RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging?

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 >> RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:02:26 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Jimmer, I think we are having a communication breakdown, so to speak.

Yes, I didn't tell it what to do (for a good reason: I wanted it to pay by normal supply!!)

This is how it SHOULD work, which is what I'm advocating here, that it be fixed to work the way I suggested.

Why do you need the option to auto-forage/forage twice???? That is redundant, adds needless code and is needlessly complex.

Why you can't see this is actually really blowing my mind.

I CAN see it. You're just wrong. Answer the question. I'll not reply again until you do.

_____________________________

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 #: 31

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:15:33 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Jimmer, I think we are having a communication breakdown, so to speak.

Yes, I didn't tell it what to do (for a good reason: I wanted it to pay by normal supply!!)

This is how it SHOULD work, which is what I'm advocating here, that it be fixed to work the way I suggested.

Why do you need the option to auto-forage/forage twice???? That is redundant, adds needless code and is needlessly complex.

Why you can't see this is actually really blowing my mind.

I CAN see it. You're just wrong. Answer the question. I'll not reply again until you do.

What question?

"what does the computer do if the corps is out of supply?", is that the question because I've already answered that one TWICE in this thread.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 32

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:22:55 PM

NeverMan

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

Ok, let me know what I don't cover here, done for each corps:

States A, B, C, D, E

A: start state (A is always true if the land phase is entered)
B: player either auto-forages corps manually or forages corps manaully (true if the player does, false if not)
C: end of phase normal supply (true if corps is in supply and paid for, false otherwise)
D: end of phase forage (true if corps is foraged due to lack of money or valid supply chain)
E: end state

If A then B
If B then E
If not B then C
If C then E
If not C then D
If D then E

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 8/27/2009 9:24:01 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 33

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:26:12 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
NO, mine doesn't ignore it, try reading my posts please... I've already said above that if the computer is paying for normal supply and a corps is out of range/supply then the computer should forage that unit. Why should the computer try to forage a unit BEFORE it checks to see if it can be paid for by normal supply????? THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!

Exactly how should said units be foraged? Using movement points? Or, not? And, which corps should get paid for, and which should forage (unless the player has $0 at the time this is checked, in which case all forage -- provided it is in the model).

Your model says don't forage anything, until you run out of money. But, the question still remains, "Use movement, or not?" Marshall simply chose to have his model deal with that last question first.

If done in the other order, players would be faced with a huge amount of randomness in choosing which of their corps forage when. And, they would lose a lot more troops if the auto-forage option isn't available.

How about an example: France is attacking with 6 corps. He has $6 to spend, and there is a depot 2 spaces from the attack site. The army consists of his guard, artillery, I cavalry, and I - III corps. Guard, and I corps each have 3 movement points remaining. Artillery has 2MP available. I Cav has 4 MP available. II and III have none. The attack is into an enemy's 5 forage area.

France has failed to manually deal with this whole stack, so the game must decide what to do.

Your model pays for 3 corps at random. The rest forage. We do not know whether movement points will be used or not, because your model doesn't address that. But, since this whole exchange is about avoiding using auto-forage with movement, I will assume that the other three all forage without using their movement points.

Congratulations! You just lost between zero and 9 factors from randomly-chosen corps that you didn't need to lose:

Marshall's model says guard, I cav, and I corps will auto-forage. The remaining 3 corps will be paid for. No corps will forage. And, because of the foraging having occurred, any siege attempt must wait until next turn.

Now, I grant that this example is contrived to put your model in a bad light. However, if you object, come up with a situation where Marshall's model loses more factors than your model (using the same die rolls for each corps in both models, and assuming no movement will be used for foraging).

Marshall made the right choice. But, there was an unforeseen situation: One can be prevented from besieging a city after a field combat, unless one is very careful (and, in rare circumstances, even if one IS careful). This problem needs to be solved, IMO. But, not by changing the model, since it's the best one ("best" = spends the least money and loses the least # of factors).

