Militia Conversion Option Omission (Full Version)

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



Message

Mardonius -> Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/17/2008 5:57:45 PM)

Gents: I know this topic has been raised in earlier days, but given the evolution of the game it seems apposite to revisit the topic of the optional rule of Militia Conversion.

Per the Avalon Hill Rule book to the board game version, page 36 12.1.1:

"MILITIA CONVERSION: During a Money and Manpower Expenditure Step, while at war with no other major power, a major power's player may remove any militia factors located in controlled home nation territory from the map and pay three money points per militia factor to 'convert' them to regular infantry factors. These new regular infantry factors are returned to the mao as reinforcements three months later (ie., (sic) the same as newly-purchased regular infantry factors).

This is a powerful tool for most nations, Turkey and to a lesser extent Prussia excepted, and should be offered as an option.

Semper Fidelis,



Monadman -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/17/2008 7:53:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents: I know this topic has been raised in earlier days, but given the evolution of the game it seems apposite to revisit the topic of the optional rule of Militia Conversion.

Per the Avalon Hill Rule book to the board game version, page 36 12.1.1:

"MILITIA CONVERSION: During a Money and Manpower Expenditure Step, while at war with no other major power, a major power's player may remove any militia factors located in controlled home nation territory from the map and pay three money points per militia factor to 'convert' them to regular infantry factors. These new regular infantry factors are returned to the mao as reinforcements three months later (ie., (sic) the same as newly-purchased regular infantry factors).

This is a powerful tool for most nations, Turkey and to a lesser extent Prussia excepted, and should be offered as an option.

Semper Fidelis,


Yes, another one on the enhancement list (and has been for a long time).

Some day we may even get to it . . . hopefully

Richard




pzgndr -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 12:46:03 AM)

quote:

Yes, another one on the enhancement list (and has been for a long time).


Could you share what's on the list for long-range enhancements? There are a few posts now about EiA/EiH optional rules that could be added. It would help to know what's planned. Things not on the list could then be topics of discussion for consideration.



Monadman -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 2:25:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Yes, another one on the enhancement list (and has been for a long time).


Could you share what's on the list for long-range enhancements? There are a few posts now about EiA/EiH optional rules that could be added. It would help to know what's planned. Things not on the list could then be topics of discussion for consideration.




Okay, sure, but no arguing. [;)]

Here’s a snippet (not the complete list) without any prioritization attached (however most are obvious). The enhancement suggestions have been piling up and quite a few of them (read: a ton) have not been worked into the master list yet (they are in the same text as written and are sitting at the end of the list).

Do understand that until bug containment is accomplished (if ever) and the AI is attended to, these items listed will not be addressed (although on occasion an enhancement might sneak in when working bug issues (e.g. auto backup of host’s saved game files).

Any one wishing to make further enhancement suggestions (repeats or not) are encouraged to post here and I’ll just cut and paste them to the end of the master list for future categorization.[sm=terms.gif]

Richard

=============

Enhancements List

GENERAL: Create a scenario Editor

GENERAL: Implement all the rules that apply to the Dardanelles.
1. EiA 10.7 Dardanelles Control
2. EiA 6.2.1.3 Dardanelles Movement
3. EiA 7.4.3.3 Dardanelles/Ice Line Supply Effects and;
4. EiA 7.4.4.6.

GENERAL: Remove the buttons that the active player can't use. For example, change place in move order button; it’s never relevant to Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain and Turkey.

GENERAL: Have the actual Victory Points collected displayed when you mouse over the % report in the Victory Point Status window

NAVAL PHASE: Re piracy/anti-piracy operations: it would be much easier to click the phase buttons in order to switch from one window to the other (instead of right mouse clicking to leave screen).

NAVAL PHASE: Make possible naval evasions using standing orders.

NAVAL PHASE: Implement a loan fleet function

LAND PHASE: Allow orders to be given to corps and depot garrisons to "destroy the depot" when enemy units enter the area and then retire into the city if the capacity is there.

