstracting everything.

I agree with the first part of your statement in that the quality of programming has gone down. I am not so sure I agree with the second part about it being easier to program to the hardware environment. I was a programmer way back in the old days and because of lack of resources on a computer system and mainframe usage was a premium a person had to be very careful with how they programmed (this is after the punch cards). Now-a-days it is a race to slap together a program and not worry about wasted lines of code or inefficient coding because the PC resources will compensate for the waste. This is because hardware resources have gotten cheaper and faster and patching has become more efficient and acceptable.

I have been caught several times in recent months where a program does not function becuase hardware changed (chipset, video card, etc). These hardware changes are coming at a rapid pace and has made it harder for many programmers even the OS can't keep up.

Another variable that I eluded to earlier is the fact that even if I have identical hardware I may have tweaked my software some or installed a protection scheme or some other software that you didn't that <i>might</i> impact how a particular program runs that is totally foreign to what the programmers of the game concieved of running across.

This was just further explaining my opinion I think from what I read we are in similiar agreement.

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

Love this conversation since I've been programming since '84 and had to drop my 2 cents...

It's been real ODD seeing the morphing of this industry and how the Internet has allowed many things to happen.

Patching in the 80's was close to impossible BUT game design (Especially graphical) was MUCH more simple thus games tended to be more solid i.e. debugging 10,000 lines of code was much easier and more definitive than 200,000 lines (Pong versus Doom) ! Also the install base was MUCH smaller than where we are today (I believe Mr Gate's current financial status helps reinforce that stat ) so the demand was much smaller back then. Patching became more feasible when the sound cards and graphics cards starting increasing in their feature sets thus requiring a driver / patch download and much of this was acomplished through the use of bulletin boards (remember those?). This created the demanding customer who wanted his patch because now there was a vehicle of delivery so excuses were now gone!

Ever since there was a delivery vehicle (especially the Internet) in place for patches, customers have become more demanding (rightfully so) that bugs be fixed. Remember in the early days many companies didn't even fix bugs, they just made a new title "Game Name 2" and sold it to you in a newer box with a few more features. Can you imagine a game company trying that today?

I do find myself sometimes taking the easy way of programming a certain part of code (i.e. loading an entire data base in memory as opposed to tracking several file pointers and reading when needed) BUT this also has its advantages such as SPEED so there are some trade-offs BUT you bet that I take advantage of the BIG hardware resources that I have today.

I think game complexity has risen above our capacity to properly kill all bugs in a timely manner! There is a medium in here somehwere (When to release) that I honestly don't know where it is ???
Bottom line is that the programmer is ALWAYS going to get screamed at. It is our lot in life!

Sorry for the rant but the subject is quite interesting to me!

Thank you

[jchastain]

That wasn't truly a rant. I actually think we are all pretty much in general agreement: Because of increased overall complexity as well as modern economic realities, companies today do not (and probably cannot) even try to release a perfect product. Everyone, both developers and end users, expect a certain number of bugs that will not be resolved until after release and count on the fact that patches will be available some of which may even be important for the overall gaming experience. I think we have come to take for granted that a certain base of users will complain about product quality after release and that increased quality may reduce the number doing so, but it will never eliminate it entirely regardless of the actual level of quality. I suspect most producers and developers have a difficult time knowing when precisely a game is "good enough" as the determination is as much art as science. (And I think if we are completely honest we will also confess that several factors other than just code quality creep into that equasion.)

[Hanal]

And how about the bugs found in our old Avalon Hill, SPI, GDW boardgames?...rememember awaiting for your copy of the General or S&T in order to get the errata sheet for a game because the rules did not work?.......or how about finding a counter sheet included in the mag because the movement points were printed wrong on the units. Sometimes these sheets were cardboard mounted, other times they were simply paper which you would cut up and glue onto the original counters...in those days it was these magazine's letters page where one would find gamers complaining about a rule or a geographical misprint, and the editors writing corrections ("on hex 484 change Minsk to Kiev"or "hexes 678,679 and 680 are continuous rail hexes")...Marshall writes of the complexity of computers, coding ect. and the difficulties that entails. I bring up simple,yet complex, paper and cardboard games which also had problems, including expected release dates never materializing. For example, Avalon Hill's sister game to The Third Reich, Rising Sun, took years to finally see the light of day. Developers were changed, release dates passed, and then it disappeared completely, only to be resurrected like a Phoenix many, many years later....... nothing has changed from board to pc gaming because it is not automans developing these games, and none of us are perfect....

