Before You Run Out To Buy Empire:Total War

[tgb]

Matrix is about to release Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition.

I owned and enjoyed the original CoG when it first came out, and signed on to beta test this new version, but real life got in the way and I never had the opportunity to give it any real time.

This covers the same era as E:TW, except it is fully turn-based, there are three battle modes (instant, quick, and strategic), and the diplomatic, economic, and espionage elements are a lot more robust. CoG:EE also allows you to disable the economic micro-management of the first game (which I actually enjoyed).

Here's an AAR one of the beta testers put up of a game played as Poland.

BTW, Erik has stated that it will be available at a discount for owners of the first version.

It sounds like it should make it out before the end of the month.

[marcusjm]

Unfortunatelly it seems they are using Bill O'Reilly as their Swedish consultant.

Norway was NOT a part of Sweden during 1792. It wasn't until 1814 when they realised that Sweden was their true master .
Here is a virtual orgy in Swedish maps during history. The days of glory included.

http://www.tacitus.nu/svenskhistoria/kartor.htm" target="_blank

Other than that it looks like a decent game but as usual the only demo will be tgb buying it and reporting. I will be ordering Total War based
on opinions of the demo.

[tgb]

No demo, but you can find the original on gamerankings.com. Even wargame-unfriendly IGN gave it an 8 out of 10. This version updates the graphics, adds tactical naval combat, and allows you to play with a simplified economy.

Between reviews of the original and AAR's you shouldn't need a demo.

[TiLT]

It wasn't until 1814 when they realised that Sweden was their true master .

Oh, now you're just asking for it!

Just so we don't confuse people's history here: Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden (Norway had no say in this) in 1814, but Norway immediately saw fit to declare independence, so the new union was... short. The Swedes tried to take back the country by military force, but were defeated. In fact, I live about 50 meters away from where they lost their mid-Norway push.

[hidde]

Unfortunatelly it seems they are using Bill O'Reilly as their Swedish consultant.

Norway was NOT a part of Sweden during 1792. It wasn't until 1814 when they realised that Sweden was their true master .

Don't worry .
The same question came up at Matrix forum and answered:

"No, actually it's part of Denmark (a minor nation) at this time. The graphic in Gil's shot can seem a little misleading but that's just for aesthetic reasons and it's the only place you see it".
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2012823

[marcusjm]

Has we known abou the OIl we would have been more persistent .

Nevertheless. Empire Total War has India and the Americas, this is really what this period was all about,
the mighty Red Coats. I want to bring my Royal Scots Guard on the enemies.

Hopefully ther are some fixed battles like those between Wellington and Tipoo,

[Normann]

Matrix is about to release Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition.

I owned and enjoyed the original CoG when it first came out, and signed on to beta test this new version, but real life got in the way and I never had the opportunity to give it any real time.

This covers the same era as E:TW, except it is fully turn-based, there are three battle modes (instant, quick, and strategic), and the diplomatic, economic, and espionage elements are a lot more robust. CoG:EE also allows you to disable the economic micro-management of the first game (which I actually enjoyed).

Here's an AAR one of the beta testers put up of a game played as Poland.

BTW, Erik has stated that it will be available at a discount for owners of the first version.

It sounds like it should make it out before the end of the month.

It does look good. Too bad they will not change the hexagon style.

I have played Fields of Glory and while it was fun, it took me months to finish it because the battles took forever. Horrible control and very tedious. But still fun enough to keep me going. So I've managed playing through a single civil war scenario as North. It was a good game but I remember sitting over a battle and it took 50 min just to move your troops within sight of the enemy. God. It really made me wonder if these guys have ever played their own game. Of course you could turn off the battles but I love playing those. I will not buy their game until they don't come up with a better solution than that hexa stuff. It was not even about the fact that it was hexagon style, there are games out there that are very playable like that. But it was extremely slow and time consuming. I remember there was a certain odd order for troop movements which made it even worse. This is really not an alternative to Total War IMO.

[tgb]

It does look good. Too bad they will not change the hexagon style.