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 8/27/2009 9:56:52 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 34

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:32:41 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
NO, mine doesn't ignore it, try reading my posts please... I've already said above that if the computer is paying for normal supply and a corps is out of range/supply then the computer should forage that unit. Why should the computer try to forage a unit BEFORE it checks to see if it can be paid for by normal supply????? THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!

Exactly how should said units be foraged? Using movement points? Or, not? And, which corps should get paid for, and which should forage (unless the player has $0 at the time this is checked, in which case all forage -- provided it is in the model).

Your model says don't forage anything, until you run out of money. But, the question still remains, "Use movement, or not?" Marshall simply chose to have his model deal with that last question first.

No, Marshall chose to put end of phase auto-foraging BEFORE normal supply. This is what I've been arguing should be flip-flopped. No movement points should be used, since that option has already been offered to the player DURING his/her land phase.

While we are at it why not make 100000000 popup boxes for EACH option each user has, maybe that will make things VERY simple? LOL.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 8/27/2009 9:34:43 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 35

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:35:08 PM

NeverMan

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

Marshall's current implementation assumes that I want to do something (auto-forage) that I've already declined to do myself!! WHY???

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 36

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 9:58:23 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Marshall's current implementation assumes that I want to do something (auto-forage) that I've already declined to do myself!! WHY???

Your model assumes that I want to do something (forage) that I've already declined to do myself!! WHY???

_____________________________

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 #: 37

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/27/2009 10:44:03 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Marshall's current implementation assumes that I want to do something (auto-forage) that I've already declined to do myself!! WHY???

Your model assumes that I want to do something (forage) that I've already declined to do myself!! WHY???

No, it doesn't, not sure what you are talking about here... It only forages when it's the only choice left, the corps HAS to do something, it doesn't assume you want to forage at all... in fact, quite the opposite, it assumes you want to pay with normal supply and then only forages when you can't do that, not the other way around (as you suggest and per the current implementation).

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 38

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/29/2009 4:57:48 PM

NeverMan

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

Marshall,

What's your take?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 39

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/30/2009 10:54:48 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Marshall's take in post #15 above was clear and should be fine.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 40

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 12:11:44 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Marshall's take in post #15 above was clear and should be fine.

1. I didn't realize you spoke for Marshall/Matrix, though it would make sense if you actually were employed by this company.

2. Since post #15 much has come to light. There isn't a need to add clunky "checkboxes" to solve this problem, obviously.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 41

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 12:52:16 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

Since post #15 much has come to light. There isn't a need to add clunky "checkboxes" to solve this problem, obviously.

Really? Jimmer's brought quite a bit to light but you're blind to it. It's six to one and half a dozen to another whether the system assumes foraging by default and the player explicitly checkboxes a unit to NOT forage and pay for normal supply, OR vice versa. Either which way, for players to have explicit control to not pay for supply or to pay for supply for individual units, as Marshall suggested, some type of order/checkbox or something needs to be implemented. It's not a simple binary choice, therefore player intervention is needed, clunky or no.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 42

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 2:39:52 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Since post #15 much has come to light. There isn't a need to add clunky "checkboxes" to solve this problem, obviously.

Really? Jimmer's brought quite a bit to light but you're blind to it. It's six to one and half a dozen to another whether the system assumes foraging by default and the player explicitly checkboxes a unit to NOT forage and pay for normal supply, OR vice versa. Either which way, for players to have explicit control to not pay for supply or to pay for supply for individual units, as Marshall suggested, some type of order/checkbox or something needs to be implemented. It's not a simple binary choice, therefore player intervention is needed, clunky or no.

You arguing with me? LOL, geez, didn't see that coming.

