Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Diplomacy preview from the dev team!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Diplomacy preview from the dev team! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/12/2006 2:53:14 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Hello all:

I wanted to give you guys a small taste of our diplomacy and how it is going to work!
We've been trying to tackle the problem of simplifying the PBEM file exchanges which has been a bear for us! This is a complicated game of many data exchanges between players even when playing at the table with your buddies much less when trying to do the same when everybody is in different time zones!

With the help of the testing community, we have implemented a reaction method that allows a player to preset his/her diplomatic settings such as who he/she wishes to control, to ask for trade, to grant access to certain major powers, major powers to DOW in support of a minor, allies to call, etc. We implemented this method to minimize file exchanges during turns and quicken the pace of the game. The end result of this was that as opposed to you sending an alliance request file to Russia (for example) and waiting for Russia to reply, you can now request the alliance to Russia and if Russia has her alliance accept alliance request box checked for you nation then the alliance is confirmed! All of these settings are done in one screen as you see below...








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post #: 1
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/12/2006 3:43:08 PM   
YohanTM2

 

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline 		As a PBEM player I like this idea. Bit of wrok to set it up but then you just need to review for changes.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 2
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/12/2006 4:25:22 PM   
Camile Desmoulins


Posts: 115
Joined: 9/15/2003
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline 		Yes, I think that is the only way to work, uis impossible wait hundred of answers. In PBEM play with table game, we work in documents like this, with large explanations of the players about the alternatives in the decissions.

I suppose that there is yet, but it would be a good idea to get a button to mark all the countries, if I wish to make it.

Diplomacy is a work previous to fill this document, players must work before this art and each step must be deeply thought.

I thnk that you are working in the best way for the diplomacy.

Camille

_____________________________

"Scis vincere, nescis uti victoria" (Maharbal)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/13/2006 3:07:08 AM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline 		WOW - Gottingen... in the list just between Hamburg an Gibraltar... must be really important... 8000 residents, a famous university, no fotification, nothing of intrest, always an appendix of either Hanover, Braunschweig or Kassel... can´t wait to see the whole map... perhapse you may add a port ?
oh, btw- is it possible that a defeated fleet will retreat to the next (?- up to seven areas ?) port without being followed and blocked by the victor ?

< Message edited by StCyr -- 7/13/2006 11:37:25 AM >

(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)
Post #: 4
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/13/2006 6:15:47 PM   
hlj

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Looks nice. I cant wait to try it out myself ^_^

(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 5
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/14/2006 2:41:43 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		"Wont you ever set me free?
Rhis waiting is killing me!
She drives me crazy
Like no one else
And I cant help myself."

Fine Young Cannibals


< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 7/14/2006 2:42:19 AM >

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to hlj)
Post #: 6
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/14/2006 9:15:46 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		If you do not check something will you then still have the option of accepting it? For example, as Spain I may be open to either France or Britain as an ally but I will want them to meet some guarantees to get my alliance so I would rather not check them. Also what if I get conflicting offers, again France and Britain both ask me for alliance and I have checked both but they are at war?

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 7
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/15/2006 6:42:46 PM   
malcolm_mccallum

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline 		It seems to me, Murat, that the negotiations you do would in fact be to check the boxes rather than accept an offer. You can tell Prussia that "If you agree to give me access and a cool moose hat, I will check my 'accept alliance with Prussia' box."

I like this because it means negotiations and political leanings won't be something bartered and determined from turn to turn. You'll have to have established some groundwork.

Also, going to this screen will force some long term strategic planning. You'll have to have made decisions ahead of time on how you feel about the various minor states and which ones require support. Less whim and more grand strategy is good.


(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 8
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/15/2006 7:16:43 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

If you do not check something will you then still have the option of accepting it? For example, as Spain I may be open to either France or Britain as an ally but I will want them to meet some guarantees to get my alliance so I would rather not check them. Also what if I get conflicting offers, again France and Britain both ask me for alliance and I have checked both but they are at war?


Hi Murat,

The diplomacy reaction window in EiANW acts as a “standing orders” hub for several steps of the political phase (note: in this game the political phase has been renamed the diplomacy phase). The diplomatic reaction window is always available to a major power; however, the choices the major power makes throughout the game are not acted upon until the end of the diplomacy phase and when that happens they are worked simultaneously with the choices made by the other major powers.

So to answer your first question: No, if you did not take a stance then your only option is to take one before the next diplomacy phase. In your ongoing negotiations, if you promised, or were promised, something then you had better calculate the chances of being hoodwinked. As you might expect, honor and integrity play an active role.