So, waiting for a game, and having the ability to bitch, moan, and groan on this forum, is the natural evolution of wargaming history...........[:)]

[marc420]

Actually, the cool thing about the old AH board games was that two (or more) players could agree on what the rules should be ... and immediately change them. Didn't have to wait on a programmer to get you a patch to say, just for instance, "when a unit with a Plunder order is magically teleported home when peace is declared, then the unit doesn't just automatically plunder its home country." All it took was two reasonable people to agree on a rules change. Insto-presto, a better game. [:D]

I like CoG, but to me it just barely cleared a low hurdle to say its ready for release. It basically works, but it seems very rough in many places. I think it will be an excellent game after several patches.

You can get me going on the low standards of the game industry. Expecting customers to essentially write the manuals through posts on forums is just one of the many areas the game industry gets its customers to do their work for them. If this was freeware, I wouldn't mind. Its when I see a $30 or $40 bill on my credit card that this gets annoying.

On tactical battles in CoG, this was one of the reasons I bought the game. Basically, I love the games along the lines of Age of Rifles, so a game that combines a strategic game with a tactical battle game along those line is nirvana to me. I don't have any ctd issues with the battles. Those are limited to a group of people with certain graphics cards if I've read the posts right.

My problem with the tactical battles is that I feel I'm unbalancing the game by constantly thrashing the AI in the tactical battle game. I suspect I'll eventually shelve that part of the game because of that. Meanwhile, there are also problems in using just quick battles. There are no leader casaulties at all in quick battles (I get the impression some beta testers lost Napoleon in a quick battle and got that whole bit pulled from the release). And a lot of the military upgrades you can get don't have any impact on quick battles (ie, training your troops to better form an emergency square with less chance of disorder -- can be handy in a tactical battle, but rather useless in the quick battles). There's this level of things not being entirely thought out or pulled together that frustrates me with CoG right now.

If there's anything the EiA programmers can take from CoG, its the fact that you need a powerful tactical battle AI to make such a tactical battle system fit into a strategic game. So while I was excited to see the tactical battles, I've come to feel that in a strategic game I'm more interested in a battle resolution system that correctly applies the results back to the strategic game. I can always dust off Age of Rifles again when I want to fight on that level.

I suspect I'll end up owning both games. I'm guessing because of its board game roots the first release of EiA will be more solid than CoG's first release. I'm assuming its a simpler system, and also one that's well tested. But the CoG team seems to already be planning mulitple patches, and if they do it right they can pull that together into a very nice game.

[YohanTM2]

I think your comments are quite fair and having been a playtester for WaW and a few of the old Talonsoft games I can tell you nobody has ever said...this will do.

But, with a finite group of playtesters on only a small number of machines things are bound to slip through. A lot of the focus of playtesting is on process and sometimes overall gameplay and strategy might not get all the attention they deserve. Also, with this again finite group of testers there is often debate (as there is in all the forums) over what is a good strategy and what is gamey and what is just wrong. Sometimes it needs a wider audience just to get a better perspective.

I was very impressed with the development team and other testers of WaW.

ORIGINAL: jchastain

That wasn't truly a rant. I actually think we are all pretty much in general agreement: Because of increased overall complexity as well as modern economic realities, companies today do not (and probably cannot) even try to release a perfect product. Everyone, both developers and end users, expect a certain number of bugs that will not be resolved until after release and count on the fact that patches will be available some of which may even be important for the overall gaming experience. I think we have come to take for granted that a certain base of users will complain about product quality after release and that increased quality may reduce the number doing so, but it will never eliminate it entirely regardless of the actual level of quality. I suspect most producers and developers have a difficult time knowing when precisely a game is "good enough" as the determination is as much art as science. (And I think if we are completely honest we will also confess that several factors other than just code quality creep into that equasion.)

That wasn't truly a rant. I actually think we are all pretty much in general agreement: Because of increased overall complexity as well as modern economic realities, companies today do not (and probably cannot) even try to release a perfect product. Everyone, both developers and end users, expect a certain number of bugs that will not be resolved until after release and count on the fact that patches will be available some of which may even be important for the overall gaming experience. I think we have come to take for granted that a certain base of users will complain about product quality after release and that increased quality may reduce the number doing so, but it will never eliminate it entirely regardless of the actual level of quality. I suspect most producers and developers have a difficult time knowing when precisely a game is "good enough" as the determination is as much art as science. (And I think if we are completely honest we will also confess that several factors other than just code quality creep into that equasion.)

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Then riddle me this: Why historically did the Austrians never try to mass a 150, 000 man army in the Tyrol and dare the French to attack them? Why were the 1805 and 1809 campaigns fought almost entirely in the Danube valley? Why were all the Italian campaigns fought in the northern plains and the only role of Tyrolia in any of these campaigns was to control the ability to shift troops from one theater to the other?

Even Suvarov's campaign only went into the mountains when he was trying to move to support the Rhineland.

