Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

dodod -> Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/19/2008 7:33:51 PM)

Just wanted to start a thread for suggestions. Marshall and others can take it or leave it as they wish. I did want to include things I think would either be vital or very enhancing.

1. Obviously, AI--always a work in progress
2. political point change for loaning corp country with battles
3. troop strength of battles not witnessed by the defending country for the defending country.
4. turkish corp cost issue
5. ABSOLUTELY VITAL, more security features to prevent cheating as already noted on forum. In truth, all it takes is one guy to cheat to make it horrible for everyone else. This is the most vital...even more than AI!
6. Smaller/other kingdoms (Italy, bavaria, etc), particularly in the south, for the benefit of spain austria and turkey especially
7. At least the take down of dominance of france.

Less significant requests:
1. Option for leaders of kingdoms
2. Naval combat options with chits (this may reduce cheating)
3. Papacy occupancy political point penalty option



Tater -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/19/2008 8:56:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

Just wanted to start a thread for suggestions. Marshall and others can take it or leave it as they wish. I did want to include things I think would either be vital or very enhancing.

1. Obviously, AI--always a work in progress
2. political point change for loaning corp country with battles
3. troop strength of battles not witnessed by the defending country for the defending country.
4. turkish corp cost issue


By "turkish corp cost issue" are you refering to a change such that the fuedal corp do not pay supply or have to forage the turn they stand-up?



yammahoper -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/19/2008 11:56:00 PM)

I like the suggestions except for removing Fr dominance, at least in the single player mode.  That 4.0 morale gives Fr a constant edge it needs to be tough.  Fr and GB are the obly powers in the game that regularly defeat my armies, and I want it to stay that way.

yamma



zaquex -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 12:57:12 AM)

quote:

By "turkish corp cost issue" are you refering to a change such that the fuedal corp do not pay supply or have to forage the turn they stand-up?


yes



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 12:58:52 AM)

We need a way to combine fleets from different countries.

I'm waiting to try my hand at Trafalgar.



GSB



pzgndr -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 1:01:56 AM)

quote:

„X Need to add a warning if a player has factors coming due in the next quarter BUT has no corps purchased to place them in.


Maybe take this a step further and add a warning at the start of each land phase if gds/cav/art factors are coming due next turn but player has no corps counters in home country to place them in. And add another warning if the player attempts to move a counter out of the country that would create a placement problem for factors coming due.
This trips me up more often than I'd like. I know, it's my own fault but still... [:(]

Alternatively, maybe provide a game option to not destroy unplaced land factors during a quarter, like ship building. It's not like these factors of elite replacements would really disappear.



zaquex -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 1:07:30 AM)

Sadly it would change the whole game to allow offboard reserves and i beleive make it unbalanced especially from prussias perspective.



pzgndr -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 1:13:34 AM)

I understand the concern about offboard reserves. My suggestion was for an option to hold the expensive specialty factors for just the current quarter, and provide some grace to move a counter back to get them. Cheap infantry and militia can always be placed in garrisons someplace. Just an idea.



ParJ -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 1:21:17 AM)

Yamma,

I think Dodod is suggesting that it should be possible to force France out of dominance it they lose the areas as specified in the boardgame. I personally think that dominance should be fully included. It rarely happens that France loses or anybody else gains dominance (you can amost always make sure to keep someone at war with you or declare war on someone close to acheiving dominance) but the threat is a big factor in most campaigns I've played.

In addition to this comment, here's some other input to Matris about what I would like to see improved in version 1.02 (or later):

