Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Feasibility of quicker combats

 
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 >> Tech Support >> Feasibility of quicker combats Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/13/2008 9:18:21 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		I want to probe the idea of making some combats slightly quicker. My thoughts here are that the battles only require intervention by a side if one of the following is true:

1) Committable guard are present on that side

This one is pretty obvious. As GB, I don't need to see the screen if France is attacking me with a force that includes some guard. But, France DOES need to have the choice.

2) Corps are available for reinforcement into this battle.

A check should be made with all neighboring areas to determine if there are any corps present that can conceivably reinforce into the battle at hand. Corps with a strategic rating of 1 that are in marsh, mountains, or forest can't ever succeed, and so do not need to be checked. Also, any corps that took part in or will take part in (this turn) a non-trivial combat cannot reinforce. By the way, the button should be greyed out if nothing is available.

3) At the point where one side (only) breaks, the battle must be viewed to see whether pursuit should be offered.

There are many times when pursuit is not available because there is no mathematical chance of killing anything with it. If ones highest possible percentage is, say, 10%, and you have 4 or fewer cavalry, there's no point in asking about pursuit.

Also, this should be an option under "standing orders" somewhere: Always pursue in land combats. If this were implemented, nobody would ever need to be asked.

4) At the end of three rounds, attacker should be asked if he wishes to continue a second day.

5) At the end of three rounds when the attacker has indicated continuance, the defender should be asked.

6) After "second day" request is turned down, pursuit can be asked.

Many times pursuit is unable to kill any factors in #6 with any die roll. In such cases, the pursuit question does not need to be asked.

If all of the above were dealt with, then I believe some partial phases of battle can be skipped for purposes of battle files. For example:

GB with three corps is attacking Austria with 4 corps. Both have a guard corps present. There is no cavalry superiority nor is there a cavalry leader present. No corps are available for reinforcement.

In this case, Austria must be prompted at the beginning of each round of combat, because he has guard commitment available. GB must be prompted at the beginning of the first round, but not otherwise until either side breaks or the end of three rounds occurs. This would save four trips for the battle files (the end of rounds 1 and 2, files being sent both ways).

What do you guys think?

Also, did I miss anything?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
Post #: 1
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/13/2008 10:55:10 PM   
Minedog

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline 		well I'd streamline it by making pursuit ALWAYS happen automatically.
The other streamlining of the current process would be to alternate the casualty taking such that the file exchange is minimised and the decisions per file are maximised.

the big rub for me is the inability to see the map when making reinforcement choices. The defender in particular has little idea where other battles are being fought.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 2
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/13/2008 11:14:05 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

ORIGINAL: Minedog

well I'd streamline it by making pursuit ALWAYS happen automatically.
The other streamlining of the current process would be to alternate the casualty taking such that the file exchange is minimised and the decisions per file are maximised.

the big rub for me is the inability to see the map when making reinforcement choices. The defender in particular has little idea where other battles are being fought.


I don't think pursuits should be automatic because some players do express a certain mercy by electing not to pursue.

BTW: You can see the map in 1.03 from the battle field. This was added.




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Minedog)
Post #: 3
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/13/2008 11:15:19 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		What about losses?

I also agree that Pursuit should ALWAYS be done, the only time I can't see wanting to do this is if the guy says before pursuit: "Ok, I will surrender, just don't pursue!"

(in reply to Minedog)
Post #: 4
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/13/2008 11:19:17 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

What about losses?

I also agree that Pursuit should ALWAYS be done, the only time I can't see wanting to do this is if the guy says before pursuit: "Ok, I will surrender, just don't pursue!"


You're right. You still must throw a file to the loser to select losses.

As far as electing to not pursue, Ive seen this too where the loser has negotiated his way out of a monstrous pursuit. Obviously, out of game BUT clearly this is done more than you might think which is why it needs to be optional.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 5
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 1:22:20 PM   
obsidiandrag


Posts: 181
Joined: 3/22/2008
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline 		I am affraid I take too much care in which corps loose factors...  I will try to maintain the integrity of a corp attached to a  leader as I may get to move next and have need of that unit (even if it is a minor like Egypt as it is a large corp with cav) so you may still have to ask after each round the losses (unless there are none then you can skip it).

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 6:27:43 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

What about losses?

I also agree that Pursuit should ALWAYS be done, the only time I can't see wanting to do this is if the guy says before pursuit: "Ok, I will surrender, just don't pursue!"

That used to happen quite a bit in FtF games, and certainly could happen in NW games, since an email gets passed back and forth. But, it's something I would be willing to give up for speed.

However, if one were willing to accept such a thing, one could just uncheck the box (or, whatever) to signify that one will wait for the prompt.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 7
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 6:29:18 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

What about losses?

I also agree that Pursuit should ALWAYS be done, the only time I can't see wanting to do this is if the guy says before pursuit: "Ok, I will surrender, just don't pursue!"

That used to happen quite a bit in FtF games, and certainly could happen in NW games, since an email gets passed back and forth. But, it's something I would be willing to give up for speed.

However, if one were willing to accept such a thing, one could just uncheck the box (or, whatever) to signify that one will wait for the prompt.


So, I'm still wondering how you propose to deal with taking losses?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 8
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 6:30:58 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

I am affraid I take too much care in which corps loose factors...  I will try to maintain the integrity of a corp attached to a  leader as I may get to move next and have need of that unit (even if it is a minor like Egypt as it is a large corp with cav) so you may still have to ask after each round the losses (unless there are none then you can skip it).

True, but there's no real reason why the "counting up losses" can't occur in the final round of a day's fighting (the 3rd round or when a side breaks). This was routine in the board game, because we needed to wait for the end to figure the proportional losses.

The game would have to track how many factors were lost and whether one was a cavalry. Also, it would need to note the maximum number of factors lost that could be militia. This is all before pursuit, though. Pursuit requires some intervention by the losing side, to choose the type of factors lost.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to obsidiandrag)
Post #: 9
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 6:32:55 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
So, I'm still wondering how you propose to deal with taking losses?


Sum them all up at the end (except guard factors lost to commitment). Recall proportional losses: All of the losses were tallied as we went along, but then they were made proportional at the end.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 10
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 7:16:12 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		I guess I feel like some people might want to change the losses taken depending on how the battle is going. Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for anything that speeds this game up, I'm just trying to think of scenarios that might be a problem.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 11
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/14/2008 8:04:51 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		I agree. However, it seems that IF the idea we're outlining here can work to speed things up, this might be a point most players are willing to give up on.

Actually, since they see the results at the end of combat under this new system, they can still do it any way they like. In fact, the game might even present it in terms of rounds. In other words, I would have to enter

G, C, I, and M lost during round 1, and
G, C, I, and M lost during round 2, and
... round 3

The end result would be the same, but all the mechanics would happen at the same time. Sure, there's a small amount of realism lost (not having to decide whether to kill off that cav until after the battle is over, for instance). I also could see how this could work to Turkey's advantage: He can take losses out of his cav corps after finding out whether he wins or loses.

But, overall, I think it would be something people would be willing to live with, IF it amounted to, say, 25% less time for battles. The idea isn't to save game time, though. It's to cut down on the number of emails going back and forth.

But, your statement has given me another idea: This can be done TODAY, if we use the "third party combat" stuff. I'm going to investigate this. I prefer the EIA combat method over any other system I've seen. However, if I can get a faster one done, using exactly the same rules as the game, that might be preferable. The other thing it would allow is doing multiple battles simultaneously (assuming both players agree). Let me chunk something out on this tonight or this weekend and add it to this discussion.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 12
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/15/2008 2:35:19 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		I personally think this would show little yields in the combat area. We're talking about a mod to a 25% section of combat time (Assumption that typical battle = 3 rounds +  Pursuit round some of the time). The fact that pursuit does not happen all of the time (One side eliminated or winner chooses not to pursue) means that we're streamlining even less than 25% of the combat time overall.

I don't think my time would be used wisely here, you think?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 13
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/15/2008 4:38:39 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		It depends on how easy it is to code. If it requires major or structural changes, then put it on the list for 2.0. But, if you can just "skip an email/battle file" at certain points (depending on whether input is needed from that player), you could see some improvements at little cost.

For example, if you put three things in place, plus a "skip" routine, it would save several emailings per battle, but only in certain battles. The changes would be possible if a side has:

1)  No commitable guard, and
2)  No reinforcing troops available

If both of those are false, then I don't need to see the battle progress until the end of the day (or, when one of us breaks).

I would think that checking for commitable guard would be very easy, since you do it already to add the buttons for guard commitment depending on whether the force has any or not.

The check for reinforcing troops would be harder, though. This would have to be done at the beginning of the battle. Obviously, if no corps are present next door, then there's no need to check. But, what if there ARE corps, but they can't possibly reinforce? This second "half" of this issue can be dropped if it's too difficult.

The key is that there has to be a list of things for each round of combat, plus at the beginning of the first round and the end of the last (or, when someone breaks). If ALL of the "computer should ask a question" check boxes are false, then that person doesn't need to see the results (at that time -- he still needs to see them at the end). This is why I outlined the above rather than just tossing out ideas. In order to skip a battle file sending email (and the return email), no possible reason can exist that that player might need to see the current battle situation.

Finally, something has to be done, if this is implemented, to allow for the taking of troops at the end of combat, rather than after each round. This is the show-stopper for this: If structural changes are needed, forget it. It's not worth it. However, this kind of functionality has other uses, so it might make it into 2.0.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 14
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/15/2008 5:02:55 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		I tend to agree with Jimmer that it is cost effective as long as it doesn't require some large overhaul; however, I only agree if the combat system is largely uneffected. This means that most would have to agree to always pursue OR you could give the option at the beginning when you pick your chit whether you would like to pursue or not OR something like that.

I can see this saving time. Combat does seem to slow down the game immensely.

Of course, you could just add IP/PBEM play, how cool would that be?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 15
RE: Feasibility of quicker combats - 8/15/2008 5:53:02 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		Your comments gave me an epiphany of sorts:

Can combats be simultaneous?

What I mean is that all of the combats happen at the same time, even though the specific chit choices, etc. are all done sequentially. Let me explain with a simple example:

In a typical land combat phase, France might attack 5 items on the board. Right now, France must go through the entire battle cycle for each of those combats separately.

How about if France pulled chits for all five? Then, the battle file goes to the other guy, and he pulls chits and does round 1 (as it is now), but for all five battles. Then, the battle file comes back to France, and he does round 1 and round 2 for all five battles. Etc.

NOTE: If France has battles with more than one opponent, this might not work as well, or might need re-working. So, in the case of France specifically, it may prove not so valuable. But most other powers actively fight only one enemy at a time. There's no game reason why they have to be sequential other than that trivial combat participants can reinforce (thus, those would have to go first, assuming this is correctly implemented in EIANW).

NOTE: This has nothing to do with the above ideas. It's completely independent of them.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Feasibility of quicker combats 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

1.093