Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - again

 
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 >> Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - again Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - again - 12/17/2007 3:14:12 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline 		Information needs to be more visable, especially things like war declarations, peace, blockade battles etc but also things like capacity on fleets etc would be handy.

There should be a distinction between cavalry and inf corps symbols.

Cavalry leaders should be given appropriate symbol

Turkish Ottoman empire dont get its bonuses

Seems imposible to create a multi province free state (sweden, denmark, neaples)

AI needs a whole deal of work, this is a full chapter on its own and imo it cant be solved by simple do and dont rules.

TCP/IP multiplaying badly wanted

Fleets needs to be able to move jointly (this is partially solved for land movement by lending corps its a simple solution but not really satisfactionary - there is already mechanisms in place for letting GB and France change there move so it shouldnt be impossible to solve it as in the actual game - tricky part is probably lifting out the combat stepp and resolve that jointly)

Some code issues mostly regarding land combat creating error messages, seems more common when Turkey is involved

Why is the neutral garrisons different - noticed neaples and some of the ottomans have place holder for militia while other ottomans dont.

Adding replacements/reinforcements seems inconsistent - i feel like its a different procedure every other time and i have still not worked out the logic, also is it meant that its not possible to add garrisons from replacements directly to conquered/ceded territories under your control unless you already have a garrison there?

This might not be in accordance with the rules of the boardgame but i suggest that your allowed to transfer factors between depots and corps during land phase (as it is now you move them from your corp to garrison and from garrison to depot or the other way around - its just tidious and also disadvantages areas that have no city wich can be very annoying, especially for the turk who only have 3 corps that can hold inf)

Russian first 3 corps should be allowed to have cavalry one of the russian controled provinces that can produce turkish feudals should give a cav corp (think its crimea)

A patch note thread would be nice, so its easy to see whats issues are already fixed/worked on, this will hopefully stop at least some of the threads re-reporting errors already looked in to.
Post #: 1
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 4:01:21 AM   
chuckj118

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: SC, USA
Status: offline 		I agree that you should be able to manipulate "factors" between Corps and between garrison's, depots, and Corps during your movement phase.  We did that as a matter of course when doing "our" turn playing the board game.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 2
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 4:01:48 AM   
nappy

 

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

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Russian first 3 corps should be allowed to have cavalry one of the russian controled provinces that can produce turkish feudals should give a cav corp (think its crimea)



I was just taking a peek at the Russian set up earlier and I noticed this as well. RS I, II, III should be 18/2, 14/1,14/1 under the original printed rules; unless Marshall is using some EiH or 1792 variant values.

Naps

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 3
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 4:06:28 AM   
nappy

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

I agree that you should be able to manipulate "factors" between Corps and between garrison's, depots, and Corps during your movement phase.  We did that as a matter of course when doing "our" turn playing the board game.


You CAN detach to city during movement but not between corps. I think the original rules actually had this limit too; thats why there is post combat consolidation and re-inforcement step. Most players didnt think of it was it was just swapping numbers between two corps. Otherwise you'd get people emptying corps and having all sort of UI and accounting issues. I think its fine; it makes you think ahead which commanders need to.

Naps

(in reply to chuckj118)
Post #: 4
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 4:16:47 AM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline 		not sure this is right. you can have a case where a factor canstart in one place and end up halfway across the map because it's been dropped and picked up so many times.

manipulating factors on deppts and garrisons between corps can be done in the movement phase, you just have to make sure your clicking on the right thing.

todd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nalamin

I agree that you should be able to manipulate "factors" between Corps and between garrison's, depots, and Corps during your movement phase. We did that as a matter of course when doing "our" turn playing the board game.


(in reply to chuckj118)
Post #: 5
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 4:31:04 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline 		It can be done using a garrison as a go between, and just therefore you could aswell make it easier an lose that step all together and make the game less tedious and more enjoyable.

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 6
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 5:54:04 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Most of our setups came from EiH3.0



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 7
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 7:10:54 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		Another issue: When moving, one frequently cannot see the forage values of the terrains one is crossing, because there are factors, depots, and/or corps present, covering it up. But, this can be really important.

I recommend one of three possible changes:

1)  Add a line to the information displayed when one clicks on an area, to show the forage value for that area. This is good, but means that one has to manually trace the route between where one is and where one is going, before actually moving.
2)  Add a "clean map" view option. This would mean temporarily turning off all of the information except the map itself and (possibly) the selected corps or leader.
3)  Add an option such that the path between two places that the computer will pick shows up semi-transparently over the top of that path. Maybe a colored arrow winds its way down the path. At each place it crosses, bring the forage value of that space to the foreground (possibly transparently). This would also help against when the computer picks the worst possible path for foraging, so one could manually set out the steps.

In this last case, a move choice might be more appropriate. Add a button to the list of actions which a phasing corps can perform "Show forage values for path". Then, the user selects that choice, and instead of moving the corps, clicking on a space shows the path and forage values. Alternately, have a "bring forage values to foreground" button that would temporarily cause the forage numbers to be "on top". This one (if used) should automatically turn off when the phasing corps actually does some action.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/17/2007 7:29:12 PM   
Monadman


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

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Another issue: When moving, one frequently cannot see the forage values of the terrains one is crossing, because there are factors, depots, and/or corps present, covering it up. But, this can be really important.

I recommend one of three possible changes:

1)  Add a line to the information displayed when one clicks on an area, to show the forage value for that area. This is good, but means that one has to manually trace the route between where one is and where one is going, before actually moving.
2)  Add a "clean map" view option. This would mean temporarily turning off all of the information except the map itself and (possibly) the selected corps or leader.
3)  Add an option such that the path between two places that the computer will pick shows up semi-transparently over the top of that path. Maybe a colored arrow winds its way down the path. At each place it crosses, bring the forage value of that space to the foreground (possibly transparently). This would also help against when the computer picks the worst possible path for foraging, so one could manually set out the steps.

In this last case, a move choice might be more appropriate. Add a button to the list of actions which a phasing corps can perform "Show forage values for path". Then, the user selects that choice, and instead of moving the corps, clicking on a space shows the path and forage values. Alternately, have a "bring forage values to foreground" button that would temporarily cause the forage numbers to be "on top". This one (if used) should automatically turn off when the phasing corps actually does some action.



Try right clicking the brown section of the Selected Area Info box (section 3.1.7).

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 9
RE: Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - a... - 12/18/2007 6:27:10 PM   
chuckj118

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: SC, USA
Status: offline 		Your probably right Thresh. When my group of friends played though we would have called someone on "messing" with the rules like that. If playing with people you don't know or trust as much I suppose this could be a problem.

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Some issues and improvement suggestions summary - again 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

1.016