I have played Fields of Glory and while it was fun, it took me months to finish it because the battles took forever. Horrible control and very tedious. But still fun enough to keep me going. So I've managed playing through a single civil war scenario as North. It was a good game but I remember sitting over a battle and it took 50 min just to move your troops within sight of the enemy. God. It really made me wonder if these guys have ever played their own game. Of course you could turn off the battles but I love playing those. I will not buy their game until they don't come up with a better solution than that hexa stuff. It was not even about the fact that it was hexagon style, there are games out there that are very playable like that. But it was extremely slow and time consuming. I remember there was a certain odd order for troop movements which made it even worse. This is really not an alternative to Total War IMO.

Are you talking about Forge of Freedom? Both games also have "quick battles", which is half-way between instant resolution and drawn out tactical affairs. I found they keep the game moving pretty quickly.

[GreenGoo]

Has we known abou the OIl we would have been more persistent .

Awesome.

[Normann]

It does look good. Too bad they will not change the hexagon style.

I have played Fields of Glory and while it was fun, it took me months to finish it because the battles took forever. Horrible control and very tedious. But still fun enough to keep me going. So I've managed playing through a single civil war scenario as North. It was a good game but I remember sitting over a battle and it took 50 min just to move your troops within sight of the enemy. God. It really made me wonder if these guys have ever played their own game. Of course you could turn off the battles but I love playing those. I will not buy their game until they don't come up with a better solution than that hexa stuff. It was not even about the fact that it was hexagon style, there are games out there that are very playable like that. But it was extremely slow and time consuming. I remember there was a certain odd order for troop movements which made it even worse. This is really not an alternative to Total War IMO.

Are you talking about Forge of Freedom? Both games also have "quick battles", which is half-way between instant resolution and drawn out tactical affairs. I found they keep the game moving pretty quickly.

Ahhhh... yes I was. For my defense, I did play Fields of Glory too back in 1993. That was great back then.

[Sarkus]

I'm not sure its very reasonable to compare the two games. Crown of Glory is pretty much centered on the Napoleonic era while Empire:TW covers the whole 18th century. CoG is also more detailed on the strategic level then any TW series game. They are really aimed a different audiences.

Plus with Matrix you need to see what they want to charge for the updated CoG first.

[Canuck]

I think if anything the release of ETW will do great things for CoG. I mean come on, the Napoleonic era isn't exactly the most popular of eras. There's a good reason why the guys behind the scenes haven't gotten to it until their 4th game and after doing TWO versions of medieval. Still I think a lot of people are going to play ETW and enjoy it and come looking for more. CoG will be the next stop for them.

[Jeff V]

I didn't like Crown of Glory, but I've liked all of the Total War games. I'll buy the latter, not the former.

[Svend Karlson]

Matrix is about to release Crown of Glory:Emperor's Edition.

I owned and enjoyed the original CoG when it first came out, and signed on to beta test this new version, but real life got in the way and I never had the opportunity to give it any real time.

I owned and enjoyed the original too, most especially the turn-based tactical battles, which I considered a real treat. I found the strategic management pieces a little clunky, but having read about what has been worked on for this new release I am going to pick this up and give it another go. I generally pick new games up only 6 months or so following release to give them time to be patched anyway, so I can wait a little longer for Empire: Total War

[razgon]

Has we known abou the OIl we would have been more persistent .

Awesome.

bah! you know why you have oil?? because our foreign minister was pissdrunk when he gave away the ocean parts that contained the oil..
sigh..

oh, and denmark a "minor nation"?? We owned you guys!

[marcusjm]

A brief vassalization doens't really count .

Actually you bring up a good point. This means we can't do one of the most important wars for Sweden (and Denmark) during this period. The Great Nordic Wars. I have only seen one wargame covering this and it was like 25 years ago.

Good candidate for a mod perhaps?

[Sepiche]

I really liked some aspects of CoG, and I'll probably buy this one, but the thing that killed it for me wasn't the economic stuff itself, but the horrible interface to manage it. Any idea if they streamlined that at all?