For your second question: If you are inclined to accept an alliance from two major powers, at war with each other, then the stance you took by checking both off in the diplomatic reaction window is acted upon accordingly at the end of the diplomacy phase. Much like chess, you must work the possibilities out before you take such a stance.

Richard (another guy helping out Marshall)


(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 9
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/16/2006 6:04:24 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

If you do not check something will you then still have the option of accepting it? For example, as Spain I may be open to either France or Britain as an ally but I will want them to meet some guarantees to get my alliance so I would rather not check them. Also what if I get conflicting offers, again France and Britain both ask me for alliance and I have checked both but they are at war?


Hi Murat,

The diplomacy reaction window in EiANW acts as a “standing orders” hub for several steps of the political phase (note: in this game the political phase has been renamed the diplomacy phase). The diplomatic reaction window is always available to a major power; however, the choices the major power makes throughout the game are not acted upon until the end of the diplomacy phase and when that happens they are worked simultaneously with the choices made by the other major powers.

So to answer your first question: No, if you did not take a stance then your only option is to take one before the next diplomacy phase. In your ongoing negotiations, if you promised, or were promised, something then you had better calculate the chances of being hoodwinked. As you might expect, honor and integrity play an active role.

For your second question: If you are inclined to accept an alliance from two major powers, at war with each other, then the stance you took by checking both off in the diplomatic reaction window is acted upon accordingly at the end of the diplomacy phase. Much like chess, you must work the possibilities out before you take such a stance.

Richard (another guy helping out Marshall)




OK, under the old rules, getting into an alliance and having to break it cost victory points - are there no victory point costs for this now? If there are, then I should have the option of accepting or rejecting alliance offers that I have not checked - something that costs no victory points under the old rules. If there is no victory point cost to breaking an alliance, then the alliance system is weakened.

As for my second scenario - I cannot be allied with them both. Is there an order to the alliance phase? If not, how is this conflict resolved, who gets me as their ally and who am I thrown into a war with against my will? Or worst of all, do I get no alliance and just end up at war with both?

This is a great idea to speed up minors diplomacy but in the area of the major powers one must be able to make decisions individually as the offers come in, not be required to preset them. Even with minors this is more complicated since as Spain I may not care if Britain declared war on Cyrenaica, but I do care about Turkey, while if either declares war on Morocco I will care. That is a lot of if-then scenarios to be covered by presets once you go through each minor you deem in your "sphere of influence", particularly for the nations of Britain, France, Austria and Russia.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 10
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/16/2006 4:20:51 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		OK, under the old rules, getting into an alliance and having to break it cost victory points - are there no victory point costs for this now?

You meant to say political points and yes the costs are still intact. Not checking the box is default for not accepting an alliance. To offer an alliance, the player chooses a major power and then clicks a command button during his/her diplomacy phase (the button is not part of the diplomatic reaction window).

As for my second scenario - I cannot be allied with them both.

There is no official rule preventing that particular scenario and historical references were not considered. Now, should war breakout with another major power and allies were called (in any combination), that scenario could become complicated (specifically in regards to combined movement which is govern by a deviation of that rule in EiANW) but I’m not going there. In the meantime those two allies are left to wonder which side of the fence you will eventually fall on because the action you took was either a devious one or not well thought out.

This is a great idea to speed up minors diplomacy but in the area of the major powers one must be able to make decisions individually as the offers come in, not be required to preset them.

You’ll need to think outside of the box on this one. You make a decision based on the constant negotiations with other major powers and then take a stance in support of it; otherwise, it would take days to email individual decisions x7.

Even with minors this is more complicated since as Spain I may not care if Britain declared war on Cyrenaica, but I do care about Turkey, while if either declares war on Morocco I will care. That is a lot of if-then scenarios to be covered by presets once you go through each minor you deem in your "sphere of influence", particularly for the nations of Britain, France, Austria and Russia.

As always, a well thought out plan is in order and you’ll have plenty of time to think on it.

Richard

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 11
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/27/2006 4:58:53 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		3 notes :

- First : Flanders, Liege, Luxemburg.  Why divide the first in 3?  No reason at this scale and at that time to divide the old Austrian low countries.  Worst, now the sum is worth 3PP, far more than the one PP of Holland.  With the last two, the French can already recover 2/3 of the political cost of a DOW on Austria with nearly no risk.

