RE: Improving PBEM, again

RE: Improving PBEM, again (Full Version)

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

Message

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/25/2008 8:46:45 PM)
I'll go one step further than Gwheelock: ALL battles that have corps on both sides should always be fought with chits. To refresh your memory, there was a HUGE thread that discussed this a while back. That was the one where people got all bent out of shape over the issue of trivial combats when a 5-to-1 ratio of strengths exists. I mention that only to remind you of the discussion; it's not directly related to this question (but, I can't find the thread now). The end result of that discussion was that ALL battles that were not trivial combats MUST be fought by the players, unless the defender specified a chit pull in the stack's standing orders. Trivial combats are excepted because you can't reinforce into a trivial combat. (On the flip side, though, a force that took part in a trivial combat should still be available to reinforce other combats.)

bOrIuM -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 3:35:30 AM)
Or what if its a guard corp, you may want to commit the guards ? And I particulary agree with the reinforcement for that corp. And I add, even if Trivial combats downt need the action of a player, its currently impossible for a player whos besiged to know what is the force of his opponent.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 12:14:44 PM)
What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control? Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!

eske -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 1:13:19 PM)
Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution. And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available.... /eske

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 1:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control? Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps! I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 9:23:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control? Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps! I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors. I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure: I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power. So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now. But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull. See also the response I'm about to write to Eske.

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 9:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution. And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available.... /eske This is possible now, IF one remembers to do it. But, the problem I have is that options change depending on the situation. Before Nappy got defeated in some battle, I might be more interested in a risky choice. But, after I've lost the 5 PP for losing with Nappy, I'm going to be much more interested in "safe" options. This can and does change in the middle of phases (even in the middle of a single player's phase).

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 9:26:51 PM)
By the way, making it optional (especially if you make it optional player-specific) would be a good compromise. The default could be left as is, and then players can bark at each other for not using the default. :)

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/26/2008 10:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control? Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps! I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors. I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure: I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power. So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now. But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull. See also the response I'm about to write to Eske. yes, this is exactly what I meant. :)

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/28/2008 12:35:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan yes, this is exactly what I meant. :) Thanks. I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.

borner -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/28/2008 1:49:27 AM)
whatever happened to the idea of doing some phases.... eco, reinf.. dip.... at the same time to reduce the number of total iles and thus delays?

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/28/2008 2:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner whatever happened to the idea of doing some phases.... eco, reinf.. dip.... at the same time to reduce the number of total iles and thus delays? I think this is still on the table (probably not reinf though) but Matrix is doing AI before PBEM improvement.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625