- Provice manpower in VP determination. As I recall (or at least how we've played) this was added to the normal VP to determine the winner. So you could have less VP but more MP areas and still win the game.
- If you are transferring units from a city garrison to a corps (or between corps) you need to be able to temprarily overstack if both the garrison and corps are full. You should be able to switch the distribution of militia and infantry between these.
- Moving units 2+ areas is sometimes determined as complex paths. Path moved should be made considering foraging value and movement points. As it is now one has to move each step to avoid plain stupid choices in which area to move through.
- No Artillery column in unit summary (can see the unit but no content), should be added.
- Other countries finances and units should be visible (at least max content) (In "Selected Nation" info view?)
- Other countries corps strength should be shown (as in the boardgame)? I don't think its appropriate with this fog of war. I think that a ballpark figure was known to most MPs at this time.
- Summary of actions, who allied, wars declared, lapsed, peace? Reading the notes is not that easy to grasp what happened. I've missed receiving unconditional surrender from opponents and only realizing this during movement when I can´t attack. I know that this is addressed some in 1.01, but probably not to the extent I expect.
- A warning that reinforcements cannot be placed would be in order (for C, G and A) to remind to purchase corps.
- Do NOT allow corps to be bought at will during movement since planning ahead should be part of the game.
- If Great Britain and France starts at war, none should be able to offer a conditional surrender and Napoleon/Wellington/Nelson must be taken as a peace condition. In the game I played as Russia GB and France quickly agreed on a peace and this never happens in "normal games".
- At time I've encountered a limit of 6 ships being built in a minor country port. Can't find that this is enforced by the rules in any way.
- Transfer units between depots, garrison and corps should be allowed during movement (now it's only allowed for corps/garrisons).
- Should be a way to change garrison/ship orders during the land movement phase as well as reinforcement and naval phases.
- No minor garrisons should be allowed outside that minor. If I had known this was allowed I could have filled Russia with Polish 4 morale infantry garrisons in my last game. This makes it too easy to use minors as Infantry-generators for garrisons and also makes it easier to use minors only to launch attacks on another MP.
- Placing reinforcements in corps seem to only require a depot in or next to the corps. In the boardgame I'm certain that this would have to be part of a supply line originating in a home nation city (but I can remeber incorrectly). Should be corrected since it's too easy to reinforce at remote locations as it is now.
- Where's the corps on loan victory condition?
- Even if I choose enfored access my corps and garrisons have been repatriated after surrender. I would like to see at least a choice.
- At some times when beseiging London and Constantinopel (agains the AI) I've seen the garrison fill up (can you really reinforce a beseiged city unless there is a depot there?). I also can't see that the garrison factors in capital cities are ever affected by lack of supply.
- Territorial access to an ally should be granted per province not general access. This is often used in our boardgames to control where an ally might be able to move. And use a 3 or 6 month timeframe to evacuate if access revoced.
- Converting enemy depots when moved into?
- The adjustment for exceeding the number of corps a leader can effectively manage should be capped at two lower than the original tactical rating. (13.8.7). Option to chose to lower the leader number tactical rating to use 0/-1 instead of +1/0 for attacker/defender modifier or at least make sure that this is optimized to take into account cavalry superiority bonus (happens in a 4-2 or 2-4 rating combat only).
- The opponent chit should not be shown in a land combat before any outflanking side has split their forces up into pinning and outflanking force. This procedure is in the rules but doesn't work that way in the game.
- I would like to have a "mini-map" showing the immediate surroundings when a land or siege combat occurs. Now you have no overview of what might exist around that area. And  why not include the combat table that will be used as well? Now you have to look in the manual to see the casualty/morale chart to be used and what it looks like.
- Prisoner exchange (2 PP for leader returned not mentioned in rules?)
- Just checking a garrison in a city rules out an undo of corps movement. Should be relatively easy to check if anything has change in the corps composition and in that case not allow undo.
- Some way to toggle through units with unused movement points in the movement phase.
- Depots should be locatable and show in the unit summary.

The AI actually seem to show some sense of appropriate behavior (especially naval moves by GB, sometimes), but I have a few comments:
- Do not hurry when trying to get back a lost capital. Collect some corps and then launch an attack.
- The goal of the game is to get VP's, not conquer minors or winning battles. Before declaring war the AI should consider what can be gained (in VPs and possibly money /manpower compared to the expected losses in money and forces.
- Please make sure to move into a minor after declaring war so that the war doesn't lapse.
- At the end of the game I (Russia) played I had just failed to take London (9 MIL remaining in Dec 1811), but in the Economy phase it showed 20 MIL and 5 INF. How can another AI controlled MP get reinforcements in a beseiged city in the economic phase?
- Don't do too much trying to patch and improve the AI (it will most likely still not be good enough for most people). Have a look at a complete redesign similar to the WiF AI developed by Matrix.



Tater -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 5:22:29 AM)

The AI also shows some kind of goofy ideology relative to breaking alliances. A number of times I have had AI players break alliances when it made absolutely no sense. The AI takes a 2PP hit for nothing. They weren't called to war...they don't declare war after the break...they just up and break the alliance.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 5:46:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02
- Other countries corps strength should be shown (as in the boardgame)? I don't think its appropriate with this fog of war. I think that a ballpark figure was known to most MPs at this time.