- Second, either Russia is alllied with nobody and so may allies with anyone cause no option is "grayed" or is allied with everybody cause he may grant access to everybody?   Because in the original game, access may only be given to allies.  So rather maybe, why change this?   Above this, it would be good to refine the access option.  For example, as Austria i would happily grant access to Spain in Italy to fight against the Turks but i don't want the same one invade Turkey from Transylvania, march to Saxony or garrison Mantua, Trieste or Vienna leaving no room for subsecent Austrian garrison.

- Third, would be good - specially for the French - to include the option to declare war on a major agressing a minor, who you gained control of.  If my memory is right, The point is that no call could follow.  For example, Austria move toward Baden in January; France do the same in the last impulse of the turn.  Austria declare war to it in Feb., France not.  France gain control of Baden in the minor country control step.  So now, France can DOW on Austria without any chance for Prussia (austrian ally) to join the war in the same month.
Maybe i'm rambling here cause it's the goal ofthe minor to support function but i don'T want this automatic...in fear of abuse.


(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 12
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/27/2006 6:28:20 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi

- First : Flanders, Liege, Luxemburg. Why divide the first in 3? No reason at this scale and at that time to divide the old Austrian low countries. Worst, now the sum is worth 3PP, far more than the one PP of Holland. With the last two, the French can already recover 2/3 of the political cost of a DOW on Austria with nearly no risk.


I’ll defer my opinion on it for now, if you don’t mind Titi, but will add that in EiANW, a DOW on another major power costs 4PPs (per EiH) not 3PPs (per EiA).

quote:


- Second, either Russia is alllied with nobody and so may allies with anyone cause no option is "grayed" or is allied with everybody cause he may grant access to everybody? Because in the original game, access may only be given to allies. So rather maybe, why change this? Above this, it would be good to refine the access option. For example, as Austria i would happily grant access to Spain in Italy to fight against the Turks but i don't want the same one invade Turkey from Transylvania, march to Saxony or garrison Mantua, Trieste or Vienna leaving no room for subsecent Austrian garrison.


In that example, Russia is not allied with anyone, nor do they wish to ally with anyone because they have not checked off any major powers that they would accept one from if asked. As for the “grant access” window, actually, that window is no longer valid because EiA 12.8 is now active. Hence, that window will eventually show only current allies.

quote:


- Third, would be good - specially for the French - to include the option to declare war on a major agressing a minor, who you gained control of. If my memory is right, The point is that no call could follow. For example, Austria move toward Baden in January; France do the same in the last impulse of the turn. Austria declare war to it in Feb., France not. France gain control of Baden in the minor country control step. So now, France can DOW on Austria without any chance for Prussia (austrian ally) to join the war in the same month.
Maybe i'm rambling here cause it's the goal ofthe minor to support function but i don'T want this automatic...in fear of abuse.


That is what the second window from the right (“minor to support”) is for and it is not automatic – you must take a specific stance (user input required). Using the example that you gave (a well known and used strategy btw); France would first check off Baden in the “accept control of” window. Next, France would check off Baden in the top half of the “minor to support” window and check off Austria in the bottom half (the “if aggressor is” window). At the end of the diplomacy phase, if France were selected to control Baden, the program would then react on France’s standing orders to declare war on Austria in support of Baden.

Richard

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 13
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/28/2006 4:47:04 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		First, thanks for the answer.  I really appreciate it.

Now, about Flanders.  You reply to half of the original question.  The other half is why start to divide this province in three.  Or more exactly, why only divide the "future" Belgium and not Holland then?  Politically, the second is worth as much as the first in real life if not more.   Sure probably some PP can be gained by military victories against the "orange" corps and fleet and equalize the finalist result in PP.
But often in games, minor forces finishs by not fighting.  A fix for that also?

By the way for PP for a DoW don't change much for France, Prussia or Austria when fighting in Low Countries, "Germany" or Italy... after all that's following history.  Harder for the French to see a gain in an expedition toward Egypt now.  Even harder for Russia, Turkey or Austria to fight in the East where there is no minor to conquer and gain PP.  Won't that kill any sideshow?

About access, great that the sreenshot was before 12.8 was implented.  Really like that optional rule that prevent  abuses.   Just hope that forcible access is also implented.
But what about access, is it a general access to everything or may it be defined?  Mayn it be restricted to defined province(s), area(s); only passage without garrison, without depot; only garrison of cities that aren't capital, port, fortress...

Now about support of attacked minors.  Don't you think that the system you described is open to abuse.  Even more now that the automatized lost is of a possible 4 PP?  Imagine that France with an army in Berg want to defend Baden against a possible Austria attack and (but with the evident idea in mind of an OR) Duchies against Prussian armies in Saxony? What if both DoW on the same turn?  the result would be an abuse with the help of the automated system that will send the french player at the door of instability while only costing one pp to the central powers.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 14
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/28/2006 7:04:25 AM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi
Now, about Flanders. You reply to half of the original question.