[tgb]

I really liked some aspects of CoG, and I'll probably buy this one, but the thing that killed it for me wasn't the economic stuff itself, but the horrible interface to manage it. Any idea if they streamlined that at all?

Even though I dropped out of the beta testing early on, they still allow me to download builds, and right now I'm playing with the Gold candidate*. I'm not sure what you didn't like about the economic interface. From what I've seen (and I only put a little time into it last night), the only change to the Advanced Economy interface is a screen that lists all your provinces, their production, and improvements being built. I'm pretty sure you can jump form there to the production screen of a province, but don't quote me on that. Of course, you now have the option to eliminate all of that completely, and play with a Simple Economy, which eliminates all the resources except for money, manpower, and (I think) horses.

The new version just seems more polished, somehow, between the additional scenarios, improved map, and, of course, the detailed naval battles.



*I'll probably still buy it on release just to have the complete package and be able to get patches.

[Sepiche]

Even though I dropped out of the beta testing early on, they still allow me to download builds, and right now I'm playing with the Gold candidate*. I'm not sure what you didn't like about the economic interface. From what I've seen (and I only put a little time into it last night), the only change to the Advanced Economy interface is a screen that lists all your provinces, their production, and improvements being built. I'm pretty sure you can jump form there to the production screen of a province, but don't quote me on that. Of course, you now have the option to eliminate all of that completely, and play with a Simple Economy, which eliminates all the resources except for money, manpower, and (I think) horses.

The new version just seems more polished, somehow, between the additional scenarios, improved map, and, of course, the detailed naval battles.



*I'll probably still buy it on release just to have the complete package and be able to get patches.

That sounds better at least.

It's been a while since I played it, but I just remember starting new games and then spending an hour or so going through all my provinces and zeroing out their production, and then going back through one by one and having them produce whatever they were actually good at instead of the default.

Also, maybe I just never understood it, but I never found an easy way to tell how good a province was at producing a good short of moving the slider for that good to full and seeing how much was produced, and the list they gave of what a province was good at never seemed accurate. I also never understood the relationship of wool to linen (or cloth or whatever it was). Sometimes I would increase production of wool, but linen production would stay completely flat.

I always just set them to something and moved on, but I suspect I could have optimized it much better if it were more clear.

[tgb]

If you play with Advanced Economy on, you still have to go province by province in your first turn and adjust production. I always just max out the slider for whatever the province excelled at, and put the rest of the manpower into luxuries and/or building improvements. You'd think it would default to that, but it doesn't.

In-game help and tooltips (were there even any tooltips in the first?) are a lot better, and I know I read a screen that broke down the cotton/wool/textile formula, but I don't remember it atm.

The one aspect of the game that still gives me a headache is trade, but I just automate it and let it go at that.

[Queeg]

I'm a first-day buyer of this one. I liked the original Crown of Glory, warts and all. They've now had time to refine the engine, and it looks like a winner.

[marcusjm]

Let's hope so. I check some AAR:s and such to see the current situation.
I hope they put this out on Steam as well, their download system is so easy to use.

[lakers1]

Is this game suitable for idiots such as myself?

I enjoy turn-based games incl the Total War series. However I would like something a bit more strategic and often like the idea of things such as the ability to win through other than military means. But when I do play something like this (say Crusader Kings) I often found myself wondering what the hell to do next (or even where I should start). Whenever I tried EU (which I realise is real-time)I found myself literally going to sleep while playing.

Imperialism 2 was one of my favourites because it seemed rather easy to understand what you had to do although difficult to beat the AI who had a lot of advantages - well for me anyway. You also got some feedback to at least assist you in understanding how you were going.

This game sounds intriguing but I have to be honest and say that at this stage of my life I lack the time (and often energy) required if this game really has a steep learning curve.

[tgb]

There is a pretty steep learning curve, but there are several way to ease yourself into it:

1) Play with the "simple economy". The domestic/economic portion of the game is eliminated, leaving you free to focus on the military and diplomatic aspects.