This is a good point, in out face to face games, traditionally we would record corp strengths on papaer and these would be secret, and of course all combat/foraging losses were known, plus manpower values for economics so you could track the strengths of everybody's armies.

However I think the roginal intent of the rules was actually to have corp strengths known, but corp idenities hidden, hence the corp sheets and counters for tracking their strengths.



zaquex -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 6:03:29 AM)

The wording of the original rules seems to imply that the strenghts of the corps are public although very few seem to actually play the game that way.
 
More important in my oppinion is that the OOB should be readily available ingame.



delatbabel -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 8:57:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02
Yamma,

I think Dodod is suggesting that it should be possible to force France out of dominance it they lose the areas as specified in the boardgame. I personally think that dominance should be fully included. It rarely happens that France loses or anybody else gains dominance (you can amost always make sure to keep someone at war with you or declare war on someone close to acheiving dominance) but the threat is a big factor in most campaigns I've played.


I would prefer this became an optional rule, but it is vital to have this included for running scenarios other than the 1805 one. In the 1792 scenario France does not start dominant, but will often beccome dominant at some point during the game.

quote:


- A warning that reinforcements cannot be placed would be in order (for C, G and A) to remind to purchase corps.


I think this is covered in 1.01. In fact I get the warning reminding me I need to place corps when all I have bought is a few militia for garrisons, but that's OK by me (better than no warning at all).

quote:


- Do NOT allow corps to be bought at will during movement since planning ahead should be part of the game.


huh? I've never been able to make this happen.

quote:


- If Great Britain and France starts at war, none should be able to offer a conditional surrender and Napoleon/Wellington/Nelson must be taken as a peace condition. In the game I played as Russia GB and France quickly agreed on a peace and this never happens in "normal games".


Agreed, but it should be as per the EiA rules.


  • Must be an unconditional surrender.
  • GB must demand the removal of Napoleon. If other players that are at war with France do not, at the same time, demand the removal of Napoleon then France must (and may, despite civil disorder rules or variants) refuse the unconditional surrender.
  • France must demand access, and the removal of GB fleets.


quote:


- Transfer units between depots, garrison and corps should be allowed during movement (now it's only allowed for corps/garrisons).


No, as per the board game, transfer of units between corps is only allowed in the reinforcement phase. You can fake it during movement if there is a city or depot present, you can have one corps drop off factors to the garrison and have the other corps pick them up, but you can't transfer between corps except during reinforcement.

quote:


- No minor garrisons should be allowed outside that minor. If I had known this was allowed I could have filled Russia with Polish 4 morale infantry garrisons in my last game. This makes it too easy to use minors as Infantry-generators for garrisons and also makes it easier to use minors only to launch attacks on another MP.


An optional rule in the board game allows minor garrisons to be used outside of that minor. We normally allow that rule to allow, for example, Naples garrisons to be used in other parts of Italy.

quote:


- At some times when beseiging London and Constantinopel (agains the AI) I've seen the garrison fill up (can you really reinforce a beseiged city unless there is a depot there?). I also can't see that the garrison factors in capital cities are ever affected by lack of supply.


I have certainly seen the constantinople garrison lose factors due to lack of supply. It is tricky to make them lose factors because capital cities usually have many spires (constantinople has 5) and therefore have a high forage value (equal to the number of spires) and therefore you often don't lose garrison factors there due to lack of supply.

quote:


- Just checking a garrison in a city rules out an undo of corps movement. Should be relatively easy to check if anything has change in the corps composition and in that case not allow undo.


It appears to me that dropping off or picking up factors does in fact rule out undo.



Ted1066 -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/20/2008 6:45:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02

- Other countries finances and units should be visible (at least max content) (In "Selected Nation" info view?)
- Other countries corps strength should be shown (as in the boardgame)? I don't think its appropriate with this fog of war. I think that a ballpark figure was known to most MPs at this time.



Hey oto02,

These things should definitely NOT be made public knowledge. A countries finances and corps strengths were unknown except to the player of that country and that is in the rules. That's why the corps counters for the board game and EiANW only show the corps movement capability.