Defer opinion = Punt (i.e. no reply at this time is the reply)

quote:


The other half is why start to divide this province in three. Or more exactly, why only divide the "future" Belgium and not Holland then?


Well frankly Titi, I’d like to hear the answer to that question from the person(s) that created EiH. FYI, EiANW is a combination of EiA (larger part), EiH (v3.0 and v5.0) and a boatload of deviations (house rules).

quote:


Just hope that forcible access is also implented. But what about access, is it a general access to everything or may it be defined?


At the moment it is only general access (no defining access limitations allowed) and no forcible access.

quote:


Now about support of attacked minors. Don't you think that the system you described is open to abuse. Even more now that the automatized lost is of a possible 4 PP? Imagine that France with an army in Berg want to defend Baden against a possible Austria attack and (but with the evident idea in mind of an OR) Duchies against Prussian armies in Saxony? What if both DoW on the same turn?


Titi, you seem to be exercising the forethought necessary, so what would your stance be as France? Would your course of action be any different if what you had methodically considered actually came true? You’ll need to think outside of the FTF paradigm that you (we) all use as a foundation. Think PBEM.

Richard

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 15
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/28/2006 1:24:59 PM   
Ivan58


Posts: 11
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Titi, without knowing in detail the original EiA, it makes some sense. In 1815-1830 Belgium was on the verge of the industrial revolution, with coal mining, textile industry, iron forges, steel mills aso, with a difference between Flanders (rural), Liege (industrial) and Luxemburg (forest), while Holland was still more a rural country with a mercantile tradition, with fewer differences between its regions. Although I owuld have to see the EiA-map if this was really reflected on it.

_____________________________

Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of our Province.

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 16
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/28/2006 6:38:29 PM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline 		Titi, the EiA map includes some errors and all Marshall did was to add some more - so what ? Do you really expect him to have a look at a historical atlas ?

Ivan, you know that EiA reflects 1805 to 1815 ?

(in reply to Ivan58)
Post #: 17
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/29/2006 6:10:30 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		St-Cyr, i can't agree with that. I can see some reasons to add PPs at the north border of France. The problem is just that i see also some con, even a lot. And overall the later is above the former currently. Just hope that an "official" can switch the direction of the scale's arm.

The pro :
- It's for the last three centruries the main battlefield of French kings with "Italy" and "Germany", so it probably worth more than one PP for the french.
- It's also worth a lot more "politicaly" that other minors like sicily, sardaigna, cyrenaic,...

The con :
- The solution choosen to add PPs seems bad. Diviving something that form mainly (Liege being the exception until 179X) only one entity since the end of the middle age and without any interruption till today seams odd. Only following the French revolution, the region was "divided" between french and austrian (add some Prussian) control and troops, but never long enough to have any true political life.
- I disagree also Ivan with what you said. At that time, all the land west of the Meuse is rural and mixed with cities where middle-class is doing trade; east of the Sambre-Meuse, it's mostly forest with only some roots of a beginning of industry, of no weight (the SA John Cokerill was founded in 1842, the Fabrique Nationale de Herstal was founded only in 1889 only the textile industry saw a bid developpement in 1805-1815 to provide french uniforms). However, that is reflected in $ and MP in EiA (Flanders was the highest minor in that way), not in PP and also by areas with diffferent terrain and forages value that is also already present.
- If you really want to split the region following the old divisions of the middle age, you can't bypass Brabant. A lot more important that Luxemburg politically.
- By making change of that scale in the gameplay, you are needing to playtest a lot more than just the programming. That will take more time, more ressources and pushing even later the release date. That's also playing with fire cause you risk to remove the existing balance that made and still make the success of EiA. It's also like opening a pandora box : if you made change, why not made different PP value for each minor regarding each major : Egypt can value one PP for GB and three for Turkey, ... Also Egypt can provide 6 MP for Turkey, and only two for other majors, ...
- Finally you are missing the obvious : when Napoleon was defeated in 1815, but in EiA it may be sooner, the solution of the allies was to create the great Holland or Low-Countries including Flanders and Holland. Why not then a new political combinaison like the kingdom of Italy or of two siciles?



< Message edited by Titi -- 7/29/2006 6:47:19 AM >

(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 18
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/29/2006 6:46:14 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Well frankly Titi, I’d like to hear the answer to that question from the person(s) that created EiH. FYI, EiANW is a combination of EiA (larger part), EiH (v3.0 and v5.0) and a boatload of deviations (house rules).