2) Every part of the game can be turned over to the A.I., so you can focus on one part at a time if you like.

3) There are 3 ways to fight a battle - instant resolve, quick combat, in which you place your division on a chess-like board and they fight it out without any input from you, and the full-out tactical game. The best way to get a handle on full tactical combat is by using it for the smaller battles first.

As to knowing what to do next - other than a list of political goals that show the Glory Point value of holding particular provinces, you are on your own. Unfortunately there is no way to find those provinces without scrolling and scrutinizing the map if you don't already know where they are. A "go to" quick key would have been nice. Or you can do what I do, which is let events direct you. You will know when you have a Cassus Belli.

There is a "Path of Napoleon" scenario, where you are supposed to follow his conquests in order, but I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it leads you by the hand.

[Daehawk]

10 things you must know

EDIT:

Who is Driving? Bear is Driving


Actually, engine is driving, and Empire: Total War sports a brand new one. The detail this has allowed the team to capture is just ridiculous – every hair on every soldier's body is now individually rendered, with pubes being curlier than arm hair, while older, more experienced soldiers will have more nose and ear hair than younger ones. We kid, we kid.

[Gil R.]

I’m one of the developers for “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition,” and thought I’d chime in with a few comments. First, I’m glad to see this thread, and thank tgb for starting it. It’s good to see the word getting out about COG:EE’s imminent release, since while we don’t exactly have the same marketing budget as ETW, our game certainly will be able to hold its own in a side-by-side comparison in a lot of areas. (Not graphics, obviously!)

Let’s see. Specific comments...

Normann,
Regarding your frustrating experience playing the detailed battles in our similar game, “Forge of Freedom,” I can’t help but think that you might have missed something important. You wrote, “It was a good game but I remember sitting over a battle and it took 50 min just to move your troops within sight of the enemy.” From what you describe, it seems likely to me that you were unaware that one of the game options on the main screen lets you decide whether the two sides in a battle will have a “near start” or “far start.” In the former, the units start off very close, and can begin attacking soon after the battle begins, while in the latter the armies start off at the far ends of the map, giving some chance for maneuver, selecting the best terrain, digging field fortifications, etc. If it took you 50 minutes to find the enemy you must have been set at “far start.” I would urge you to give the game another shot one of these days – it has only gotten better through our “omnibus” patches (as I call them), and we have a new patch coming out soon that will add even more features.

Sepiche,
As tgb has written, there have been changes to the economic interface. Regarding your question about converting the wool resource into the textile resource, it takes four wool to make one textile, while the number of times this can happen is based on population and labor. So, you might have 20 Wool, but if you’ve got little labor to allocate you might end up with 16 Wool and 1 Textile. (Note to other readers: Wool and Textiles are both part of the “Advanced” Economy. If you play the simpler “Standard” Economy, a new feature for COG:EE, you don’t need to worry about it.)

I believe that tgb and others have already answered the questions I didn’t address. I should add that, unlike our first two releases, this game will come with 10 tutorial videos that should certainly help with the learning curve. Plus we’ll be releasing two promotional videos. So while there will be no playable demo, these videos and the AAR’s should give everyone who is interested an idea of whether COG:EE might be for him.

[dbt1949]

I looked over at Matrix but couldn't find any recommend specs. As I too prefer turn based and with ETW I think I just meet the minimum specs I was wondering about this one.

[tgb]

I looked over at Matrix but couldn't find any recommend specs. As I too prefer turn based and with ETW I think I just meet the minimum specs I was wondering about this one.

Check the specs for the original CoG - same engine, and since it's 3 years old I doubt you'll have a problem.

[dbt1949]

Okay thanks! I have the original but never could get into it. I'm hoping they've fixed those aspects I disliked in this version.

[lakers1]

There is a pretty steep learning curve, but there are several way to ease yourself into it:

1) Play with the "simple economy". The domestic/economic portion of the game is eliminated, leaving you free to focus on the military and diplomatic aspects.

2) Every part of the game can be turned over to the A.I., so you can focus on one part at a time if you like.

