Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question from Marshall

 
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 >> Question from Marshall Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question from Marshall - 5/18/2003 6:40:51 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

I have a question about the December levy step???
I'm specifically coding for placement of Cossacks and Feudal units as we speak and want to know this:

Would it matter if the feudals could be regened and teleported during the December reinforcement phase? Also the Cossacks (not regened but just placed of course)?

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post #: 1
Answer - 5/18/2003 8:56:59 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Well, it is good to see that the little "gray cells" are working. ;)

[Ideas should never be discouraged.]

These units, be they cossacks or fuedals started somewhere and then they travelled to get to anywhere. Some cossacks came from the furthest reaches of Russia. They all suffered losses along the way. Men and horses got sick. Some men deserted. Some men even died along the way. Just think of the non-combat incidents during the recent Iraq War and you'll get the idea that things can and do happen.

NO unit should EVER be teleported under ANY circumstance. From what I could tell, no unit ever did back then. ;) All units should have the same basic rules under which they operate.

Otherwise if one unit teleports, then ALL should teleport. When that happens, please don't forget to change the game's name.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 2
- 5/18/2003 9:03:23 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		You mean that the corps "stand down" and "stand up" during reinforcement?

One immediate impact -- the corps would then (presumably) be able to move during that same month. One detriment to having the process take place during movement was that the corps had no remaining movement points.

Having said that, it makes more sense for the reinforcement phase to be the phase during which the corps enter or leave the map. If an infantry factor is "reinforced" into a new corps, then that corps can move in the same month. I don't see an imbalancing result.

Not having the corps present at the start of a land movement phase may somehow prejudice the Turk (if, for example, during the naval phase there is an issue as to control of a port and the Turkish feudal corps is already gone at reinforcement -- then there would be a differing result).

I think one could go on ad nauseum. It makes sense to me at least to have it occur during reinforcement.

As for the "December Levy" -- it would then follow that any Turkish feudal corps that are removed during the December reinforcement phase are then returned to full strength.

As for cossacks, they would then be added during a reinforcement phase -- but would it only be on the month after an economic phase? What about if an enemy corps entered Russia in the middle of an economic quarter -- would there be an option to reinforce additional cossacks in the month thereafter or (as per the rules) waiting until the end of the econ. phase before making that deterimination.

My vote would be to have them come in once every three months -- even if during the reinforcement phase (which does make sense).

As for guerillas -- that still has to be handled separately imo -- especially due to the ability to conduct anti-guerilla operations.

Cheers.

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
Re: Answer - 5/18/2003 10:49:58 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]Well, it is good to see that the little "gray cells" are working. ;)

[Ideas should never be discouraged.]

These units, be they cossacks or fuedals started somewhere and then they travelled to get to anywhere. Some cossacks came from the furthest reaches of Russia. They all suffered losses along the way. Men and horses got sick. Some men deserted. Some men even died along the way. Just think of the non-combat incidents during the recent Iraq War and you'll get the idea that things can and do happen.

NO unit should EVER be teleported under ANY circumstance. From what I could tell, no unit ever did back then. ;) All units should have the same basic rules under which they operate.

Otherwise if one unit teleports, then ALL should teleport. When that happens, please don't forget to change the game's name. [/B][/QUOTE]

Le Tondu is only correct if unit strength is static.
If a feudal corps actually represents constant levy and dispatch
to a specific location, then he is incorrect. In game terms that
merely 'SEEMS' like teleportation, in reality it would be
dispatch of extant troops to a new marshalling area.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
I meant stand-down / stand up LOL - 5/18/2003 11:11:18 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		LE Tondu / Chiteng:

I'm sorry for the terminology issue but YES I'm talking of the ability of the Turkish feudal units to stand down and then pop up during the December levy step back in their home province ... which in a couple of games I've seen humorously refered to as "teleportation" which if you think about it is about as close as you'll get to teleportation in the 19th century.

Sorry for the technology/terminology reference!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 5
- 5/19/2003 8:31:48 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		I've always felt that a unit should "pop up" wherever it is raised or created and then march to it's destination. For in the act of their creation, units will appear to do that.

