BUg and Suggestions (a start)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

BUg and Suggestions (a start)

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 >> BUg and Suggestions (a start)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/13/2007 8:42:36 PM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

First of All congratz to the Matrix staff on what is overall a fine adapatation of the EiA rules. As a cardboard plunker vet I easily managed to feel at home. However there a a few caveats (as come have mentioned)

Bugs:
- A few typos here and there on screens
- It is possible to re-enforce a battle with the corps of an allied state that is not at war with your opponent (and incapable of DPOwing due to enforced peace); and doing so triggers no DoW/War. Under the original rules it was possible (provided the power was permitted - per limits of DoW) to immediately DoW onan enemy if the corps in the SAME area. Yet this still creates a Dow and in the same zone. In my scenario, I had the British attacking the french in the Danish/Hambug zones and constansly being able to re-enforce with Prussian troops (prussia had uncond surrendered to france a year before). Yeah this was major rules abuse but funny.
- The capture of the Napoleon leader does not force a surrender/roll for France. I wonder if the same holds for Alexander. There should be a major repercussion for this.
- some supply chains that should be valid are not (for example placing a depot in London and another in the channel zone (dover) is an error.
- cant seem to place garrisons in conquered minors without a corps present.

AI
- minor AI controlled free states should build up their forces and fleets over time. I attacked sweden in 1808 after 2+ years under active (FS) French control (as GB) and it still had its starting forces.
- more agressive AI in war fighting - It just seems to put forces into big stacks and stay still or fight wars with 1-2 corps runs at capitals.. Ney with 1 Corps Attcks Blucher and 8 Corps in Berlin) MEH!
- Get the AI to Garrison fleet ports, an AI france/Spain always gets its fleets nuked in port.
- balance of Power savoir faire.. Is it really good idea for Austria to go to DOW on Prussia when France is sitting with 150I, 20G and 20C in Munich?
- defend your interiors!! AI powers seem to allow rampaging corps though their country. France (AI) managed to surrender to Spain (AI) when spain took 1 corps and marhed it to Paris. LOL
- Minors are worth getting - AI just isnt very aggressive in getting them or even defending them.
- France AI: Dont be so paranoid about British troops, you dont need * corps watching the channel when RS, AS, SP are at war with you as well.
- Prussia AI: You aint Frederick. Get a Clue (but a bit historical though)
- Spain; You're allied to Engalnd, at war with france. Do you really need to keep 5 corps in cadiz ?
In general my AI beef is the AI really isnt very aggressive. It seems to be content to make half-hearted efforts, but in the end still win wars as the AI powers dont seem to respond to minor attacks. In one game As took constantiople with 1 corps which walked there unmolested while the Tu army stayed foraging in Moldovia (7 corps)
- Russia. This isnt 1812 scenario - Lose Alex as an offensive commander... with 1 corps into Georgia *snicker*

UI - info
- We need more info on the battles that occur on the map. If france and Austria just fought a huge stackfest I want the gory details... not just France wins in Area556.
- details on naval battles please. I cant seem to find them and have to click though fleets to see what was the damage.
- allow (players mod maybe) to name the areas. Area 50 and Area 51 etc are really useless (LOL)
- slower non-player momement (perhaps a click for next move). Right now it feels like an RTS
- Summary SCREENS at end of turns !!!!! Please GOD i hate the scroll box!!
-for DoWs and who controls (minors if any)- a big Pop up even for "France DoWs on Russia!!" I dont want to dig through 300 events to see this
-Surrenders /Royal marriages, influence chnages
- Naval battles
- land Battles /Seiges (one line sumamry - France under napoleon (70I, 10M, 16C, 12G) Beats Austria under Chuck (57I, 26 M, 12C, 7G) at Verona .. (Outflank vs Defend.. ) Losses... etc (or an optional summary pop up at end of each battle)
- New political Combinations
- Economic manipulation screen needs a bit more info

Tweaks:
- Put some sort of Tool tips into the game - especially where the PC version differentiATes from the board version (ie Outflank force detachment)
- a better way of determining fleet stacks.. I have 6 fleets in the channel - I want to stack 3 not all 6.
- the in game manual/leader info pages... yuck.. spice it up!!!
- A movement of 3 for transport fleets seems a bit low, maybe 4 is better. For example

Diplomacy tweaks
- Need some way to bribe/cajole other minors/Great powers to end a war or to join one.