What I would like to see is a note system incorporated. In the board game, once a battle was set to take place corps names/strengths were revealed. At the conclusion of the battle, each side could note surviving current corps and what their current strengths were. Of course, if each side had multiple corps left with identical movement fog of war was reintroduced because they again became an anonymous stack. In EiANW now, factors are totaled up, but the players don't get to see individual corps strengths before and after the battle (at least, not that I have been able to figure out).

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

Ted



Soapy Frog -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/21/2008 12:42:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066
These things should definitely NOT be made public knowledge. A countries finances and corps strengths were unknown except to the player of that country and that is in the rules. That's why the corps counters for the board game and EiANW only show the corps movement capability.

I am pretty sure corps strengths are technically public knowledge, but corps identities are not known (for the reasons you stated).

Finances are public knowledge, to the extent that you know the total money and manpower income of each nation. I beleive even production is public knowledge, as are money transfers. So all this can be tracked by the players; the PC version should do this for you as well.

quote:

What I would like to see is a note system incorporated. In the board game, once a battle was set to take place corps names/strengths were revealed. At the conclusion of the battle, each side could note surviving current corps and what their current strengths were. Of course, if each side had multiple corps left with identical movement fog of war was reintroduced because they again became an anonymous stack. In EiANW now, factors are totaled up, but the players don't get to see individual corps strengths before and after the battle (at least, not that I have been able to figure out).

I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially if corps strengths remain hidden most of the time.



zaquex -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/21/2008 1:11:41 AM)

It would be interesting to be presented with some info about battles taking place where you are not involved, it's good to keep the interest up and gives a picture on whats going on.

I also think many would appretiate if info of all battles alliances wardeclarations peace etc could be exported periodicly like say in each levy step and at game end to provide a documentation and "history" of the games you have been involved in. Many player groups like to put this kind of info on websites or in AAR's. It might even be a good way to promote the game.

In such battle report I would like to see the info like; commanders, total number of men, which corps took part, total losses what tactics was used and how long the battle was. In essence info to give an overview that reasonably would be common knowledge some time after the battle,  no detail, no dice result etc. It would be even cooler if the program could generate a report in plain text how the battle was fought. This is probably not a small task though and there are many other things that is more important to work on, it would still be cool though.



iamspamus -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 12:46:42 AM)

I have a couple of comments on your comments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02
In addition to this comment, here's some other input to Matris about what I would like to see improved in version 1.02 (or later):

- Moving units 2+ areas is sometimes determined as complex paths. Path moved should be made considering foraging value and movement points. As it is now one has to move each step to avoid plain stupid choices in which area to move through.

- If Great Britain and France starts at war, none should be able to offer a conditional surrender and Napoleon/Wellington/Nelson must be taken as a peace condition. In the game I played as Russia GB and France quickly agreed on a peace and this never happens in "normal games".

- Transfer units between depots, garrison and corps should be allowed during movement (now it's only allowed for corps/garrisons).


Yes to all of these.

quote:


- No minor garrisons should be allowed outside that minor. If I had known this was allowed I could have filled Russia with Polish 4 morale infantry garrisons in my last game. This makes it too easy to use minors as Infantry-generators for garrisons and also makes it easier to use minors only to launch attacks on another MP.


Nope. I disagree here. Look at Persia and all of the other 1/1 provinces that make one inf a turn. Even Sweden or Naples only have a 5 unit max and that's not counting cav or ships. So, Poland is the anomaly in the large number of troops.

quote:


- Placing reinforcements in corps seem to only require a depot in or next to the corps. In the boardgame I'm certain that this would have to be part of a supply line originating in a home nation city (but I can remeber incorrectly). Should be corrected since it's too easy to reinforce at remote locations as it is now.


I agree that it is a change from the board game, but it also makes it "easier" to do stuff. I don't have a problem with it.

quote:


- At some times when beseiging London and Constantinopel (agains the AI) I've seen the garrison fill up (can you really reinforce a beseiged city unless there is a depot there?). I also can't see that the garrison factors in capital cities are ever affected by lack of supply.


I know this can happen if there is a battle involving the besieging corps. It's like after the battle you are not besieging any more. Weird.

quote:


- Some way to toggle through units with unused movement points in the movement phase.
- Depots should be locatable and show in the unit summary.