As for one who doesn't know for sure, I have a few questions.

Will the Turkish fuedal units have enough travelling time for them to get back to their home province from wherever they " stood down" in order for them to "pop up" again? Could they theoretically be more than a turn away and then suddenly "pop up" back home in one turn? We wouldn't want that if they could.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
- 5/19/2003 8:35:37 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]I've always felt that a unit should "pop up" wherever it is raised or created and then march to it's destination. For in the act of their creation, units will appear to do that.

As for one who doesn't know for sure, I have a few questions.

Will the Turkish fuedal units have enough travelling time for them to get back to their home province from wherever they " stood down" in order for them to "pop up" again? Could they theoretically be more than a turn away and then suddenly "pop up" back home in one turn? We wouldn't want that if they could. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, that assumes the feudal units represent static formations.
I prefer the game as it is written. Which allows 'effective' teleportation. Its tough playing the Turks. Try it!

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
Feudal Troops - 5/19/2003 12:45:16 PM   
mars

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline 		The EIA rules allow for the teleportation however the corp are removed at the start of the december step and not Levied till the end of the turn.
I would suggest that you simply remove during reinforcement and add on the next reinforcement step.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
Re: Question from Marshall - 5/19/2003 3:09:18 PM   
Wynter

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Would it matter if the feudals could be regened and teleported during the December reinforcement phase?[/B][/QUOTE]

For the Turk it would matter a LOT, I can tell you.
A Turkish player is always low on cash, thus forcing him to bring on his feudals during december reinforcement, to bring them to full strength, will bring him to the brick of bankruptcy because he will have to pay for maintenance for those corps during december economy. In EiA the Levy Step is after the money and manpower expenditure step, so bringing the feudals back to full strength will have no impact on the Turkish weak economy.
In my opinion it is extremely important for game balance that the Levy Step is not moved to the reinforcement step.

On 'teleportation' of the Feudal corps. Again, I believe that this should be kept as it is in the rules. The Turkish Feudal provinces have to provide each year a certain amount of troops. It is the Turkish player's decision to form those troops into the corresponding feudal corps, and thus disbanding the previous feudal corps.

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 9
- 5/19/2003 4:26:18 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		If I'm not mistaken a feudal corps that is off map during levy step is brought to full strength, even if not placed back on map during the levy step.
Regarding the "teleport" thingy, it is actually raising of fresh peasants in the home province, while disbanding the ones that are on campaign somewhere else, not teleporting the same troop back.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
Levy step of land phase - 5/19/2003 6:46:00 PM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		It is important to note that feudal corps are NEVER placed during the reinforcment step in the EiA rule book. Changing that would be big.

Chaning the part of the turn in which Feudal corps (FC) are levied can have a major impact on the game. Other than the increased supply cost for the Tu as mentioned before there are other problems. If an unbesieged enemy corps is in a Turiksh Home nation provience then the FC for that proveince can't be raised. If the enemy corps is there in at the beginning of the Dec turn the the FC could be levied. Normaly Turkey would have a chance to drive out the the enemy before the Dec levy step and be able to levy the FC. The converse is also a possiblity if an invader wishes to prevent the levying of FC then he would have to he in the provience in Nov instead of Dec. There are other problem I just mentioned these two.

Also FC are "stood up" in the land phase. If this too is moved to the reinforcment phase it changes the game. France and Ru have the oppertunity to move before Turkey in the land phase. Both could move into Turkish territory before the Turk could stand up his FC. I have done this in a game and it works really well.

I hope this makes sense.

DON'T CHANGE THE RULES TO CUT CORNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
- 5/19/2003 7:38:57 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		*Cautiously steps out into the crowded, noisy room of protesters*

I'm not here to advocate wholesale reform of the game.

But it does seem to make sense that feudal corps (like any other corps) should come on and go off during reinforcement.

I don't think Marshall is suggesting cutting corners.