General Questions:
How do light ships factor into battle damage results in mxed formations?
Under what "rules" (ala EiH) is nation compelled to try to sue for peace (no lame duck fight to the end stragetgy) ? Capital occupied?, Fiasco/Inst/ leaderloss) short of civil disorder.

Overall This is a fun game but the biggeSt issue I have is the rather morose bend over and take it AI.

Nappy

< Message edited by nappy -- 12/13/2007 8:45:49 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/13/2007 10:03:31 PM

Murat

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

Everything under UI I disagree with (for the 3d topic line on the same thing). Even in FtF the only way you knew what happened in a battle was if one of the participants told you what forces were there and who lost what. It's called Fog of War. This is NOT a beer and pretzels game, it is HARD. It is meant to be HARD. You must make an effort to play it. If you do not feel like scrolling through the events that is your option but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.' I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should. If people are having trouble finding where the information is provided for them, I will be happy to tell them. If they want information provided that is never provided under the rules, I will oppose that forever.

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 2

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/13/2007 10:13:03 PM

dauphan129

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

- cant seem to place garrisons in conquered minors without a corps present.

I don't have my .pdf of the boardgame rules with me atm so I maybe remembering wrong but:
I do believe this is not a bug. My group played you could just put your Militia/Infantry Reinforcement factors in conq minors garrisons for awhile (few years) then on a re-reading of the rules discovered they had to be detached and could not just show up there on their own. You can use a Depot to get them there if you plan ahead. I will not give anymore hint than that though as it is a tactic

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 3

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/13/2007 11:30:19 PM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Everything under UI I disagree with (for the 3d topic line on the same thing).� Even in FtF the only way you knew what happened in a battle was if one of the participants told you what forces were there and who lost what. It's called Fog of War. This is NOT a beer and pretzels game, it is HARD. It is meant to be HARD. You must make an effort to play it. If you do not feel like scrolling through the events that is your option but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.' I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should. If people are having trouble finding where the information is provided for them, I will be happy to tell them. If they want information provided that is never provided under the rules, I will oppose that forever.

Please spare us the carebears vs hardcore eThug sanctimony about how hardcore you feel we should all be.

We are al hear to make thsi game we love better not to prove how iron man "old skool" you can be. This isnt about Fog or War or laziness it is about presentation; this is plainly what is in the rules; battles were open for all to see thus we should be able to see the results of major battles !! If you want fog of war; i'll take another period idea-dispatches- diplomats didnt beed to find who was currently at war with who by looking at page 556-B of dispatch 664f4 in the archives. I just want that in game - somewhere. Secondly I am not asking for handholding; but if we are to be deluged with "France started diplmacy, France ended diplomacy Austria farted.. Turkey yawned..") I better get either filter or some kin dof reasonable summary. Even Nappy didnt go though each corps memo in details to find out from Murat what his army strenght was. This isnt about making the game easier or harder, a hard game is difficult. Tedium and lack of info is not difficulty. I dont see anything in my list that in anyway makes the game easier just more sane in imformation presentation.

1) battles - the info per battle isnt shown now period. We need this. It is in the board game.
2) some sort of slow down in movement - In RL players didnt move like hyper gerbils and you could digest what was moving where without a slideshow.
3) Area names. These regions had real names not Area 530. There is no reason for this.
4) Diplomacy summary - heads of state get dispatches and sumamries. It wouldnt be bad if did not have to wade though 100 debug notes.

Naps

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 4

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/13/2007 11:30:59 PM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dauphan129

quote:

- cant seem to place garrisons in conquered minors without a corps present.

I don't have my .pdf of the boardgame rules with me atm so I maybe remembering wrong but:
I do believe this is not a bug. My group played you could just put your Militia/Infantry Reinforcement factors in conq minors garrisons for awhile (few years) then on a re-reading of the rules discovered they had to be detached and could not just show up there on their own. You can use a Depot to get them there if you plan ahead. I will not give anymore hint than that though as it is a tactic

Yes we did the same thing. I wondered about that.

