Editor ideas

Editor ideas (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> Editor ideas (5/6/2008 2:20:55 PM)
Hey guys: While much of the editor code is done (No, I don't know what release yet :-)), I still have a lot of flexibility with the feature set so here is your chance to chime in. Tell me some things you like to see the editor do.

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/6/2008 7:52:58 PM)
Limit the time span of the game. Force certain wars Prevent certain wars Create or delete leaders Allow leader stats to be changed Change movement rate of fleets Make winter more troublesome in some places (i.e. have two winter lines rather than one; in the second, war is nearly impossible.) Change the trade value of ports Change starting troop counts Change the prices of units Change starting PSD position. Add a "multiple winners" feature: Game adds in the manpower of each nation to their VP total. All nations whose total now exceeds their goal are also winners. Allow GB to do anti-piracy on behalf of another nation (or, two nations that share a common coastline not too far apart, like Russia and Prussia). Change the amount of "damage" done by pirates. Change the ratios at which anti-piracy works, and the amounts thereof. Allow pirates to return some of their loot to the sponsoring nation. Add "bridges" (some rivers which can be crossed without the penalty), as a purchasable item. If "bridges" are added, perhaps the game might start with some already in existence (for instance, across the Thames north/south). Change morale rates Create superstates

dodod -> RE: Editor ideas (5/6/2008 10:50:57 PM)
I think it would be absolutely vital to have adjustments to dominance as part of the editor...to allow for parameters to allow dominance or fall from dominance so that longer campaigns can be formed. Also, kingdoms and corp morale and strengths should be alterable for minors, kingdoms, and major powers. Time to build ships should also be alterable or cost for each major/minor power to produce units as well.

Killerduck -> RE: Editor ideas (5/6/2008 11:54:24 PM)
Edit any and all forces on the map. Edit money in treasury. Edit leaders available, including adding new leaders. Edit date of the game. Create new units, including guerillas for all countries. A fine editor is number 1 on my wishlist.

Adraeth -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 12:09:13 AM)
To edit everything should be awesome. My ideas: Edit countries boundaries Edit minor alliances (control-free state) Edit minor attitudes (Saxony more prone to Austria? or Russia?... and so on) Edit leaders (so i can make Turenne, Eugene de Savoy etc...) Edit political status (dominant etc..) starting positions Edit time length of a game (from 1 year to X years) Edit treasury Edit starting diplomacy alliances Edit AI priorites targets (if it is possible, so Russia will focus on Balkans and Scandinavia or if i want only on Germany... and so on) For now those above [:)]

alaric318 -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 12:26:06 AM)
indeed for me it is about the order of battle, so, i will break a lance about the ability to edit "corps composition", in example, guards and artillery available for all corps, so onwards for cavalry increased in all nations, it leads to more freedom on making scenarios, sure that it is not in the original, but i say, please, for what not take advantage and enhance, as an option, the computer version with the computer capabilities? added in, the ability to change/mod the national morale attributes will be good as the ability to mod the available corps and, as said, his composition. thanks for read, with best regards, murat30.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 1:18:21 AM)
Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both?

Killerduck -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 1:27:43 AM)
Allow everything. We all want Lannes (241D, imho) and my FtF group plays with LaSalle (French cossack unit with morale 5). Currently I am playing a 1788 campaign as Russia and I really like Suvarov (454B*), even though he'll be sacked come 1800. Editor is a nice temporary answer to a lot of problems and is absolutely needed for this game to reach it's (very high) potential.

bresh -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 9:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer Add "bridges" (some rivers which can be crossed without the penalty), as a purchasable item. If "bridges" are added, perhaps the game might start with some already in existence (for instance, across the Thames north/south). Laugh :) Good one Jimmer, there are bridges in the game already. It just not as easy to cross those when you march into enemies on the other side. Thats why the movement slows down. Thats why no extra movecost when no enemies on the other side, since then it wont slow you down. Regards Bresh

Adraeth -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 5:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both? Both is better, but if not possible i would prefer to create my own, for in this case i should modify existing ones or create new ones.

bresh -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 5:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adraeth Montecuccoli quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both? Both is better, but if not possible i would prefer to create my own, for in this case i should modify existing ones or create new ones. It would be best if we can edit & create leaders/corps/fleets in the editor. I could foresee maybe one problem regarding Nelson and Nappy, since they affect pp gain/loss to ? Regards Bresh