Unwavering devotion to the rules is fine. There are times, however, when it doesn't hurt to open the mind. Regardless of whatever tactics we developed to use the game flow to our advantage, we can always change those in light of the change in placement.

As to Jeroen's point, however, that is material and impacts economy.

How about shifting the Levy process to the January reinforcement step instead of December. Basically, in January of any given year, you can "stand up" any feudal corps that was off the map as of December (which means you can demobilize in the December phase).

The restrictions on doing so (corps in capital, etc.) can remain for purposes of bringing a feudal back on the map...

*Jumps back to the cover of the swelling masses*

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 12
On a slightly different tack, yet..... - 5/19/2003 8:46:16 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoche
[B]...................DON'T CHANGE THE RULES TO CUT CORNERS!!!!!!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think that is what Matrix is after.


To all:
One thing that I do know is that there are some differences between the classic EiA and EiH. (The map for one thing.) Also, (I believe) that EiH is an enhancement of the original and not necessarily just changes.

;) ( Hmmm, on second thought, it would be REAL nice if the game could be made so England would never win. ) ;)

Enhancements are what I believe Matrix is after.

Yet, are both the classic EiA and EiH perfect as they are? Can they stand some improvements?

In principle, I would have to say nothing is perfect and improvements should never be discouraged.

How long has it been since EiA and EiH last arrived on the scene in thier last incarnation? I dare say that religiously fundamental fans of either might be sorely disappointed if they expect them to remain the same when Matrix's labor of love arrives.
:eek:

Isn't all this waiting exciting? I think it is.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
Stick to the rules - 5/20/2003 6:35:11 AM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		I am working on the understanding that there will be a classic version of EiA in the comp game.

One problem with moving the levying of FC to the Jan reinforcment step is that A LOT can happen between the Dec levy step and the Jan reinforcement step. A nation can be at war with Turkey during the Dec levy step and could prevent the levying of FC for the whole calender year. It then make peace in Jan before the Jan reinforcement step. The converse could also take place. The classic version needs to stick to the rules as close a possible. Coding the levy step will not take that much longer and Martix can do it.

Also standing up FC is different form levying. Standing up FC takes place during the land phase. Matrix better not change that either (see my previous post for reasons).

It is not about having an open mind. The rules are pretty clear on this issue. If Matrix wishes to change this in the "Enhanced Version" then that's fine with me. But the "Classic Version" (which experiend EiA players are really looking forward to) needs to STICK TO THE RULES !!!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 14
- 5/20/2003 8:29:08 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Ok, so maybe it's not about having an open mind, but at least it's about LIMITING THE USE OF CAPITALS TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT!!!!

Yes. a lot can happen from December Levy to January reinforcement.

I'm sure a lot can happen between the Declaration of War step and the Minor Country Control Step, or between the Land Reinforcement Step and the Naval Movement step.

Your point is?????

The game loses balance if it gets changed?

Austrians only like December peace, so moving it to January makes it tougher on peace-loving Austrians?

Hosing the Turk in January as opposed to December will (of course) change matters. But to what end that is so troubling?

Are you reading what you are writing?

So the levy step gets changed by a month.

So I guess that flexible players the world over will simply change their play by a month in order to compensate.

I'm sure I'm missing something, so I'm sorry that your emphatic messages are losing me.

I'm further certain that Matrix will consider my suggestion about as much as they consider the impact of your rant. So you need not worry. :)

Reknoy

p.s. I thought Hoche was dead?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 15
- 5/20/2003 8:46:57 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]Ok, so maybe it's not about having an open mind, but at least it's about LIMITING THE USE OF CAPITALS TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT!!!!

Yes. a lot can happen from December Levy to January reinforcement.

I'm sure a lot can happen between the Declaration of War step and the Minor Country Control Step, or between the Land Reinforcement Step and the Naval Movement step.

Your point is?????

The game loses balance if it gets changed?

Austrians only like December peace, so moving it to January makes it tougher on peace-loving Austrians?

Hosing the Turk in January as opposed to December will (of course) change matters. But to what end that is so troubling?