Naps

(in reply to dauphan129)

Post #: 5

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 12:09:19 AM

chuckj118

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: SC, USA
Status: offline

�I agree with Nappy.� When playing the board game all players got to partake of the battles...Seeing the Turk player pull Escalated Assault against Russia's Cordon and then blowing them away was part of the fun!� Seeing Napoleon roll that 6 + 1 to defeat the Coalition at Stuttgart was also part of the fun...

I would even�have gone so far in the design to actually show the dice rolling/bouncine around�during battles...there's nothing like thrill of victory or pain of defeat during such times.�

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 6

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 12:34:15 AM

Murat

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

Actually the rules only require that your OPPONENT see what corps you have and only you and your OPPONENT would know battle results.

quote:

The corps and fleet counters when face-up on the map only show their general type and movement allowance. Which corps each counter represents is shown on the back of the counter and may be examined by only the owning player, except when its identity must be revealed to other players (e.g., during a combat-see 7.5.2.6.3).

quote:

7.5.2.6 STEP SIX-REVEAL FORCES/MORALE LEVELS: Both players reveal their forces and determine their final morale levels.

Commuications were far from perfect in this period and results were frequently misreported with each claiming to have caused greater casualties than they really did. If you want a report that is inaccurate (some randomized level of inflated losses) and untimely (say a month or after the battle has happened) then fine. Otherwise feel free to try to get the info from the 2 people that fought the battle.

Nappy, you called yourself a care bear, not me.

(in reply to chuckj118)

Post #: 7

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 12:51:44 AM

lavisj

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline

Murat, So when you play face to face and there is a battle, the two players isolate themselves from the rest of the group in order to resolve it? When we played we always had the battle for all to see. It is a great part of what make the game fun.

Now, why not make the interface customizable like it is in Europa Universalis? Where players can decide between different level of showing information depending on what they are interested in?

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 8

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 2:32:55 AM

Monadman

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

I like the way EiANW handles FoW. The actual strength of your opponent is known only by you during battle (and visa versa), yet everyone else can only see, where the battle was fought (I hear you nappy about the area numbers), what chits were picked, the casualties that were taken, and who won (although the method of reporting is still crude). What is missing is an assessment of what the overall army strengths were in battle (it does not need to be spot on either).

If the rest of the players want to know the exact force composition and strengths, let them try to use some diplomacy to coax it out of their ally, who just sacrificed factors (and possibly political points) for that privilege.

Have a little fun trying it a different way.

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to lavisj)

Post #: 9

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 3:28:51 AM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

I think there may need to be a happy medium reached. After all half the fun here is to see the full sweep of napoleonic warfare noy just one's own little plot. Perhaps if SOME more infomation was made available like Location Name (/poke), number of corps, chits and leaders. After all you couldnt keep this info hidden and it would bring some sanity to trying to keep track of all that is happening. Anything would be better than France Beats Austria in Area056.. film at 11.

Naps

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 10

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 4:57:33 AM

Monadman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: nappy

I think there may need to be�a happy medium reached. After all half the fun here is to see the full sweep of napoleonic warfare noy just one's own little plot. Perhaps if SOME more infomation was made available like Location Name (/poke), number of corps, chits and leaders. After all you couldnt keep this info hidden and it would bring some sanity to trying to keep track of all that is happening. Anything would be better than France Beats Austria in Area056.. film at 11.

Naps

Well, the program does report location and chits but it could do a better job by reporting leaders and estimated strengths for both sides.