Did Napoleon, Charles and Suvarov all just not get it? Were they horrible players who didn't understand the uses of mountains? Did they not see that they could just fight in the 'plains of Tyrolia' and ignore the mountains?

Switzerland has not been free from war these many years because it was neutral. It is free from war because it is near impregnable and is not even a good route to anywhere else. Mountains are things that armies avoid.

Reading with distance this flame war, i just stop to this point. With the RAW of EiA, currently we have the same problem with Tyrol, Theresestad and a little less Switzerland.

The Moutains provinces are the key of movement, and it's more important controlling them that controlling the plains.

They have a bonus to defense but they lack any limit to supply or stacking. So they are the best place to "park" la grande armee or another major force waiting for a good counterattack opportunity.

Does we need some change or has EiH already solved this?

[malcolm_mccallum]

I don't have a copy of EiA anymore to say what the boardgame rules were.

1> forage values should be very low in the mountains.This ill enforce stacking issues. There is also a limit on how many units can be fed from one dept, isn't there?

2> movement costs should be based on moving through a mountain hexside and not on the terrain of the province you are moving into so that you cannot blitz out of mountains. Once in the mountains, you are severely limitied on where you can go in the next month.

3> I may be confusing EiA with other games now but is there not a hexside movement limit? Only so many troops can pass through one hexside per turn based on terrain?

[Jabba]

EIA doesn't use hexes.

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

I don't have a copy of EiA anymore to say what the boardgame rules were.

1> forage values should be very low in the mountains.This ill enforce stacking issues. There is also a limit on how many units can be fed from one dept, isn't there?

Generally, Forage value isn't different between mountains areas and adjacents areas.
There are no stacking limits, in plains or in mountains areas. Mountain cost one more point that clear area so reducing the forage probability when entering the area, not if using a depot.
Only four corps may use a depot each turn, corps not moving keep their full movement for foraging.
There is a penalty for foraging when there are other corps in the areas, but it increase no more when more than three.

2> movement costs should be based on moving through a mountain hexside and not on the terrain of the province you are moving into so that you cannot blitz out of mountains. Once in the mountains, you are severely limitied on where you can go in the next month.

The increased cost of movement is for entering the moutains, not for exiting. So you are enjoying from the defense bonus and having the advantage of a full movement when making a "sortie".

3> I may be confusing EiA with other games now but is there not a hexside movement limit? Only so many troops can pass through one hexside per turn based on terrain?

Yes, you are confused. No hexes but areas, only rivers or crossing arrows are between areas but not changing movement; only affecting combat.


So EiA has the same potential problem that CoG, if it's a problem...

[Pippin]

Only four corps may use a depot each turn, corps not moving keep their full movement for foraging.

The four corps to a depot rule is just a house rule. It was devised by people TRYING to make the game more realistic. In fact, it just makes things more unrealistic. As with everything else that gets added to EiA/EiH, for each improvement, 10 new loopholes arise.

It does not take even a newbie very long to realize there is something wrong when four corps of 20 factors a piece have much easier supply than 5 scout/bluff corps of just 1 factor!

I could go on, but enough of the arguement has been debated on the yahoo groups.

[malcolm_mccallum]

So EiA has the same potential problem that CoG, if it's a problem...

It certainly is a problem, in theory. It is strange though that I don't ever recall it being an issue in EiA games that I played and I played with some notoriously cheesey players. If mountains gave a safe and secure place to hide an army, why was this not done more for us?

What is the standard ideal plan for Austria and Russia in 1805 for EiA? Is it to merge Mack and CHarles in the Tyrol and sit safe and secure daring Napoleon to advance toward Vienna and then look for an opportunity to dash the Russians into the same Tyrolian stack? What in EiA would make this a ludicrous strategy?

In reality, the strategy is ludicrous for the following reasons:
a> The army could not fight there even if they wanted to
b> They could not move out of the mountains and in fact could be bottled up in there by something as small as a Corps.
c> Their supply line to Vienna would be trivially cut
d> They cannot defend Austria from the Tyrol and they certainly couldn't drive on France through Switzerland if they were so inclined.

[Naomi]

Limited surrender is among options. [:'(]

[Ralegh]

In reality, the strategy is ludicrous

Yep. In COG, the number of divisions allowed to fight in the battle is affected by terrain (and a number of other factors) - parking anything over about a dozen divisions in Tyrol is a waste of time. (Although I think the quality difference of the French v the Austrians is even more marked in COG - the Austrians don't stand any chance at all in 1805.)

It doesn't have a solution to the supply chain thing though - both COG and EIA/EIH/EIANW have a problem defining a sensible supply policy to make this stuff realistic without it being too onerous for players. I sure would like to see supply based on strength - after all, its trivial for the computer to handle the math for us.