Anyways, hopefully Marshall has the chance to read this thread and figure out that he doesn't need more clunky buttons making the already horrible UI even worse.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 43

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 7:38:17 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
No, it doesn't, not sure what you are talking about here... It only forages when it's the only choice left, the corps HAS to do something, it doesn't assume you want to forage at all... in fact, quite the opposite, it assumes you want to pay with normal supply and then only forages when you can't do that, not the other way around (as you suggest and per the current implementation).

But, it DOES do it.

I deliberately mis-quoted your statement here for effect: The two models BOTH have the problem you are trying to get rid of. You are just removing the auto-forage piece rather than both forage pieces. Marshall's model correctly includes it. I say "correctly" because your model would be vastly more expensive than his (as I showed in an earlier example).

_____________________________

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 #: 44

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 8:06:20 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
No, it doesn't, not sure what you are talking about here... It only forages when it's the only choice left, the corps HAS to do something, it doesn't assume you want to forage at all... in fact, quite the opposite, it assumes you want to pay with normal supply and then only forages when you can't do that, not the other way around (as you suggest and per the current implementation).

But, it DOES do it.

I deliberately mis-quoted your statement here for effect: The two models BOTH have the problem you are trying to get rid of. You are just removing the auto-forage piece rather than both forage pieces. Marshall's model correctly includes it. I say "correctly" because your model would be vastly more expensive than his (as I showed in an earlier example).

Again, this is not correct. Models don't generally become "vastly less expensive" by adding more states. In fact, they generally become "vastly more expensive" by adding more states, so Marshall's model is not less expensive, it's actually more expensive (because of the redundancy involved in his/your model). I'm assuming we are talking about yours and his "new" model (not the current model since that is broken).

Let's make this simple: show me a state model.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 8/31/2009 8:07:28 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 45

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 8:52:57 PM

Jimmer

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

Game expenses, not programming expenses.

_____________________________

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 #: 46

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 9:13:54 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Game expenses, not programming expenses.

Ah... ok, so I confess that I'm unclear how you are measuring game expenses?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 47

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 10:22:08 PM

Jimmer

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

Pounds, like everybody else. :)

When you remove the auto-forage step, you force the player to pay for (some) corps which could have foraged safely via auto-forage. This results in costs no lower than Marshall's model, and many times far higher.

Go back to your god in this: Original EiA. What happened at the end of a turn? People would figure out which corps could forage safely, and which corps could not. Then, they would make a financial/strength decision as to whether the cost savings by not foraging outweighed the risk of foraging.

THEN, on the next guy's turn (frequently), aplayer would say "Oh, I forgot to forage that corps", and promptly pay another buck or two or else forage the corps. Note that it was HIS choice. What your model would force, if applied to the board game, would be to force the player to pay for supply, no matter how stupid that might have been during the turn, simply because he didn't notice it while moving.

Marshall's model does it EXACTLY the way it was done in the board game: Cut the player a little slack (let corps forage, if they can do so safely). But, there's a problem: the computer can't be as free/loose with the rules; at the end of a turn, the computer MUST decide what to do. Marshall's decision was simple and obvious (and correct, IMO): Corps that can forage safely SHOULD forage safely.

What he missed was that some corps would now forage even though the player really would like to have payed for supply. In the board game, it was obvious where the attacks were, so the corps in the attacking stack would all get paid for. But, Marshall apparently didn't code to notice this, and applied the same process as he did with all of the other corps on the map. THIS is the problem that needs fixing. The main model MUST stay like it is, because it is exactly correct (i.e. mirrors what a human would do if presented with a choice). Only the end-case needs fixing.

_____________________________

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 #: 48

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 10:47:22 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

What he missed was that some corps would now forage even though the player really would like to have payed for supply. In the board game, it was obvious where the attacks were, so the corps in the attacking stack would all get paid for. But, Marshall apparently didn't code to notice this, and applied the same process as he did with all of the other corps on the map. THIS is the problem that needs fixing. The main model MUST stay like it is, because it is exactly correct (i.e. mirrors what a human would do if presented with a choice). Only the end-case needs fixing.