Here is a clip from the Status Panel showing how EiANW currently reports the results of a battle for all players to see (and yes, it should descending not ascending):

1805, Jan Prussia Loses 2 PP(s)
1805, Jan France Gains 2 PP(s)
1805, Jan France Wins Battle Of Magdeburg
1805, Jan Fr Napoleon PPs Bonus +1pp to France
1805, Jan Prussia Breaks, France Wins!
1805, Jan Prussia Pursuit losses: , 3 Guards, 3 Infantry, 2 Cavalry
1805, Jan France Pursuit: Class:2 Die:5 Mod:1 Net:6 Perc Loss:30
1805, Jan Prussia Casualties , 11 Infantry, 1 Cavalry
1805, Jan France Casualties , 2 Infantry
1805, Jan R3: Prussia Die 2, Perc 5, Mrl 0.60
1805, Jan R3: France Die 7, Perc 15, Mrl 2.60
1805, Jan Prussia Casualties , 12 Infantry
1805, Jan France Casualties , 4 Infantry
1805, Jan R2: Prussia Die 3, Perc 10, Mrl 1.30
1805, Jan R2: France Die 4, Perc 15, Mrl 1.60
1805, Jan Prussia Casualties , 9 Infantry
1805, Jan France Casualties , 5 Infantry
1805, Jan R1: Prussia Die 4, Perc 10, Mrl 0.80
1805, Jan R1: France Die 4, Perc 10, Mrl 0.80
1805, Jan Day 1 CHITS France:Assault Prussia:Counter Attack
1805, Jan BATTLE:Magdeburg Attacker:France Defender:Prussia

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 11

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 5:37:59 AM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

Wow I never see this detail for third party battles - only my own; or at least have noticed it.��All I see is usually�1 line in third party battles with the A beats B in C formula which needs a bit more.

Naps�

< Message edited by nappy -- 12/14/2007 6:14:37 AM >

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 12

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 1:34:25 PM

Monadman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: nappy

Wow I never see this detail for third party battles - only my own; or at least have noticed it.��All I see is usually�1 line in third party battles with the A beats B in C formula which needs a bit more.

Naps�

Your point is valid and should be addressed. What you are requesting is more information about AI v AI battles. Currently, the more detailed information given is for human v human and human v AI battles. More AI improvements pending.

Thanks

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 13

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 1:45:19 PM

fvianello

Posts: 534
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Everything under UI I disagree with (for the 3d topic line on the same thing).� Even in FtF the only way you knew what happened in a battle was if one of the participants told you what forces were there and who lost what. It's called Fog of War. This is NOT a beer and pretzels game, it is HARD. It is meant to be HARD. You must make an effort to play it. If you do not feel like scrolling through the events that is your option but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.' I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should. If people are having trouble finding where the information is provided for them, I will be happy to tell them. If they want information provided that is never provided under the rules, I will oppose that forever.

Anyway, I agree with Murat.
The spirit of the original game was: no information whatsoever to players not involved in the battle. if you want them, try to gather intelligence from allies, spies or whatever; then scribble on a piece of paper "French II corps, 10i".

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 14

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 3:38:27 PM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

If some folks want to play iron man that is fine. But the issue remains is there is currently NO WAY to simulate "scribble on piece of paper" or "request for intelligence" with AIs in the game. Short of adding an entire AI feature - just adding say the toggleable option of open battles should be more workable. ALthough "scribbles" can work with multiplayer as players can send emails. In my opinion, also isnt about being ultra finicky about the exact intent of the rules (it can be read many ways), but rather how to make the game more engagingand informative, as Monadman agreed. Every group with which I hav ever played with had the battle info open. I think it was probably the rare group that was that secretive about battles.

Naps

(in reply to fvianello)

Post #: 15

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 4:19:44 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

I see no reason why there cannot be an option to suit both sides. Simply have an information filter allowing for differing levels of disclosure. That way everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit.

Customization is a MAJOR factor in wargames, at least to me it is. A lack of customization can make a potentially great game mediocre to bad. Full customization can make a mediocre game good to great... its all about pleasing the consumer, the more you please the more you sell.

Personally I support the Nappy side of the argument, I want to immerse myself in the game in its entirety not just a small slice of it and I see no reason why the programmers could not have made that choice available to those that wish to use it.

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 16

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 4:22:33 PM

Micke II

Posts: 218
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Paris France
Status: offline

I completly agree with Nappy. The same issue concerning lack of information or improvement of the screens for the existing information has also been adressed in another thread with the same arguments.

