Slitherine

quote:


 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

quote:


 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Im bit courious what does the FOW affect in PBM-games ?

IF no AIs involved ?

If  fow doesnt show battlelosses, how do we justify it showing forage looses ?

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

quote:


 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

This CAN be thought of as a problem. OR, it can be thought of as an opportunity.

I can't remember if it worked this way in the boardgame or not. But, this can be an opportunity.

From a realism perspective, it kind of depends on whether the major is simply controlling (making the moves for) the minor, or are they, in fact, taking it over completely (for the length of the war)? Since the "influenced" and "allied" minors become the property of the major that has the counter on them at the start of any war against that major, it seems as though the other way should work as well.

quote:

I sadly lost my rules to the last campaign I played something like 15 years ago, but my recollection was that until war lapsed, the controlling MP was basically just providing someone to move the minor. It goes along with the controlling MP not having to be at war with the MP attacking the minor. Also note you usually couldn't have more than one MP at war on the same minor without them declaring war on each other (or being at war with the controlling MP).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

zaquex; simplest reading of the rules leads us to control of a minor being absolute, and on lapse of war the controlling power retains that country as a freestate (or conquered minor if a minor without corps).