3) There are 3 ways to fight a battle - instant resolve, quick combat, in which you place your division on a chess-like board and they fight it out without any input from you, and the full-out tactical game. The best way to get a handle on full tactical combat is by using it for the smaller battles first.

As to knowing what to do next - other than a list of political goals that show the Glory Point value of holding particular provinces, you are on your own. Unfortunately there is no way to find those provinces without scrolling and scrutinizing the map if you don't already know where they are. A "go to" quick key would have been nice. Or you can do what I do, which is let events direct you. You will know when you have a Cassus Belli.

There is a "Path of Napoleon" scenario, where you are supposed to follow his conquests in order, but I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it leads you by the hand.

thanks tgb

Incidentally I do have Forge of Freedom - I think I was attracted to that one by your AAR?? Anyway I haven't tried it yet - I seem to be more of a 'game collector' than 'game player' these days...

How would it compare in terms of difficulty/ease of introduction with COG?

[tgb]

Incidentally I do have Forge of Freedom - I think I was attracted to that one by your AAR?? Anyway I haven't tried it yet - I seem to be more of a 'game collector' than 'game player' these days...

How would it compare in terms of difficulty/ease of introduction with COG?

There's more customization - in FoF you can turn on or off a lot more elements in the game. Also, diplomacy is virtually non-existent in FoF. Other than that it will depend on which you are more familiar with - the ACW or Napoleonic history.

[Normann]

I’m one of the developers for “Crown of Glory: Emperor’s Edition,” and thought I’d chime in with a few comments. First, I’m glad to see this thread, and thank tgb for starting it. It’s good to see the word getting out about COG:EE’s imminent release, since while we don’t exactly have the same marketing budget as ETW, our game certainly will be able to hold its own in a side-by-side comparison in a lot of areas. (Not graphics, obviously!)

Let’s see. Specific comments...

Normann,
Regarding your frustrating experience playing the detailed battles in our similar game, “Forge of Freedom,” I can’t help but think that you might have missed something important. You wrote, “It was a good game but I remember sitting over a battle and it took 50 min just to move your troops within sight of the enemy.” From what you describe, it seems likely to me that you were unaware that one of the game options on the main screen lets you decide whether the two sides in a battle will have a “near start” or “far start.” In the former, the units start off very close, and can begin attacking soon after the battle begins, while in the latter the armies start off at the far ends of the map, giving some chance for maneuver, selecting the best terrain, digging field fortifications, etc. If it took you 50 minutes to find the enemy you must have been set at “far start.” I would urge you to give the game another shot one of these days – it has only gotten better through our “omnibus” patches (as I call them), and we have a new patch coming out soon that will add even more features.

Thanks for your response. I am glad developers are reading these forums. I remember the option. I am not sure if it was before each battle or before you started the main game. It was in 07 when I finished my game. I just remember that the battles took a real long time. Even if I subtract the movement phase it still takes a long time.

I have a 2 Qs for you. One about the order in which you move your troops: What determined the order? And why did you decide the player could not move the troops in the order he wanted them? I am sure it was a decision based on something since the whole game is very detailed and in depth. I remember you could pass a turn but at the expense of some movement points

The other questions: Are you planning on reworking your battle model? It would be great if you could move to something simple, but a step up from the current system. There are many gamers out there who want to play both the battle and the strategic phase. Your game is one of the few that allows that, but to some of us the battle is too tedious in it's current form. I personally would be very happy with a visual that pairs up with Cossacks, perhaps less arcade like. I had a lot of fun playing their battles but their strategy does not compare. It is a different game, I just mentioned it as an example because it is a very simple yet enjoyable isometric battle system. It seems we can never have both, a decent battle engine, and an in depth strategy game at the same time. I cannot come up with a single game that has in depth strategy like your game, or Europe Universalis II, and have battles that are decent looking. I guess there must be no market for it.

[Gil R.]

