|
Minedog -> RE: Priorities for 1.03 (5/21/2008 6:44:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Minedog:
Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?
I understand it is tricky, made more so by the wandering French and British move cycle position, BUT this is the key and cornerstone feature of the multiplayer game. Combined movement means these major powers are treated as one movement phase, or more practically, one movement phase of multiple parts. Supply and battle are not determined until the end of the total parts of the movement phase.
Talking here mainly from experience with the boardgame rather than the computer game, a combined move is a sequence of nations moving, so for example in a Russian, Austrian & Prussian alliance combined move, the nations move in order (and in the boardgame that is any sequence chosen, eg. Prussia, then Russian then Austria), then there is a supply step, then there is a battle step.
So there are three processes here
1. determining the movement order in the combined move step
2. determining supply at the end of the total combined movement
3. determining battle command.
From a non-programmer point of view;
Step 1 comprises a lengthy list of turn sequence options, possibly made selective by determining Combined movement in the Diplomacy phase. If major powers can be grouped, the group position is determined by the last moving major power in the Phase, and it should then be possible to determine the group movement order in the start of Land and Naval Phase of the last moving Major Power. Taking the example forward, Russian, Austrian and Prussian land units all move in the Prussian Land step. They could then chose to move Prussia, Russia, Austria.
Step 2 requires a major power actually actively paying corps supply. This runs at odds with the computer game procedure of paying supply by default. Fundamentally I think active paying of supply (and default forage) is a better solution both for later integration with the optional depot limits rule, and I suspect it would bring focus to the AI. So continuing the example, Prussia pays to supply some corps, then Russia, then Austria. This might be expedited by allowing depots to be set to allow other major powers to use them for supply.
Step 3. Actually the easiest of the three. Command of the battle goes to the highest leader of the major power with the most corps, unless they have no leader. Losses are allocated proportionally, with the commander determining the odd losses. So for example, a battle with 4 Prussian, 3 Austrian and 2 Russian corps and an Austrian and Russian leader, the Austrian leader is in command and runs the battle for all purposes. Assuming the corps are of equal size, 4/9ths of the casualties are Prussian, 3/9th Austrian and 2/9th Russian.
Strictly speaking, in EiA boardgame terms, loaned corps are something taken as a peace condition in a surrender, and they are returned to their owner once 50% of the corps are lost through any means. Over the years there have been many abuses of this "loan", transporting them out to sea, or marooning them on islands. Marching them into the desert etc. Ergo, as a player, I would never loan my corps or fleets to another player. About the only advantage I could see in loaned corps would be for the AI to turn over control to an allied major power, mainly because the AI lacks any tactical or strategic focus.
This is a LOT of reprogramming I suspect, BUT it is the fundamental basis of EiA. The sequence of play is pretty much where every rule set begins, and if that fails, so does the intent of many other subsequent rules. Without combined movement there is so much lost from the game IMHO as to make it a French walkover, and loses much of the diplomatic aspects of the game.
|
|
|
|