See: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1645850

What I am expecting from this game is
1/ historicity:
when somebody is saying than "only the 2 players must know the results of a battle" it's ridiculous. Spys, diplomats, observers, common people talking to each others, travellers was able between 1805 and 1815 to dispatch with accuracy news concerning big european events such as a big battle. You have just to read some historical books and documents to learn that.
2/playability and fun:
I cannot agree when I read: "to find information you have to dig it out and must make an effort to find it"
It's a game and a hobby, it's not a job. If its appears I have to work hard to play this game I would change immediately for something more friendly.
I have bought this game because I loved the Avallon initial boardgame. I see this computer simulation as an help to play without having to think too much about the mecanic and the rules as it was was the paper edition but to concentrate more on the strategy.
All tools which can help the player to tke the right decisions will be fine.

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 17

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 5:18:42 PM

La Provence

Posts: 153
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Toulouse (FRANCE)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Micke II
1/ historicity:
when somebody is saying than "only the 2 players must know the results of a battle" it's ridiculous. Spys, diplomats, observers, common people talking to each others, travellers was able between 1805 and 1815 to dispatch with accuracy news concerning big european events such as a big battle. You have just to read some historical books and documents to learn that.

Totally agree !
It's a Grand strategic game so, with a one month turn, every important information can travel easier across Europe !

(in reply to Micke II)

Post #: 18

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 7:40:01 PM

Murat

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

As I pointed out before the information was very inaccurate. Even today we can only guess at how many troops were in the Grand Army of 1812. Casualties were often inflated for the opponent and downplayed for your side. If you want historical then you should get inaccurate reports and they should come a month or 2 after the battle. As for #2 if you cannot find the information, READ THE MANUAL (most of these questions are arising about things that are spelled out in the manual, not missing things), if you cannot find the information after that, ask here. People go out of their way to teach people this game because it is such a great one. After playing for a while and understanding it I think you will be leaning more to the 'iron' view than to the one you currently hold. If everyone knew everyone else's info then this game would degrade to fancy Diplomacy.

(in reply to La Provence)

Post #: 19

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 8:08:48 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.'

I agree with this 100% if you're going to be a lazy gamer you don't deserve any options or fixes to the fact. I also whole heartedly agree with Murat. Down with Nappy and his ideas plz. ;)

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 12/14/2007 8:15:50 PM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 20

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 8:17:10 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

As I pointed out before the information was very inaccurate. Even today we can only guess at how many troops were in the Grand Army of 1812. Casualties were often inflated for the opponent and downplayed for your side. If you want historical then you should get inaccurate reports and they should come a month or 2 after the battle. As for #2 if you cannot find the information, READ THE MANUAL (most of these questions are arising about things that are spelled out in the manual, not missing things), if you cannot find the information after that, ask here. People go out of their way to teach people this game because it is such a great one. After playing for a while and understanding it I think you will be leaning more to the 'iron' view than to the one you currently hold. If everyone knew everyone else's info then this game would degrade to fancy Diplomacy.

As has been pointed out by Nappy not everyone wants to have the same FOW that you like. It's called personal preference. You like the way it is now, nappy doesn't, neither do I. I probably will not purchase the game until a patch is made that makes the information flow more accessable and more complete. There is no reason that the game cannot offer a choice as to how much information is presented to the gamer. Then EVERYONE is happy.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 21

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 9:34:39 PM

nappy

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.'

I agree with this 100% if you're going to be a lazy gamer you don't deserve any options or fixes to the fact. I also whole heartedly agree with Murat. Down with Nappy and his ideas plz. ;)

I dont undertsand how this is about being a lazy gamer? Monadman mentioned that the AI vs AI and thrid party info should be present,and that area names may be added. This is the type of info that doesnt need a psychic hotline - things that will be pretty much common knowledge like Leaders, chits, detailed location, number of corps and possibly casualties. I will agree Historically that there was FOW but this is a game, that has a lot of ahistorical elements in it anyways. If you want historicity then I am certain the local spies, reporters/press, and political/military allies could get you better than A beats B somewhere cryptic. For example: what about " Turkey and Russia fight a big battle in the Shipka Pass between a Kutusov and Khushantz Ali; with the Russians Smashing the into the Turkish defensive cordon with high casualties". I would like to know that. Right now you cant tell if it is trivial, a skirmish, a depot fight, or a whopping bloody big epic battke. "Russia beats Turkey in Area146" just doesnt have the content or the charm of my previous description now does it. .

