RE: 1.02j feedback (Full Version)

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



Message

dodod -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/12/2008 8:10:07 PM)

is the pp issue corrected with loaning corps? or is that a future patch.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 3:39:52 PM)

dodod:

I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???





ecn1 -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 5:18:22 PM)

I would say the general consensus is to add/substract pp from each player involved in the battle based on the proportion of corps involved in the battle within each side, with the total number of PP awarded to the winning SIDE or taken from the losing SIDE (note, not player, but side) never to exceed the maximum of 3PP set for battles...(not including PP bonuses like Napoleon commanding, etc)



bresh -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 5:40:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

dodod:

I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???






Well i think there are 2-3 schools(of how people played this). Im bit tired but i try give my view.

I prefer the school where the loss in pp is shared, while the gain is for per MPS. (with CAP at +3/-3 pr battle not including special leaders).
So one MP joining an army with just 1 corps, can gain top 3 pps for a battle, but only looses 1 (if lost).

Since this make a the best reason for combining forces with your allies.
I think someone once said on the average Napoleon should win 66% of his battles.

Why would any alliance form if they where loosing around 3pps in 66% of all those battles ?
As i said, why should a MP help if his net outcome of every 3 battles is "-1".

The share in pp loss is to even these odds out. And is to me rather logical.

In the mentioned thread, some wrote that the net gain/loss should always be equal, but noone is ever loosing extra when loosing to specific leaders(Nelson/Napoleon), nor do they gain extra when winning against those.

Always round fractions up, within the Caps.

Like many wrote Fleets should perhaps only be 1/2 pp, or Heavy fleets 2/3 and Light Fleets 1/3.

Im sure most people would say, how they played it was the right one.
And it will be imposible to satisfy all, unless you put this into options, and "all players per gamegroup can actually agree on witch they use".


Regards
Bresh








NeverMan -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 6:02:08 PM)

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.



JanSorensen -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 6:40:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.



dodod -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 6:47:41 PM)

I agree with ecn...ahem...
shared win, shared loss...in proportion to what you loan.

only other addition is that ties or fractions go the person leading the battle...



NeverMan -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 7:50:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +3PP, Pr +3PP, Au +3PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.



bresh -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 11:07:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +1PP, Pr +1PP, Au +2PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.


What if in the example FR only has 1-2 corps ??

Fr loosing 1 PP.
I would say GB +1, PR +1PP, AU +1PP.
Sounds most logical. as fractions are rounded up always.

So what if France has 3-4 Corps ?


Regards
Bresh




Grognot -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/13/2008 11:10:28 PM)

As was pointed out every time that question was asked in the other thread, another reason to stack is so that you don't get obliterated.  *Even if no PP were involved* and the game became a pure land-grab game, it is rather helpful for Austria and Prussia to stack so they don't get individually annihilated by the superior French forces.



NeverMan -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 12:03:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +1PP, Pr +1PP, Au +2PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.


What if in the example FR only has 1-2 corps ??

Fr loosing 1 PP.
I would say GB +1, PR +1PP, AU +1PP.
Sounds most logical. as fractions are rounded up always.

So what if France has 3-4 Corps ?


Regards
Bresh




Bresh, I have gone back and corrected my post. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I didn't mean to be confusing, I must be off today. Notice the BOLD in my correction. Yes, you are correct.



bresh -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 12:09:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

As was pointed out every time that question was asked in the other thread, another reason to stack is so that you don't get obliterated.  *Even if no PP were involved* and the game became a pure land-grab game, it is rather helpful for Austria and Prussia to stack so they don't get individually annihilated by the superior French forces.


Well as im sure we can agree, we have different opinions on how this should be ruled :)

Thats why i suggested it be variable option, since there are different schools of how people played it.
I seem to remember reading an article that describes how i think it was done. But im sure its not unthinkable that others played in your way.

Regards
Bresh



Grognot -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 12:20:39 AM)

Sure.  I'm just noting that there's more basic reasons for stacking than PP, like not getting slaughtered on the battlefield.  At least for people that don't want to repeat historical mistakes.  *shrug*  So it's going to happen if players like to win, unless the PP distribution system is sufficiently perverse to actually punish stackers harder than France smacks non-stackers (unlikely).

More concerned to make sure that the mechanics actually work, like all corps actually show up, and how the game resolves the presence of corps that aren't at war with all the attackers (forced retreat in the AH version, IIRC.  I don't recall this being documented in the EiANW manual, so it -might- implement the same rule, but I haven't tested it.)






Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 12:46:43 AM)

Hey guys:

I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.

I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).

Anybody second this?




dodod -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 1:37:47 AM)

I second this!
as long as there is some system in place...



eske -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 2:35:20 AM)

I second too!

Full PP to all MP winners. Only loss of PP for own corps participating.

Ken Clark's post in the other thread shows the balance in France vs. coalition wars
in the original EiA rules is pretty good.

Don't make extra options on this for my sake...

/Eske



NeverMan -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 6:39:36 AM)

I second it, or third it, or fourth it, whichever post this is. :)



bresh -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/14/2008 10:03:38 PM)

Dont think i need to point up my support for it when it follows how i think they rules where.

Regards
Bresh



j-s -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/16/2008 3:59:46 PM)

I have some problems with diplomacy. I have tried to loan corps from AI and it won't work. When you select any of my allies corps and try to get diplomacy window open, it won't open. Then I have to deselect corps and try again. Then it works, but tells that "no corps selected" or something like that.

And then another guestion: How you can create a depot to besieged corps via naval supply? I play GB and I have my corps besieged in constantinople. I have a depot & fleet in London and some fleets in Constantinople. Is it possible to build a "besieged supply" inside the city as in original rules?



obsidiandrag -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/20/2008 12:44:19 AM)

Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?



obsidiandrag -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/20/2008 12:48:53 AM)

Here is the screen shot


[image]local://upfiles/28717/14730053125847DFB1152F0C954216E3.jpg[/image]



bresh -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/20/2008 1:10:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?



Yeah weird.

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/20/2008 2:23:09 PM)

Just checked this out and S Pommerania is actually shown to be a province of Prussia!
This has been logged and will be fixed in 1.03




Ashtar -> RE: 1.02j feedback (5/20/2008 3:58:19 PM)

quote:

Hey guys:

I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.

I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).

Anybody second this?


I second it too. And do not forget to correct the Naval Combat pp loss/gain to 1/2 per fleet instead of 1.
Plus, of course, awarding pp also to loaned fleets.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.703125