RE: Automatic battles?

RE: Automatic battles? (Full Version)

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

Message

La Provence -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/18/2008 9:41:57 PM)
With this "rule", I lost Davout and all his Corps (25.000 men) in a battle against Prussian !!! In the adjacent area, I have more than 75.000 men who don't move (no renforcement). The IA choose "Defend" for Davout against 6 or 7 Prussain corps !!! [X(] (So, at the begining of the campaign Davout and 25000 men as prisoners). Impossibility to give an "intelligent" order to him because this was made during reinforcement and the french move ofen at the end : so the strategic situation is very different. Are you able to understand that ???? It's a non sense [X(]

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 12:26:26 PM)
La Provence: Tell me more about this game. I'm assuming PBEM? Was it AI that attacked you?

La Provence -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 1:13:17 PM)
It's a PBEM game No AI, all human. This situation appear a second time with berthier with 1 corps against prussian stack ........ But IA choose Withdraw for Berthier and ... [&o] ........ succeed !! I'm OK for the automatic resolution when an army fight a single corps BUT if the chief of this corps has the possibility to give it an appropriate order !

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 2:35:10 PM)
This should never happen in an all human game??? The AI should only assume control in PBEM games. I would lvoe to see this in a save if you find this again.

La Provence -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 2:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: La Provence I'm OK for the automatic resolution when an army fight a single corps BUT if the chief of this corps has the possibility to give it an appropriate order after his move ! Sorry, important correction ...

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 3:01:23 PM)
This still should have been an issue in a non-pbem game. Hot seat should allow both of you guys to fight???

DCWhitworth -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 3:08:33 PM)
Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 3:42:48 PM)
We've discussed this before and I don't have a problem with. Anybody else got an opinion?

bresh -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 3:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis We've discussed this before and I don't have a problem with. Anybody else got an opinion? Im fine with this. Dont know if some "battleinfo" should be displayed in gamelog, so that ppl who request the intelligence dont loose that part. Im not aware of the importance for them. Regards Bresh

AresMars -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 3:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code. Agreed, battle files for seiges are annoying, however, I raise the following point.... Is there a way to identify in which order the seige loses would occur? ie. MP Militia, Minors Inf, MP Inf, MP Arty, MP Grd, Minor Cav, MP Cav..... or some other combination depending on personal preferences or one the situation...? Also, would this be a global setting or could local settings be issued? Is this complicating the issue for no real benefit?

Jimmer -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/19/2008 4:09:45 PM)
I don't have a problem with siege combats (or, trivial combats) being done by the computer, whether there are corps involved or not. The tables are fixed, so there's no point. One cannot make any real choices except losses. As I pointed out above, losses can be saved up and done all at the end of combat anyhow, so this would just be an extension of that.

eske -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 7:11:52 AM)
Automatic loses in sieges should be acceptable, and preferable to trivial battlefile exchange. Specially if the order loses is taken is fixed and well known - as in described in the manual. First garrisons factors before factors in corps. If you garrison a city you are prepared to lose that garrison in a siege battle. Then an obvious choice would be in order of cost, so cossack, freicorps first, then militia, infantry, artillery, guard and cavalry. And, if that is a choice, lower morale infantry before higher, lower morale cavalry before higher. That should take care of minors. If anyone can come up with a case, where this is not the best priorities, I would like to hear it. (But be warned. I'm most likely to dismiss it as pure speculation and too special to need to consider [;)] ) /eske

DCWhitworth -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 9:27:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske Automatic loses in sieges should be acceptable, and preferable to trivial battlefile exchange. Specially if the order loses is taken is fixed and well known - as in described in the manual. First garrisons factors before factors in corps. If you garrison a city you are prepared to lose that garrison in a siege battle. Then an obvious choice would be in order of cost, so cossack, freicorps first, then militia, infantry, artillery, guard and cavalry. And, if that is a choice, lower morale infantry before higher, lower morale cavalry before higher. That should take care of minors. If anyone can come up with a case, where this is not the best priorities, I would like to hear it. (But be warned. I'm most likely to dismiss it as pure speculation and too special to need to consider [;)] ) /eske I think I would probably push cossacks / freicorps down the list. Although cheap/free they are very useful in other ways than for fighting. I probably wouldn't lose them before militia at least.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 2:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code. Agreed, battle files for seiges are annoying, however, I raise the following point.... Is there a way to identify in which order the seige loses would occur? ie. MP Militia, Minors Inf, MP Inf, MP Arty, MP Grd, Minor Cav, MP Cav..... or some other combination depending on personal preferences or one the situation...? Also, would this be a global setting or could local settings be issued? Is this complicating the issue for no real benefit? The AI will choose miltia first then on up per the value of the piece.

NeverMan -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 5:09:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis quote: ORIGINAL: AresMars quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code. Agreed, battle files for seiges are annoying, however, I raise the following point.... Is there a way to identify in which order the seige loses would occur? ie. MP Militia, Minors Inf, MP Inf, MP Arty, MP Grd, Minor Cav, MP Cav..... or some other combination depending on personal preferences or one the situation...? Also, would this be a global setting or could local settings be issued? Is this complicating the issue for no real benefit? The AI will choose miltia first then on up per the value of the piece. Yes. Cossacks are very nice broken and pursuit losses.

Jimmer -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 5:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske Automatic loses in sieges should be acceptable, and preferable to trivial battlefile exchange. Specially if the order loses is taken is fixed and well known - as in described in the manual. First garrisons factors before factors in corps. If you garrison a city you are prepared to lose that garrison in a siege battle. Then an obvious choice would be in order of cost, so cossack, freicorps first, then militia, infantry, artillery, guard and cavalry. And, if that is a choice, lower morale infantry before higher, lower morale cavalry before higher. That should take care of minors. If anyone can come up with a case, where this is not the best priorities, I would like to hear it. (But be warned. I'm most likely to dismiss it as pure speculation and too special to need to consider [;)] ) /eske The list has to be much more extensive. It also has to be settable by the user (generally, that is, not specific to certain battles). I post this list ONLY so that it's something to build off of; I do not think it is complete: guerillas free state infantry with 1 morale free state infantry with 2 morale feudal infantry home nation militia feudal cavalry free state infantry with 3 morale home nation infantry with 3 morale cossacks, friekorps free state infantry with 4 morale free state cavalry with 2 morale free state cavalry with 3 morale home nation infantry with 4.5 morale free state cavalry with 4 morale home nation cavalry guard artillery

Jimmer -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 5:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth I think I would probably push cossacks / freicorps down the list. Although cheap/free they are very useful in other ways than for fighting. I probably wouldn't lose them before militia at least. It would depend on which nation you are, plus whether it is a multi-national force.

Jimmer -> RE: Automatic battles? (8/20/2008 5:22:34 PM)
I should also say that I'm pretty sure that list is not in the right order. It's in AN order, but not the right one. In fact, different players and also different major powers will play the list differently. For example, in a combined Russian/Turkish army, they might be more willing to take feudal cavalry than cossacks, since cossacks have so much more maneuvering capability. What would be needed would be an interface addition with spinners for priority. Each nation should set them for all types of factors (else a default list would be chosen for you). It should include all factors because you never know who might be your "ally" in a battle some day. (The army's commander should use his list.) This could change over the course of a game, but doesn't need to be changed battle-to-battle. Perhaps it should be a reinforcement phase item.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.330078