Also as other have mentioned naval battles need to show up as info - somewhere - even some of my own dont seem to have info (exp blockade breakouts). in EiA ship/fleet battles were very public. Ships, shipbuilding are very open activities and usually the roster of ships for most nations is mutually well known; even if the exact force compositions are not.

Naps

PS down with Ravinhood and his downisms

!!

< Message edited by nappy -- 12/14/2007 10:04:59 PM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 22

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 9:41:02 PM

DodgyDave

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline

heh, i agree, i also would like to see how battles between others went, its afterall how i remember playing the game as well, boardgame that is :)

game needs options, so the 7 players in the same game, can decide how they want to play it.

ohh and just to ensure its said, i would like advanced fleet rules, i prefer it with the chits option, its much more fun.

(in reply to nappy)

Post #: 23

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 10:19:01 PM

dauphan129

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline

Well, I again find myself in the middle of the road. Frankly the AI doesn't seem to be able to beat me and as such I got bored with it and want to play against real people. I am still playing solo games but mostly just to Run Tactics and get better at the interface.

All bragging aside

, in a PBEM with real folks as Nappy said we can Email our Allies and say "Hey Prussia, Austria here. I saw Nappy hand you your ass over there in Flanders. I was going to jump that stack, how many factors are in it and what did he pick?" Then hope for accurate info. So here is the middle ground I propose (and far down the line) Make a button in diplomacy that allows you to request battle reports from last month from allies.

Just an idea.

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 24

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 11:07:06 PM

JavaJoe

Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dauphan129

Well, I again find myself in the middle of the road. Frankly the AI doesn't seem to be able to beat me and as such I got bored with it and want to play against real people. I am still playing solo games but mostly just to Run Tactics and get better at the interface.

All bragging aside , in a PBEM with real folks as Nappy said we can Email our Allies and say "Hey Prussia, Austria here. I saw Nappy hand you your ass over there in Flanders. I was going to jump that stack, how many factors are in it and what did he pick?" Then hope for accurate info. So here is the middle ground I propose (and far down the line) Make a button in diplomacy that allows you to request battle reports from last month from allies.

Just an idea.

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual

I find that less information about things makes me want to find out more through the people in the game. The system does give you information. Who won and an idea of the size of the battle. Even if Napoleon was involved! Details can be asked for...although the system doesn't record the battle and losses.

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to dauphan129)

Post #: 25

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/14/2007 11:58:13 PM

DodgyDave

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline

i dont see much fun in that, pbem is going to be rather slow, so would prefer to see the battles, to keep the interest up! if we had kept it a secret when we had regular battles around the table, i doubt many would have played it.

so if they can add the battle info, so all can see it, then just leave it as an option, so a group can decide if they want this or not. No reason to just turn it down, because you dont want it, we dont all agree afterall :)

(in reply to JavaJoe)

Post #: 26

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/15/2007 12:19:35 AM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual

But part of the fun (at least for me and most of my friends) have allways been to look at - for instance - France vs. AU&PR battles. To restrict that information (or at least not to have an option to make it available) would be to reduce Spain/ Turkey/ Russia to long periods of complete boredom.

You might want an option to deny that information, but at least give me an option to make that information relatively easily available to me.

(in reply to JavaJoe)

Post #: 27

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/15/2007 12:51:27 AM

Murat

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre
As has been pointed out by Nappy not everyone wants to have the same FOW that you like. It's called personal preference.

I am in favor of it being an option but not a replacement.

As for specific information about a PBEM battle, trust me there is plenty of time to ask your ally what happened and if they are poor notetakers you can get the inaccurate results I was talking about "I dunno he hit me with like 100 units on an outflank and trashed me for like 40I and 6 C."

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 28

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/15/2007 5:47:24 AM

Khornish

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

I pick the withdraw chit on this whole thing.

I'd like to have options, as a player. Let me and my opponent(s) choose which options to use or not use.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 29

RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) - 12/15/2007 8:12:01 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

I'd just like to point out that even the participants aren't getting full disclosure. I'm BR and Nelson just got attacked and lost at sea and all I know is this: