JastaV
Posts: 97
Joined: 9/20/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GShock JastaV and I are interested in playing a PBEM and we already also agreed on posting 2 full and separated AARs to document it. Since we're both ultra experienced with the AGE engine this looks to be a very promising WiA game....... I was wondering if there are any news about these reported issues. Some sort of timing would be nice so we can get organized on when to actually start this pbem. Before starting a PBEM over a very long scenario as the one you suggested, I recommend to discuss and possibly clarify some issues..... Siege routine optimization will be very welcome. Although it’s coming a bit late: I had so many played scenarios wasted by bugs and unpredictable problems, in past months Hopefully, clarifications regarding the Philadelphia bug I reported in past weeks will be useful too: here the “incident” was represented by winning troops retiring after the turn resolution rather than occupying the town. Notice, I recently experienced something like that in a NCP PBEM: here my opponent orders to assault a besieged and breached fortress with an active army were ignored in the turn execution phase and the assaulting army retreated without assaulting my fortress …… not an AI trouble, it was a PBEM match: it’s rather an engine problem. Recently, I had chance to start discussing with GShock over an abysmal “incident” wasting my plans in WIA! It’s curious I was the first and possibly only one to have experienced that. I was playing WIA “Few Acres of Snow”, I was controlling Ticonderoga and on the way to launch an offensive to the north to occupy Montreal. 1. I had a 7000 men British army supported by artillery, supply carriage, cavalry in Ticonderoga. At May weather is okay for military operation and I order my Army to march north! 2. I process the turn: I see my army slowly advancing north as days flow. Then, when the turn resolution is close to conclusion the Army is abruptly and unpredictably shifted back on its starting position in Ticonderoga!!!!!! No explanation in the after action turn report!!!!!! 3. June turn: same advance orders, same movement path planned, same effect!!!!???? 4. All that same with July turn!!!!!! 5. August turn: my army is always in Ticonderoga and I’m a bit, very enraged!!!! I order some irregular units (Indians, Rangers) to move north: they are ambushed by Franco-Canadian irregulars, some hundred men that were not visible on the map. My scouting party is defeated in the ambush and retires…. But know I’m aware of the presence of the enemy irregulars! 6. September: I move by separate stack the main 7000 men regular British army and the scouting party: these last men have reasons over French irregulars. The enemy un-scouted irregulars are wiped out and now my main Army can successfully advance north. 8. October: unfortunately winter is coming, I have to stop operations and move back my invasion army to Ticonderoga to seek cover from harsh weather. Now some hundred men, invisible on the map succeeded stopping a 7000 men army movement. We should admit its odd and stupid! I wasted a year game time for that reason, and my campaign scenario was wasted: it’s abysmal!!!! According to logic, historical, military and game logic, I can assume some 100 men could ambush my 7000 men regular army while marching north across the wilderness: I can assume to suffer some hundreds casualties in the ambush. I cannot assume 100 men will inhibit 7000 men movement for months. Notice, no actual ambush resulted out of many turns execution: my 7000 men army simply shifted back and the small enemy party was never revealed! Without using my irregular troops to screen and secure the area I’d never noticed the trouble! Yes, a can see some analogy with the supply unit transport by see from Halifax to continental coast. An invisible enemy unit was always behind the troubles! Comments and suggestions as regard, even to by pass the problems will be very welcome before starting a PBEM!
|