Normann,

Since I'm not the programmer, I can only give you a vague response: that the order in which units move is based on semi-randomized initiative calculations. (If you'd like a more technical response I can ask the programmer.) This is fairly typical of a lot of games, including some of the best Civil War board games. In "Across Five Aprils," for example, you reach into a cup (or some other container for your chits) in order to determine which division or corps moves next. If I remember correctly, GMT uses a similar approach. Battles would be boring and predictable if the same units always moved in the same order, and they would be skewed if the player always got to choose who goes first. (I don't recall ever seeing a complaint about this system in the FOF forum, which suggests that most players have indeed seen this system used elsewhere and don't mind it.)

It sounds like what you're describing in terms of battles would be something that involves larger units -- and therefore fewer units. In "Crown of Glory," for example, battles can be fought at the brigade level -- same as FOF -- or at divisional level, in which case there are fewer units. I can't see how to simplify detailed combat in any other way, since units themselves are not that complicated: they change formation, fire, charge, resupply, etc.

[Normann]

Normann,

Since I'm not the programmer, I can only give you a vague response: that the order in which units move is based on semi-randomized initiative calculations. (If you'd like a more technical response I can ask the programmer.) This is fairly typical of a lot of games, including some of the best Civil War board games. In "Across Five Aprils," for example, you reach into a cup (or some other container for your chits) in order to determine which division or corps moves next. If I remember correctly, GMT uses a similar approach. Battles would be boring and predictable if the same units always moved in the same order, and they would be skewed if the player always got to choose who goes first. (I don't recall ever seeing a complaint about this system in the FOF forum, which suggests that most players have indeed seen this system used elsewhere and don't mind it.)

It sounds like what you're describing in terms of battles would be something that involves larger units -- and therefore fewer units. In "Crown of Glory," for example, battles can be fought at the brigade level -- same as FOF -- or at divisional level, in which case there are fewer units. I can't see how to simplify detailed combat in any other way, since units themselves are not that complicated: they change formation, fire, charge, resupply, etc.

It surprises me that nobody else complained about the order of movement. I understand there was some logic behind it, but at the same time I would have liked to have freedom of choice to move them in the order I wanted them to move. I did not see why the commander could not decide who moved first. Often times this messed up my lines. I did get used to it I just never saw the point. Why can't I simply pass the next unit and move it later without penalty. I guess it was a game design choice and so be it. The game was interesting enough to play it through at least once, and it took me months. I definitely got the value. I just wish these things would be tweaked, and I would be in line for more games like that.

About making it simpler. I worded that completely wrong. I was not talking about battle mechanics. I don't mind complicated battles. Actually I prefer them. FOF's detail is very nice, it could be even more complicated or say involved. I was talking about the visuals of the battlefield. It would be nice to give the battlefield and the units a little face lift. Keep it simple looking. I really do not crave for 3D and fancy stuff like Total War, but the hexagon style battlefield is outdated. However that was only my minor complaint. The mechanics of the actual battle is what keeps me from getting the next sequel. However if nobody else seems to dislike the things I have mentioned, why change them? I can see that.

[Gil R.]

Normann,
I appreciate where you're coming from, but do disagree. Regarding hexes, they are still in many ways the ideal way of designing a tactical map (for geometrical and programming reasons that I understand when they're explained to me, but am not competent to explain myself). They might not appeal visually as much as 3-D maps, but there are still good reasons for using hexes. And as for getting to choose which units go first, I think having it OUT of the player's control is far more realistic. I've been reading Sears's "To the Gates of Richmond," about the Peninsula Campaign, recently, and it's clear that commanders often had no control over which units moved first. Generals like Lee might have a plan of battle, but it almost never unfolded in the order they desired. So FOF's semi-random system mirrors that. (That said, if we do a FOF2 we might implement some new C&C rules that would give the player more say in which corps or divisions are supposed to go first -- though, of course, a failed initiative check might still keep them from moving when desired. But this would be more in the direction you'd prefer.)