Grapeshot Bob -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 7:32:57 PM)
Give the person editing the chance to buff up the AI. Add a feature that gives each country a "forced" set of objectives or alliances. Or perhaps a "forced" set of 1 - 4 objectives. The country could pick one at random to spice things up. GSB

Adraeth -> RE: Editor ideas (5/7/2008 9:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob Give the person editing the chance to buff up the AI. Add a feature that gives each country a "forced" set of objectives or alliances. Or perhaps a "forced" set of 1 - 4 objectives. The country could pick one at random to spice things up. GSB Really interesting feature, it is quite what i intended in my first editor's wishes [;)]

Grognot -> Minor suggestion (5/7/2008 11:46:00 PM)
It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al). If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files. This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked. Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked.

bresh -> RE: Minor suggestion (5/8/2008 12:23:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grognot It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al). If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.� This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.�� Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked. A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay. If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog). This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs :) Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes :) But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation. Kind Regards Bresh

Kwik E Mart -> RE: Minor suggestion (5/8/2008 1:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh quote: ORIGINAL: Grognot It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al). If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.� This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.�� Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked. A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay. If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog). This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs :) Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes :) But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation. Kind Regards Bresh oooooh.....i really like this one......maybe not even for host (might cheat) but for an arbitrator or referee type.....

dodod -> RE: Minor suggestion (5/8/2008 5:29:07 AM)
I hope the editor is not too far off...because at least it would enable people to comfort themselves in regards to some of the other inadequacies in the game... I suggest a editor for new games and host-editor for ongoing games is a must. In regards to options for the editor... years played leaders and leader stat changes if kingdoms can't be changed, at least create all the kingdoms in the original game set up stats, corp size editing limitations on number of stacked corp option fleet production time, movement limit, unit costs (able to change for each major power), and unit morale changes I still think dominance gain/loss is critical with morale changes, etc. VP alterations for major powers capacity to give kingdoms leaders enable guards for all majors (including spain) for other older campaigns. Corp composition changes (russia with mixed cav/infantry corp) initial alliance/war status allowing insurrection corp for any country (with variable counters) movement during phase determined by dominance issue. variability in different kingdom formations that should be good for a start...so when do we get all this, next week? lol.

bresh -> RE: Minor suggestion (5/8/2008 9:52:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart quote: ORIGINAL: bresh quote: ORIGINAL: Grognot It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al). If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.� This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.�� Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked. A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay. If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog). This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs :) Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes :) But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation. Kind Regards Bresh oooooh.....i really like this one......maybe not even for host (might cheat) but for an arbitrator or referee type..... If all changes are shown in game log, i think host can do it fine. Like H>Egypt turned GB-free state. H>15 Garrisons arrived in Cairo, H>A Egypt corps with 4 Cav arrived at Alexeandria etc. Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 12:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both? I, for one, want to try to recreate the campaign that The General magazine came out with about 10 years after the game itself. I forget the name, but it was essentially 1792-1802, in the spirit of the grand campaign. France wasn't dominant, Nappy doesn't show up until 1796 (and is a 5.5.3 leader at that point), the Russians had Suvorov (sp?), a 4.5.4 cavalry leader, etc.

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 12:06:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Laugh :) Good one Jimmer, there are bridges in the game already. It just not as easy to cross those when you march into enemies on the other side. Thats why the movement slows down. Thats why no extra movecost when no enemies on the other side, since then it wont slow you down. Regards Bresh It may have been funny to you, but I was serioius. Of course there are bridges. I'm talking about BIG bridges, capable of running an entire army across, even WITH enemies on the other side. Or, one could think of them as a part of the river where there are numerous small bridges, such that one can cross without taking the penalty.

NeverMan -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 1:07:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both? I, for one, want to try to recreate the campaign that The General magazine came out with about 10 years after the game itself. I forget the name, but it was essentially 1792-1802, in the spirit of the grand campaign. France wasn't dominant, Nappy doesn't show up until 1796 (and is a 5.5.3 leader at that point), the Russians had Suvorov (sp?), a 4.5.4 cavalry leader, etc. Are you talking about the Revolutionary Campaign? France starts out with a ton of militiia, isn't dominate, etc? Yeah, that was a really fun campaign game. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same on.