LAND PHASE: The Insurrection Corps trigger and placement function needs to be updated to conform to EiA.

LAND COMBAT PHASE: When allies fight together the program needs to distribute the political point gains/losses between them.

ECONOMIC PHASE: Add more Kingdoms

ECONOMIC PHASE: Add “transfer money to minor” option along the bottom of the window where minors purchase factors.

ECONOMIC PHASE: In the Economic summary window, under “Collected Manpower” (top left), show detail summary for when Economic Manipulation is used to cause a gain/loss in manpower points.
Example:
20 Territory
2 Manipulations
----
22 Total

ECONOMIC PHASE: Add Militia conversion

ECONOMIC PHASE: Add a line to the economic summary window for "Current $/MP". The program is only showing the "Initial $/MP".



ndrose -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 2:51:15 AM)

I'd like to see AI v. AI combats resolved with chits rather than trivial combat, which makes outcomes too predictable.



DCWhitworth -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 12:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

"MILITIA CONVERSION: During a Money and Manpower Expenditure Step, while at war with no other major power, a major power's player may remove any militia factors located in controlled home nation territory from the map and pay three money points per militia factor to 'convert' them to regular infantry factors. These new regular infantry factors are returned to the mao as reinforcements three months later (ie., (sic) the same as newly-purchased regular infantry factors).

This is a powerful tool for most nations, Turkey and to a lesser extent Prussia excepted, and should be offered as an option.

Semper Fidelis,


I don't like this rule because it effectively means everyone can store manpower, not just Prussia. Prussia has few enough advantages in the game without taking away one more.



bresh -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 5:16:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

"MILITIA CONVERSION: During a Money and Manpower Expenditure Step, while at war with no other major power, a major power's player may remove any militia factors located in controlled home nation territory from the map and pay three money points per militia factor to 'convert' them to regular infantry factors. These new regular infantry factors are returned to the mao as reinforcements three months later (ie., (sic) the same as newly-purchased regular infantry factors).

This is a powerful tool for most nations, Turkey and to a lesser extent Prussia excepted, and should be offered as an option.

Semper Fidelis,


I don't like this rule because it effectively means everyone can store manpower, not just Prussia. Prussia has few enough advantages in the game without taking away one more.


Not quite everyone.
Russia/GB/France seldom get peace, so wont be able to convert.
So its only Austria/Spain who often gets to.
But I do like the rule. Even when i played Turkey or Prussia.

Regards
Bresh



Jimmer -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 5:41:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
GENERAL: Remove the buttons that the active player can't use. For example, change place in move order button; it’s never relevant to Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain and Turkey.

For this one, I would add that the button should be replaced by a blank space. The other buttons should not be re-ordered. This is because some players click by memory, not by hovering. If the buttons are rearranged, they may click the wrong button.



Monadman -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/19/2008 6:03:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
GENERAL: Remove the buttons that the active player can't use. For example, change place in move order button; it’s never relevant to Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain and Turkey.

For this one, I would add that the button should be replaced by a blank space. The other buttons should not be re-ordered. This is because some players click by memory, not by hovering. If the buttons are rearranged, they may click the wrong button.


Yes, the plan is to just hide the button for those major powers it does not apply to.

Richard



GZEPKA -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/23/2008 4:57:25 AM)

Do not forget British Training of some of its minors, like Portugal and Hesse. Every time I played as Great Britain in the AH and AD it came into play, or tried to.

Greg



Ted1066 -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/23/2008 9:11:10 PM)

I'd like to add one more to the enhancement pile, if I may: A proper implementation of the Combined Movement Rules. The loaned corps feature currently in place is a passable workaround, but it is not sufficient for Empires in Arms. With the current system, the player loaning the corps loses out on PPs during the any land/naval battles that take place. As well, in EiANW doesn't currently allow for loaning fleets, so its pretty easy for GB to dominate the seas.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,

Ted



Ashtar -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 3:33:44 PM)

quote:


Any one wishing to make further enhancement suggestions (repeats or not) are encouraged to post here and I’ll just cut and paste them to the end of the master list for future categorization.


Very nice list Richard, I guess you are getting closer to a wonderful EIA game

A few additions to your list:

REINFORCEMENT PHASE: Move the loan corps/fleet from the diplomatic to the reinforcements phase (this way I can ally
and "combine movement" with my allies in the same month as in EIA). However, Have corps come back under original
owner sharply at the end of the land/combat phase (so that the original owner pays for their maintenance in the economic phase and that they could be removed as for peace condition in the next diplomatic phase.

NAVAL COMBAT PHASE: When allies fight together (after the loan fleets has been implemented) the program needs to distribute the political point gains/losses between them.

NAVAL COMBAT PHASE: Reduce political point gain/loss to 1/2 pp per fleet (EIANW fleets are approx half of EIA size)

LAND PHASE: Allow corps with leaders to be loaned (otherwise a Prussia-Russia alliance before Blucher times will be leaderless).

LAND COMBAT PHASE: Automatically resolving fights with only one defending corps involved creates some problems with reinforcement during combat: a common strategy is to place your main force under a good leader close to single
corps defending strategic positions, knowing you will be able to reinforce them if attacked. But, as a matter of fact, the AI does not ask for reinforcements. In one of my games, France loose Amsterdam and his entire fleet when the French corp there stationed chose to retreat and not to ask for reinforcement by the nearby Grand Armee under Napoleon command. Three possible ways out of this:
a) Make automatic resolution of fights an optional rule.
b) Add in the order list for your corps the "ask for reinforcements" order.
c) Add in the order list the "do not resolve automatically combat involving this corp"
I think c) will be the best solution, leaving to players the choice to either let the AI control fights which are
unimportant or can be simply managed by choosing in advance the order and reserving for human control important/delicate fights even if involving a single corp (for one, I doubt the AI can properly decide about guard commitment).

LAND COMBAT PHASE: Implement the trivial combat rules where proportions between sides are 5:1 or worse

GENERAL: Allow players to give orders to their corps and fleets in any of their phases. This way I can always change
the combat instruction to my isolated corps (like chose "defend" if attacked) to adapt to game situations.

GENERAL: When reporting political point changes, always report both the increase/decrease and the new total, please
(like: GB + 1pp, adjusting to 34 pp)

ECONOMIC PHASE: If you add militia conversion, let it optional as in EIA (it undermines a typical Prussia advantage)

GENERAL: Implement British Training of Portugal and Hanover.

GENERAL: Think about implementing gaining/losing dominance rules, they help gameplay giving players objective to focus on their politics.

GENERAL: Think about anti-cheating rules (a lot of threads are out there about possible ways to do it...)

I guess this is all that is still missing (apart from combined movement and supply by allied depots which seem to be out of question due to game engine design)...



bresh -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 4:01:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
GENERAL: Implement British Training of Portugal and Hesse.



I think you mean Portugal and Hanover.

Regards
Bresh



DCWhitworth -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 4:40:01 PM)

I'd like to see an implementation of proportional land losses.

Mostly this comes about from my experiences of playing France and having the Austrian and Prussian players go begging to GB saying "Please loan me a corps or two to improve my morale, I'll take all the combat losses.". How can a foreign corps influence a battle without actually fighting ?




bresh -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 4:59:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I'd like to see an implementation of proportional land losses.

Mostly this comes about from my experiences of playing France and having the Austrian and Prussian players go begging to GB saying "Please loan me a corps or two to improve my morale, I'll take all the combat losses.". How can a foreign corps influence a battle without actually fighting ?




Its actually the one rule i do not like and do not think logical.

In your example i dont see why the British couldnt help in the same way as the French guards do, just their pressence adds morale, they didnt even have to be commited.


Regards
Bresh



DCWhitworth -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 5:10:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I'd like to see an implementation of proportional land losses.

Mostly this comes about from my experiences of playing France and having the Austrian and Prussian players go begging to GB saying "Please loan me a corps or two to improve my morale, I'll take all the combat losses.". How can a foreign corps influence a battle without actually fighting ?




Its actually the one rule i do not like and do not think logical.

In your example i dont see why the British couldnt help in the same way as the French guards do, just their pressence adds morale, they didnt even have to be commited.


Regards
Bresh


I can see how the French guards would help their own army, indeed it's well documented how the rest of the French army would be heartened merely by their presence on the field. But I don't see how this would hold true if the troops were foreign, likely it would *damage* morale when the one nation's troops realised they were doing all the fighting and dying.



bresh -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 5:53:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I'd like to see an implementation of proportional land losses.

Mostly this comes about from my experiences of playing France and having the Austrian and Prussian players go begging to GB saying "Please loan me a corps or two to improve my morale, I'll take all the combat losses.". How can a foreign corps influence a battle without actually fighting ?




Its actually the one rule i do not like and do not think logical.

In your example i dont see why the British couldnt help in the same way as the French guards do, just their pressence adds morale, they didnt even have to be commited.


Regards
Bresh


I can see how the French guards would help their own army, indeed it's well documented how the rest of the French army would be heartened merely by their presence on the field. But I don't see how this would hold true if the troops were foreign, likely it would *damage* morale when the one nation's troops realised they were doing all the fighting and dying.


Ponder, so you think, an ally showing up at the battle does not boost morale ?
That fact that help is around useally is good thing. We are not alone !

Its bad soldiers if they didnt think the deployment of troops where up to the generals, thats why they are regular and its not like militia who only accepts looses till a point, when things start going bad.

But as you say if Russia guards/Cav-corps/Artillery joined a Prussian army, the prussians expected the Russian guards/etc to fight along side their regular infantry ?

Actually so lets say your army was 20 regular inf, 20 militia, 10 cav.
The propper if morale allows proportinal loss of first 5 factors. would be 2 regulars 2 militias and 1 cav.
The part of proportinal looses only has to be between nations is made up.



Regards
Bresh



DCWhitworth -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 6:24:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
Ponder, so you think, an ally showing up at the battle does not boost morale ?


Not in EIA, reinforcements don't change the morale level.

quote:


That fact that help is around useally is good thing. We are not alone !

Its bad soldiers if they didnt think the deployment of troops where up to the generals, thats why they are regular and its not like militia who only accepts looses till a point, when things start going bad.

But as you say if Russia guards/Cav-corps/Artillery joined a Prussian army, the prussians expected the Russian guards/etc to fight along side their regular infantry ?


Yes if they're going to influence the outcome of the battle.

quote:


Actually so lets say your army was 20 regular inf, 20 militia, 10 cav.
The propper if morale allows proportinal loss of first 5 factors. would be 2 regulars 2 militias and 1 cav.
The part of proportinal looses only has to be between nations is made up.

Regards
Bresh


I don't think your position is backed up by historical fact. There is a significant difference between a single guard corps and several corps from a foreign nation. Show me an instance where a significant number of foreign troops turned up to a battle and affected the result without taking losses. If you did find such a case I can produce many, many more where this wasn't the case.

Losses in battle are often not spread around evenly, but for one part of an allied army to take *no* losses is simply unrealistic.



bresh -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/28/2008 8:17:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth


Losses in battle are often not spread around evenly, but for one part of an allied army to take *no* losses is simply unrealistic.


Its all about deployment. Offcourse i cant show you any battle that shows this, because armies, where there was insignificant numbers of 1 nation, seldom even got mentioned. As far as i read the Austrian corps, under Schwatzenberg was not to heavy reduced when returning home after the Russian campaign. While some nations had taken 80+% looses.
So sorry i cant follow you.


Regards
Bresh



DCWhitworth -> RE: Militia Conversion Option Omission (3/30/2008 1:51:11 PM)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You believe having a mixture of nations in an army makes no real change to the dynamics of that force, I believe the opposite.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125