Jimmer is spot on. This is all Marshall needs to fix here.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 49

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 11:21:47 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Pounds, like everybody else. :)

When you remove the auto-forage step, you force the player to pay for (some) corps which could have foraged safely via auto-forage. This results in costs no lower than Marshall's model, and many times far higher.

Again, this is just wrong. "you force the player to pay"... this is just plain WRONG.

It's not "forced" since the player has already had the option to auto-forage that unit!

How can something be "forced" if the player has already had the option to do it??? Your model, while needlessly complex, does allow the player to be lazy.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 50

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 8/31/2009 11:23:36 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Marshall's model does it EXACTLY the way it was done in the board game.

Again, this is WRONG.

Marshall's current model FORCES the player to auto-forage EVEN if you want to pay for supply.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 51

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 8:51:44 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Marshall's model does it EXACTLY the way it was done in the board game.

Again, this is WRONG.

Marshall's current model FORCES the player to auto-forage EVEN if you want to pay for supply.

I dont experience this, though havent done any testing, but this turn in one of my pbm-games(1.06.03).
I moved attacked 3 areas, 1 i myself foraged, the other 2 where eligble for supply and did not forage, giving me the option to siege after winning the land battle vs 1 Corps who withdrew. No autoforage happend for any of my corps, since i did not use the autoforage all key.
The area where i laid siege after battle, one of my corps was able to "autoforage" if it wanted by using all its moves, but it did not.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 9/1/2009 8:54:47 AM >

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 52

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 4:59:33 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Marshall's model does it EXACTLY the way it was done in the board game.

Again, this is WRONG.

Marshall's current model FORCES the player to auto-forage EVEN if you want to pay for supply.

I dont experience this, though havent done any testing, but this turn in one of my pbm-games(1.06.03).
I moved attacked 3 areas, 1 i myself foraged, the other 2 where eligble for supply and did not forage, giving me the option to siege after winning the land battle vs 1 Corps who withdrew. No autoforage happend for any of my corps, since i did not use the autoforage all key.
The area where i laid siege after battle, one of my corps was able to "autoforage" if it wanted by using all its moves, but it did not.

Regards
Bresh

If this is in fact true then there is simply inconsistency in Marshall's algorithm, which is in itself a big problem.

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 53

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 6:54:58 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
It's not "forced" since the player has already had the option to auto-forage that unit!

I've already refuted this. This is the last time:

He ALSO had the opportunity to forage (non-auto). Why do you keep insisting that your arbitrary standard be applied to ONLY one of the two side-by-side buttons?

_____________________________

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 #: 54

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 7:04:36 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
I dont experience this, though havent done any testing, but this turn in one of my pbm-games(1.06.03).
I moved attacked 3 areas, 1 i myself foraged, the other 2 where eligble for supply and did not forage, giving me the option to siege after winning the land battle vs 1 Corps who withdrew. No autoforage happend for any of my corps, since i did not use the autoforage all key.
The area where i laid siege after battle, one of my corps was able to "autoforage" if it wanted by using all its moves, but it did not.

This is a different situation (I think). If you move into the besieging "box" in an area, then the game knows you cannot be allowed to forage using movement.

What Neverman ran into was similar, but there was a battle first. As a result of having the battle, he could not invoke the game's automatic rejection of foraging with movement, because he wasn't in the besiege "box".

_____________________________

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 bresh)

Post #: 55

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 7:05:50 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
If this is in fact true then there is simply inconsistency in Marshall's algorithm, which is in itself a big problem.

I would certainly agree with this, if correct. However, see my other post in response to Bresh's post: I suspect his scenario did not include both a battle and a siege like yours did.

_____________________________

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 #: 56

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 7:09:15 PM

Jimmer

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

Which brings up a second point: It is a lot more likely that one will not see this if one is playing a nation other than France. Most nations tend to use up most of their movement just getting to combat, so an auto-forage (with movement) cannot occur "safely"; there isn't enough movement left! So, the game doesn't do it. But, it CAN occur to other powers; it's just not as likely.