At the moment it is only general access (no defining access limitations allowed) and no forcible access.

Titi, you seem to be exercising the forethought necessary, so what would your stance be as France? Would your course of action be any different if what you had methodically considered actually came true? You’ll need to think outside of the FTF paradigm that you (we) all use as a foundation. Think PBEM.

Richard



I'm beleiving Micheal Treasure (creator of EiH) is part of the developpement of this game? Have you lost him?

For the last two sentence, what i like in computer games is the ability to track and work every little detail that can made that virtual reality look real when worked with enough depth. What i hate is that every code is a fixed rule and a rule that can never be broken. So not worked enough you have a rule that work 90% of the time but give wrong result 10%. What you need then is a sub-routine/another rule that will do the same thing, but now the end result is 99%/1%. Even then this last 1% may be greatly abused by players and kill the joy of playing a game. So another sub-sub routine is needed and now the result is 99.9% correct.
EiA TT is that kind of result with rules numbered like 6.1.12. And even those rules need a lot of interpretation and agreement for loopholes. A computer won't have that kind of good sense.

Now you are telling me that i need to think that the rules are made to being abused when planning my turn as France and so must take a gambit not only for combat resolution but also for diplomaty. Strange behavior when betatesting. Won't it be more logic to add a line of code that stop this phase and send a request to the player when the rare even of more than one DOW in minor support is happening?

<Rambling warning> By removing depth in the game, you are removing the spice of the game and give me fear in the result. EiA is a long play game like WitP with 7 but not 2 players. Seing the number of WitP games aborted by arguments between players or abandon, i think that to see a game come near 1815, i rather play TT.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 19
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/29/2006 5:53:42 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi
Strange behavior when betatesting. Won't it be more logic to add a line of code that stop this phase and send a request to the player when the rare even of more than one DOW in minor support is happening?


Titi, its clear that you want to port the FTF experience into a programmed environment. For single player games against the A/I; the answer to your question is; yes but for PBEM games; unequivocally NO - and have the program do what, warn the player about something they were already thinking could happen but were afraid to take a stance on? Meanwhile the other 6 players are waiting for the 7th to get home from work in order to click “No” or “Yes”. If it were done that way, we’d all be in the geriatric ward before an 1806 turn was played and like most paper pushing PBEM games from the past, the game would probably dissolve out of boredom.

The task at hand was to streamline the PBEM process while maintaining the original intent of the rules. Given the finite number of possible player reactions, a new format was created that brought us from a post-action reaction to a pre-action reaction system (standing orders).

It works and there is nothing strange about it Titi.

Richard


(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 20
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/31/2006 9:49:44 PM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline 		St. Cyr, Titi - I believe that the Gottingen/Liege issue (along with Lausitz, which is just as annoying IMHO, not to mention that it's called Lusatia in English :)) come striaght from EIH.  So testing in the board game environment of those changes has been done.  Of course i still dislike them, but then I dislike a lot of the EIH changes.

On the interface I'm trying to be sure that I understand the way it works.  If I select a major power in the "If aggresor is" line, am I saying that I will support all the selected minors against all the selected powers?  As an example, Russia in 1805 might well want to support Denmark against Prussia, support Sweden against Britain, but feel that it's not worth getting into a war with Britain over Denmark.  Is it possible for Russia to support Sweden against GB, support Denmark against Prussia, but not support Denmark against GB? 

I don't think these sorts of situations arise all that often in the game, but if my interpretation of the interface is right, this isn't a question of having to think through diplomacy more carefully, but rather forcing a stark choice on my hypothetical Russian - He has three choices
-let Prussia have Denmark so as not to get in a war with GB over that issue
-let GB have Sweden so as not to get into a war over Denmark (and no, I don't think any sane Russian would do this :)), or
-risk getting into a war with GB to keep Prussia out of Denmark.

Makes for some tough decisions.  It's possible that this is a better way to set up diplomacy, but in some cases this dramatically reduces a players choice compared to the board game.


(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 21
RE: Diplomacy preview from the dev team! - 7/31/2006 11:44:51 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads
Is it possible for Russia to support Sweden against GB, support Denmark against Prussia, but not support Denmark against GB? 



Yes

quote:


Makes for some tough decisions.



It will definitely reward the thinker and you'll have plenty of time to plan it all out.

Richard


< Message edited by Monadman -- 7/31/2006 11:45:17 PM >

(in reply to Roads)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Diplomacy preview from the dev team! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.625