[Normann]

Normann,
I appreciate where you're coming from, but do disagree. Regarding hexes, they are still in many ways the ideal way of designing a tactical map (for geometrical and programming reasons that I understand when they're explained to me, but am not competent to explain myself). They might not appeal visually as much as 3-D maps, but there are still good reasons for using hexes. And as for getting to choose which units go first, I think having it OUT of the player's control is far more realistic. I've been reading Sears's "To the Gates of Richmond," about the Peninsula Campaign, recently, and it's clear that commanders often had no control over which units moved first. Generals like Lee might have a plan of battle, but it almost never unfolded in the order they desired. So FOF's semi-random system mirrors that. (That said, if we do a FOF2 we might implement some new C&C rules that would give the player more say in which corps or divisions are supposed to go first -- though, of course, a failed initiative check might still keep them from moving when desired. But this would be more in the direction you'd prefer.)

Well... it was a while ago when I finished my game so I don't remember the order. But I think it was the same as the placement order was. Which was just a regular 1st, 2nd, 3rd regiment etc... I want to say that order never really changed throughout the game. So I don't see how that was realistic unless I am not remembering correctly. That happens.

I though the fog of war was simulated by units misinterpreting orders, skipping turns, and completely getting out of command. Hence it was important to have a signal officer for the better troops and to have a commander that had high ratings and there were other factors too. All good stuff btw that added to the game. I had fun trying to put the right commander to the right brigade etc... but I don't think this had anything to do with movement order. That is just a basic need. I would like to move regiment #5 of the 6 regiments first in the round, and I have to skip 4 regiments to do that at a penalty. I don't see how that was realistic.

The hexes are not bad, but it does not look like anything from the 21st C. If you take a look at Cossacks' system, it is probably still hexes. However you never see the hexes, and there are some very basic animations that look good and are not taxing. Granted, that part is not what the HC strategy fan is after. Like I have said, it is not my primary problem either. However the battle mechanics were tedious. I will stand by that. Overall still a good game.

[Gil R.]

I do see what you're saying. As I think I mentioned, if we do a FOF2 we'd probably be making changes to some of the C&C rules, and perhaps the order in which units move would be part of it. I'm not sure we'd end up giving full control over to the player, especially since the programming involved in such a change might be quite significant, but there might be other things would would do involving group movement, letting superior officers give their units a boost in terms of the movement queue, etc.

[Gil R.]

Hmm. It's looking like this thread was named all topsy-turvy, and should have been "Before You Run Out To Buy Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition," because it looks like COG:EE will be coming out first. Here's an announcement from Matrix posted in the COG:EE forum a few hours ago:

We've decided to push for an online (digital) release ASAP. Just to be clear about this, we are not rushing the game development itself in order to do this, but we are rushing the post-development production a bit, which is why the physical options will not be available immediately at release and why we'll all be working late hours for the next few days. Here's how it will unfold:

1. Online release of Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition will happen _either_ Friday or Monday, depending on if we hit any snags in the digital release process.

2. Physical release of Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition will happen 4-5 days after that, though it will be 3-4 more weeks after that before the printed manuals are in the store and physical copies are shipping out. If you want a printed manual, please wait until the physical options show up and then order the "Digital + Physical" option so that you have the download while you wait for the boxed copy with the printed manual.

3. We cannot upgrade a digital download only sale to a digital + physical sale. If you want the printed manual please wait for the physical options to show up in the store. The early release will be only for the digital download.

We'll post the above info again in a pinned FAQ thread before the release and also make it clear on the product and store pages. Keep in mind that things do sometimes go off the rails due to a snag or a last minute glitch in the final push to release. So my posting this now does not guarantee that the release will be exactly as I predict, but the odds are pretty good and any delay in the online release would only be a day or two.

Our promo videos aren't ready, either, but we should be posting our ten tutorial videos quite soon, letting those who are unfamiliar with the original COG get a good sense of whether this might be the Napoleonic (as well as pre-Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic) game for them.

[tgb]

Crap,Gil. I was all set to post a CoG:EE AAR here until you called me topsy-turvy.

[Gil R.]

I guess we'll all soon see if you're big enough to rise above such an insult...