NeverMan -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 1:09:47 AM)
Jimmer, I agree with Bresh, this is incorporated into the game now. You might be able to march a whole army across a river (which you can do NOW) it's just that it takes time (since the enemies occupy the other side of the bridge and are firing, etc at you) and it's going to effect your position (which is also reflected in the game). IMO, this would be a waste as it is already included in the game.

bresh -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 9:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Laugh :) Good one Jimmer, there are bridges in the game already. It just not as easy to cross those when you march into enemies on the other side. Thats why the movement slows down. Thats why no extra movecost when no enemies on the other side, since then it wont slow you down. Regards Bresh It may have been funny to you, but I was serioius. Of course there are bridges. I'm talking about BIG bridges, capable of running an entire army across, even WITH enemies on the other side. Or, one could think of them as a part of the river where there are numerous small bridges, such that one can cross without taking the penalty. Thats just silly, they are in the game, why do you think you pay no extra costs when you move over rivers if no enemies are there ? And if you can build super-bridges. why stop there, lets remake the map. cut down/grow woods. Build more fortifications in cities ? I think for starter the editor just needs to edit units(placement,size,oob,factors,allowance, create(example delete Bernadotte and create him as a minor's leader), and for the map part(placement of corps, ownership,parts of kingdoms,ect). If you where able to edit Kingdoms you could actually manage to add minors to current Kingdoms. And create new kingdoms from EIA. Kind Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 5:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Are you talking about the Revolutionary Campaign? France starts out with a ton of militiia, isn't dominate, etc? Yeah, that was a really fun campaign game. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same on. Yup, that's the one. I never got to play it, and it looked interesting.

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 5:52:45 PM)
Let me try this again, since two people seem not to comprehend it as previously written: A "bridge" in this terminology would ELIMINATE the river crossing penalty for that area border crossing. No movement cost and no extra entries in the Cordon line of the battle table. The idea is that you pay money/manpower to make it easier to defend yourself in the future. Maybe it's not the greatest idea.

NeverMan -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 6:42:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer Let me try this again, since two people seem not to comprehend it as previously written: A "bridge" in this terminology would ELIMINATE the river crossing penalty for that area border crossing. No movement cost and no extra entries in the Cordon line of the battle table. The idea is that you pay money/manpower to make it easier to defend yourself in the future. Maybe it's not the greatest idea. We comprehend you just fine. So WHY would this eliminate the penalties? What "technology" in this era would they have used to make it easier to attack across a bridge? Maybe if you clarify the reasoning for us, we might get on board with that.

bresh -> RE: Editor ideas (5/9/2008 8:06:40 PM)
Jimmer�do we want EIA or whatever houserules all players used ? Lets keep this game real, and not imaginary. The editors should improve the closeness to EIA not bring out gaps. Atleast not in first version. So skip/drop an idea about SUPER Bridges, its not even in the mind of the time. Why build bridges just build a dam and make a sea ?� And when enemies try pass you flood them all. If you ask me there is 0 logic about bridges negating the dificulty about closing on the enemy who�deploy as close as 1 feet to that bridge you try to pass. If this is so, im not sure EIA is the game you really want to play. Since it wont be anything close to EIA. Regards Bresh

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/12/2008 7:07:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan We comprehend you just fine. So WHY would this eliminate the penalties? What "technology" in this era would they have used to make it easier to attack across a bridge? Maybe if you clarify the reasoning for us, we might get on board with that. We were asked to brainstorm. I did so. Avalon Hill put out a scenario using roughly the same rules, but covering a different time period (granted, only a decade earlier). I don't see any reason this game should be limited to just 1805-1815, once the editor comes out.

NeverMan -> RE: Editor ideas (5/12/2008 6:19:06 PM)
Jimmer, You are right. I suppose that there is no reason to limit anything with the editor, since if you dont' like the rules of the game then you don't have to play. Point taken. I just wanted to address the issue that "bridges" are currently being addressed by the EiA rules, that's all.

Jimmer -> RE: Editor ideas (5/12/2008 6:46:05 PM)
Where the idea came from is from another old "board" game: Pax Brittanica. In that one, a couple of the powers could build the Panama Canal, to bridge the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (for allies, that is). So, my mind was thinking along this train of thought when up popped the idea of bridges. Actually, there's a canal in Greece that might have been built in this era, too. I'm not sure if that would make any different in EiA, but that's how my mind operates sometimes. Probably not enough caffeine that day.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125