Neverman ran into this playing Austria, but note that it was his Light Infantry corps which caused the problem. The LI corps has movement 5, making it a lot more likely to have enough movement left to "safely" autoforage.

_____________________________

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 Jimmer)

Post #: 57

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 9:32:28 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
If this is in fact true then there is simply inconsistency in Marshall's algorithm, which is in itself a big problem.

I would certainly agree with this, if correct. However, see my other post in response to Bresh's post: I suspect his scenario did not include both a battle and a siege like yours did.

Yes, I think you are correct about Bresh's post, this makes sense.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 58

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 9:36:02 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Which brings up a second point: It is a lot more likely that one will not see this if one is playing a nation other than France. Most nations tend to use up most of their movement just getting to combat, so an auto-forage (with movement) cannot occur "safely"; there isn't enough movement left! So, the game doesn't do it. But, it CAN occur to other powers; it's just not as likely.

Neverman ran into this playing Austria, but note that it was his Light Infantry corps which caused the problem. The LI corps has movement 5, making it a lot more likely to have enough movement left to "safely" autoforage.

I did, however, it became a problem for ALL my forces at that spot (which was actually a large force). The big problem is that it really did effect my strategy (since I had to waste a turn sitting there to re-siege).. (though it didn't since France surrendered anyways).

At this point I don't really care if the UI gets worse as long as it gets fixed, it is a problem IMO.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 59

RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging? - 9/1/2009 10:22:29 PM

Jimmer

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

Say Marshall: This interchange with Neverman has given me another, simpler idea: When auto-foraging (ANY time, not just end of turn), check for battle areas where the non-phasing player has an enemy in the city. If that condition exists, abort the auto-forage and/or ask the player what to do. I would lean towards asking the player, because it's likely that he can't undo his move, and is stuck in this situation Neverman got into without recourse. So, the sequence would go:

1) Auto-forage initiated (end of turn or by button -- both methods should do this, similarly to how manual forages are executed).
2) Check all corps locations for a battle instance.
3) In the results of #2, check to see if any corps of the phasing player in that area are auto-forage candidates with positive movement remaining.
4) In the results of #3, check the city (if any) in that area for an enemy of the phasing player (does not have to be the same enemy as the force outside the city). These are the only areas which could result in the problem Neverman ran into: Areas which have both a battle coming up and a potential siege combat after battle.
5) If 4) above finds such a situation, pause the auto-forage and ask the user specifically what to do with each corps in that stack. A table would be appropriate here.
6) Allow options to forage with movement, forage without movement, draw supply (the table should show what the cost will be), or abort the auto-forage.
7) Gather up the information, but do not execute the forage/supply choice at this time. The player may find a battle later in the process which presses him to respond with "abort".
8) Repeat steps 2-7 as needed for all battle/siege areas.
9) Execute "orders".

This should be relatively easy to code, as it doesn't require changing any sigificant game element. It just adds a few steps to the auto-forage process.

NOTES:
Steps 2-4 can be iterated through prior to steps 5-7 being executed, if you are willing to maintain the results gathered in steps 2-4.

Table should have lines for each corps, plus columns showing

1- Movement points remaining.
2- The forage value of the area (and a note as to how many corps are present; if only the attacker, foraging could change).
3- The known quantities in the city (if a corps, just note "a corps", but garrison strengths should be listed).
4- Cost to supply this corps.

Other columns should allow the user to

A- Forage with movement.
B- Forage without movement.
C- Draw supply at cost listed.
D- Abort the whole auto-forage process.

At the bottom, the total cost of supply for all corps present should be noted. Also, there should be an indicator of current cash available.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 9/1/2009 10:24:47 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: Cav/LightInf auto-foraging?