Which is better, Napoleon's Campaigns or Crown of Glory?

[LMUBill]

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Somebody was going to do this, figured I might as well be the one.

[arsan]

Very funny!
How about a Victoria versus Vainglory of Nations Poll ??

[PhilThib]

wouarf....

[Pocus]

you will want to do that in an external forum, if you want the begining of an unbiased answer, otherwise it has no real value (even if I have my own opinion!)

[Anguille]

I have Crown of Glory and think it's a good game. Of course i'll buy Napoleon's campaigns as i do believe that Ageod's strategic map is the best on the market...still, for real wargamers, there's never enough good games so no need to choose...buy them all

[Ashbery76]

Different games.COG has a full campaign with diplomacy,production,etc while campaigns is just war scenarios.

[Adlertag]

I was very disappointed by Crown of Glory , not very historical , not immersive.
And it is somewhat funny to see Ottoman's forces roaming in Sweden.

[Sol Invictus]

That's my main problem with Strategy games vs War games. With Strategy games like CoG, all the EUs, and TW of course, you will always get very wild results that defy historical probability or even possibility. With a more focused War game like BoA or ACW; while you can get results that are different from what actually happened, the results will not be absolutely unbelievable. That is when I always loose interest in any Strategy game that I am playing; when I see something like Ottoman soldiers running amuck in Sweden. I look forward to seeing how AGEOD handles things when they start to include a robust Diplomatic model in VoN.

[pasternakski]

I passed on CoG. Looks like a "chrome on a Yugo" effort to me.

I have nothing to say about NC, because it doesn't exist yet. I am tentatively planning to wait on purchasing it, however, until the full strategic version is developed, debugged, and delivered. I don't want to do the AACW "buy it, learn it, oops, it changed dramatically, re-learn it in its new form" cha-cha-cha again. I have idled my BoA playing, as well, while I wait for the gigantic AACW features retrofit.

I have been hoping for a competent game from Matrix as a result of their on-again, off-again, possibly halfassed development effort in porting Empires in Arms to the computer. Right now, I am very skeptical that this game, even if it does eventually see the light of day, will be worth buying. So, I plan to keep my piggy bank intact for a good while after that one is released, as well, so that I can get a sense for what and how it is.

And you wonder why I wander around in the world grumbling and mumbling with smoke coming out of my ears...

[jimwinsor]

The actual, historical Napoleonic wars (and I'm including the Revolutionary period in this definition too) saw French and British in Egypt and Palestine. Russians in the Adriatic, southern Italy, and Switzerland. Spanish troops on the Prussian Baltic coast. Polish troops in Spain and France. Troops from practically EVERYWHERE in Russia in 1812. And I recall an engraving from 1814, which depicted Don Cossacks cooking dinner in open campfires, on the Champs D'Elysee.

So, when I see something like Turks in Sweden in a game of CoG, this does NOT strike me as one bit out of the ordinary! The complex diplomatic climate of that era meant that troops from everywhere could (and did) end up fighting practically anywhere. The fact that CoG flexibly permits such an alternate historical deployment...no more unusual, really, when you think about it, than the oddities listed above that occured in the real war...is one of the game's strengths, IMO.

And I agree with Pasternakski that it's probably more relevent to compare NC to EiA at this point, anyways...unlike CoG, both are still in development, and more importantly, both are going to be purely strategy level games (ie, no tactical combat option).

[Sol Invictus]

Sure, contingents of many nationalities followed the French army in it's whirlwind tour of Europe in those days; I have no problem with that. But I think most people who play the Grand Strategic types of games are all to familiar with the silly situations, that would cause even the most openminded of us to just throw up our hands. I also realize that it is very difficult for a game to realisticly depict the workings of power politics in any age; hence my preference for games that are a bit more focused and constrained. I just don't see the probability of extremely unlikely outcomes as an asset.

[pasternakski]

I would only add that the various expeditions of the time far from home countries unsupported by direct logistics were for limited purposes and most often came a cropper (Napoleon in Egypt, anyone?).

I definitely hope that such possibilities are part of any strategic-level Napoleonic-era game, but I worry that the game mechanics may not limit them properly.

Other speculations I have read worry me, as well. When I see people militating for the possibility of England fielding multi-million man armies made up of North African conscripts, I worry a little about game designers who take too much to heart the suggestions of casual forum posters...

[Adlertag]

The actual, historical Napoleonic wars (and I'm including the Revolutionary period in this definition too) saw French and British in Egypt and Palestine. Russians in the Adriatic, southern Italy, and Switzerland. Spanish troops on the Prussian Baltic coast. Polish troops in Spain and France. Troops from practically EVERYWHERE in Russia in 1812. And I recall an engraving from 1814, which depicted Don Cossacks cooking dinner in open campfires, on the Champs D'Elysee.

So, when I see something like Turks in Sweden in a game of CoG, this does NOT strike me as one bit out of the ordinary! .

But problem came when Turks manage to gain some Sweden provinces after a cease fire because of the poor behaviour of Sweden forces on their home land.
Or when you see Russia fighting Austrian forces in Austria while at the same time Austrian main army is trying to siege Paris.
So , IMO, if you could see troops everywhere, historically it happened for either small contingents or for a small duration , in any case smaller than you could see in COG ( here is the problem).

For me, it is the size or the duration of the unhistorical phenomen which is disturbing.

[Syagrius]

I guess NC will be far better than CoG, which has horrendous gameplay and diplomacy. Was really disapointed by this one.