Both good ideas.

quote:


The AI actually seem to show some sense of appropriate behavior (especially naval moves by GB, sometimes), but I have a few comments:
- Do not hurry when trying to get back a lost capital. Collect some corps and then launch an attack.


This has not been my experience. I was attacking Prussia in Berlin. He had 6 corps, Blucher and Brunswick. I had three corps adjacent. He then proceded to send in one corps at a time (with a leader of course). Or I see Napoleon running around with a single half-strength corps. Crazy.

So, lots of changes needed. I'll try to type up my suggestions, questions and bugs later.
Jason



iamspamus -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 12:48:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tater

The AI also shows some kind of goofy ideology relative to breaking alliances. A number of times I have had AI players break alliances when it made absolutely no sense. The AI takes a 2PP hit for nothing. They weren't called to war...they don't declare war after the break...they just up and break the alliance.


Yes, this and the most random declarations of war.

Jason



Stewart -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 4:24:10 AM)

I've been waiting to see if the patch fixed most of the AI problems....I take it that did't happen?



Grognot -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 4:34:33 AM)

Bug fixes and any necessary rules alterations first.  AI can be adjusted over time, but that's going to take a fair bit of time to figure out (as in, to have even a remotely competent AI opponent -- especially if it's not allowed to violate Fog of War rules) and in the meantime there are issues that crop up in PBEM games.



bresh -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 2:11:50 PM)

I am hoping, when you guys mention you want to know Corps strength of the others. Its the general corps composition of his nation. And not the current factors. Or you remove the effect of FOW that was in EIA.

Also when you want to know another Nations Economy. It is only its current income, which i belive you can see already pointing at the nation, trade not included.
Treasury shall remain hidden. (How should other nations know excact how much is hidden in the state treasury ?)

Just played some testing, and i notiched I cant lend a corps with leader to my ally ?
I Do hope thats a bug !

Well to me its a major break in the balance as i see it.
My points from Allianced view, noway to help allies without supply line.
Cant send corps+commander which in EIA you could let him pay supply, or if you lend corps he could control.

And not increased number of depots. Thats the major reason France gets more depots, since he doesnt need the alliances.
Not to mention the Captital-force surrender issue.

Ballance issue seems really screwed.
Major ballance breaking feels like bugs to me to be honest.

Hope combined movement or this to get fixed pretty fast.

Please say its a bug !

Regards
Bresh





baboune -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 8:37:32 PM)

+ zoom in zoom out function (+/-) would be great! The default view (map) is quite limited.
+ Arrows (or dots or something) indicating a unit start, and moves.
+ Some way to go through the units that needs to forage or be paid for (next/previous)
+ Economic phase...  Is it possible to have a detailed list of all the costs?  For example I would like to see which ports traded and the trade generated (you can not see the value on the maps once you have units), or why my units maintenance is this or that, etc. The current information is too limited.
+ Unit building: icons are ok but text under the icon indicating the unit tye would be great.
+ Could we during the Economic phase get the possibility to borrow money to free states on the buy army factor screen so you dont have to close and open so many times.
+ Or even better combine the army and navy buy screens with the borrow/give money to create a single page to deal with that minor, would be great.
+ A forage value being displayed before making the roll for forage.  I know EiA pretty well, but it would be easier if a corps/garrison forage value was displayed before doing the roll.
+ When hovering over a stack of corps it would be good to display the stack factors (xx /I xx/M xx/C xx/G xx/A xx/F xx/Ck etc.) and morale.
+ Include ships being built with their location in some report window.
+ Why not add it to the upcoming reinforcements report?
+ to allow the player to click in an area containing unopposed corps and an enemy city during the land combat phase and the game will determine if seige can occur and report on the situation.

And lots of other things like:
+ being able to select a unit easily. Standard right-click/left-click conventions applied to this game. Left click select, right click move/interact.




Grimrod42 -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 8:51:26 PM)

All GREAT suggestions Baboune [:D]



baboune -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 9:43:35 PM)

[:'(]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/25/2008 10:18:37 PM)

Great ideas. I can tell you that 1.02 will primarily be fixes for now but some of your requests are on our list for future enhacements.
Appreciate the ideas!




Frank McNally -> RE: Requests for 1.02 fixes and enhancements (1/27/2008 5:43:03 AM)

I just want real combined move, even if only available for all human games.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7382813