Are you reading what you are writing?

So the levy step gets changed by a month.

So I guess that flexible players the world over will simply change their play by a month in order to compensate.

I'm sure I'm missing something, so I'm sorry that your emphatic messages are losing me.

I'm further certain that Matrix will consider my suggestion about as much as they consider the impact of your rant. So you need not worry. :)

Reknoy

p.s. I thought Hoche was dead? [/B][/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you have an unstated reason for wanting to see change. I am sure all of us have things that we would like to see. I am EQUALLY sure that you would not like some of the ideas
I would propose. So what is wrong with a perfect template FIRST?
and then expand upon it?

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 16
- 5/20/2003 9:19:23 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		In the immortal words of Sergeant Hulka,

"Lighten up, Francis." :)

Just answering the man's question, my friend (points to topic)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 17
- 5/20/2003 8:24:53 PM   
mmurray821

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 3/12/2003
Status: offline 		Maybe we could see some varients. Options you could choose before a game, ie "Classic EiA", "Enchanced rules", "Advanced Rules". Things like that. Covers all bases for people wanting the original and people who want to try new things with the game.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
I thought it was obvious - 5/20/2003 11:55:23 PM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		Changing the FC corps placement and levy rules won't change the fudemental theorm of EiA. But it is an important change. To those of us who want the classic game to remain untouched it is an uacceptable change. Also if enough "small' changes are made then the game will be signifigantly different.

Some changes I think are OK. Ellis mentioned using patrol orders for fleet interecptions. This is not in the original rules but it doesn't change the rule on interceptions. It just alters the procedure for deciding when to intercept. It may not work but it seems reasonable enough to give it a try.

As for my use of all caps, I use them to get peoples attention and it got your attention Reknoy.

So, IT WORKED!!! 8^)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 19
- 5/21/2003 12:48:26 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		Well as for interception...I always found the EiA rules on Naval Interception very difficult to follow.
But possibly that was just me.
The Air Force Academy rules were much more fun. But I didnt really like the hulk rules.

Just a comment.


I do know that it an 1805 French Super Corp gets to
England, its over.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
Re: I thought it was obvious - 5/21/2003 12:56:30 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoche
[B]Changing the FC corps placement and levy rules won't change the fudemental theorm of EiA. But it is an important change. To those of us who want the classic game to remain untouched it is an uacceptable change. Also if enough "small' changes are made then the game will be signifigantly different.

Some changes I think are OK. Ellis mentioned using patrol orders for fleet interecptions. This is not in the original rules but it doesn't change the rule on interceptions. It just alters the procedure for deciding when to intercept. It may not work but it seems reasonable enough to give it a try.

As for my use of all caps, I use them to get peoples attention and it got your attention Reknoy.

So, IT WORKED!!! 8^) [/B][/QUOTE]

Just like running an EiA PBM game, some rules had to be modified because the lack of face to face that the EiA rules contained couldn't be worked without a turn taking forever.(naval intereception is a good example among others).

So I am sure that there will have to be some changes to accomodate the new format/genre. The changes will come. But as long these changes are minor and "true" to EiA, and they do not disrupt the game dynamics, balance and playability, then they will be OK.

Isn't that why they have playtesters?:D

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 21
- 5/22/2003 4:32:39 AM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline 		Marshall, perhaps you should make these all $5 decisions. Basically are we willing to pay an extra $5 to ensure that Feudal placement and levy work exactly as in the board game. I'd say no to that one, but yes on the Cossacks.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 22
You bet - 5/22/2003 7:43:54 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Road's
[B]..... Basically are we willing to pay an extra $5 to ensure that Feudal placement and levy work exactly as in the board game.?......[/B][/QUOTE]

You bet I would. Heck, I 'd wait even longer and pay more if it meant that the game was improved/ enhanced and made into something that blows folks away.
:)

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 23
- 5/22/2003 7:45:27 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		And one of those things that I'd wait for is what Hoche has brought up in another thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38876

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Question from Marshall 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

0.892