[mdesarno]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

So I take it that CoG is a bust? This is what it is sounding like from everyone on here. Good, cuz I almost thought about it. What was the other game Matrix put out that was a bust, like Iron Hearts or Hearts of Iron or something like that?

I just hope EiA isn't a bust (especially considering it has so many EiH additions). Crossing my fingers.

Here's my take on it. I'm an original hard core [in this case hard corps] player of EiA from the early days. I'm talkin' 1980s when the game was originally published by ADG.

I got CoG last week because knowing that EiA was coming out on the computer but not being able to play it was killing me. About a day or so later they came out with the 1.1 patch.

My verdict: CoG is very much the same experience as playing EiA. Even after the 1.1 patch, there are some annoying game play bugs that need work, but the developers are very responsive and are putting a lot of work into fixing things. Most of the CTD type bugs are history now, so the game is playable.

The differences are that there is yes, much more micro-management in CoG than there is in EiA. [Remember I am not a beta tester and have only played the original EiA board game and the AH reprint]. The interface is clunky and can be frustrating, but if you stick with it you get used to it. The combat is a lot different than in EiA, but the end results of combat, sieges, movement, foraging, treaties, and most of the rest of it are strikingly similar to a game of EiA. I like the detailed hex map combat a lot, it is really fun. If you like both Panzer General and EiA you should enjoy that aspect of the game. It is also a lot like running a miniatures table top game but on a hex map. It works well and I have not had a single crash, although other players have. But, the 1.1 patch should help a lot of those players.

It actually has some cool things in it that an original board game of EiA doesn't have. Like an open ended way to craft and ratify treaties, and diplomats that can move around the map and perform various spying or diplomatic missions, kinda like Civ III.

I don't mind the micromanagement, because my personal style of play is to build and micro manage stuff, and then go pick a fight when I'm ready. There is a great thread over at the CoG forum near the top that details a good way to start off a game and set stuff like the economy and draft rate. Thanks to that thread, I was able to successfully play a long and fun game the second time I tried it. I've stayed up 'til 3 or 4 in the morning playing it on work nights a couple days recently because it was so fun. Although there is some micro management, it consists of picking 2 or at most 3 sliders of about 8. You do this to prioritize production on a screen for each province. Complexity of this screen is no worse than running the city screen in Civilization. There is another screen to set national priorities like the draft rate and taxes, and I have had no problems with just setting it the way I want and leaving it alone for the rest of the game. Other than those 2 things, the only other thing you have to manage is the trading system. It is a little intimidating at first but it turns out to be easy. You click a city, set the amount of commodities to trade, click a foriegn city, and select the commodities to receive. The advisor tells you if it is a reasonable trade or not. You submit it and the other country either accepts it or rejects it at the end of the turn. Once the main trades are all made, you just go in and initiate more trades when you really need stuff, or occasionally the AI countries send you a trade request you can accept or reject. It's easy and fast once you've done it a few times.

The game is fun and addictive, and some of the more annoying bugs have not impacted my games much, although they did come up. The primary problems right now as I see them are that defeated Armies and Corps will sometimes retreat into enemy territory, and there is an annoying feature that returns your forces to your home country immediately upon an enemy's surrender. The retreat bug can theoretically be avoided by having a backup Army or Corps behind your lines to prevent that from happening, and preventing your depot from being overrun. I've never had the extra troops to try that though. Supply works virtually the same way as in EiA, except depot chains have to be in every province instead of every other province. Units can supply themselves from provinces adjacent to a depot, though.

In the end, I'm glad I got CoG and I can't wait for EiA. I'll probably play them both, because CoG is a good game in its own right. When they make some small changes in mechanics and sequence of play, it will be one of the best strategy games ever.

Oh, and Hearts of Iron is a Paradox game. I have been playing a lot of Hearts of Iron II, and it is a very similar situation. The game is very good, but it needs a couple of things to be fixed for it to meet its true potential. They are also very responsive over there at continued development to please the gamers, and I am confident that both HoI2 and CoG will both end up being two of the best strategy games ever once they are each patched once or twice more. For now, I enjoy them both, knowing what some of the issues are and working around them.

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think game complexity has risen above our capacity to properly kill all bugs in a timely manner! There is a medium in here somehwere (When to release) that I honestly don't know where it is ???
Bottom line is that the programmer is ALWAYS going to get screamed at. It is our lot in life!

That's the rub isn't it. It would be simple to release high quality bug-free games, but this would come at the cost of simplifying the design and therefore the code, and of significantly increasing development time and therefore price. But it's pretty clear that the market is happy to accept buggy games with increased complexity games and lower price.