A new bug is born. (Full Version)

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



Message

Cunctator -> A new bug is born. (11/15/2008 2:07:49 PM)

This is the situation:
France, after having surrendered to Russia and Austria, has a temporary access of 3 months to their lands.
France dows two minors; Russia takes control of one them and Austria of the other one.
Nappy successfully breaches the wall of the two capitals, put garrisons in them and wait for the conquest.
In the meantime french temporary access to Russia and Austria expires and....surprise!!!... the french forces in the two minors are expelled!!!

The bug:
By mistake, the game considers the dowed minors as part of the russian and austrian empires and when the right of passage ends...bye bye Nappy.

Please Marshall solve this situation becuase it is not solvable in any way.

Thanx in advance

C.



DCWhitworth -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/15/2008 3:50:15 PM)

I would strongly suggest that the artificial construct of players taking control of 'neutral' minors is disposed of. This was something that was necessary in the board game, but is completely unneeded in the computer version.

If it's neutral get the AI to run it !



gwheelock -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/15/2008 10:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I would strongly suggest that the artificial construct of players taking control of 'neutral' minors is disposed of. This was something that was necessary in the board game, but is completely unneeded in the computer version.

If it's neutral get the AI to run it !


Either that or give it a different name & status from stuff that REALLY is owned
by a player - instead of "Free State"; call it "Controlled". A "Controlled" state
FUNCTIONS as a "Free State" & will either turn into one (lapse of war) or
be turned over to the DOWing power as a "Conquored" (conquest). The
main thing that this does is to allow the computer to easily differentiate
between the two types for purposes of access, conquest, etc.



Cunctator -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/16/2008 10:28:02 AM)

I agree completely with DCWithworth.
AI should run the minors.



StCyr -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/16/2008 1:51:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cunctator

I agree completely with DCWithworth.
AI should run the minors.




ie: France decalres war on Bavaria, Austria takes control of Bavaria, and Austria furthermore declares war on France, so that the Austrian and Bavarian troops fight together and combined vs the attacker.
This scenario makes sense but you want the ai to run a minor ?
Check out history and you will find "some" more examples of minors being attacked by majors and seeking protection from another major. EiA may sometimes really reflects history, and I wonder how some can call this an "artificial construct".



Jimmer -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/16/2008 11:01:15 PM)

I completely disagree with the basic concept that controlling minors is a negligible duty. I feel is is the very heart and soul of the early game. Typically, only the people who dumb down the game by house rules that neuter these transactions feel this way (which seems to be a majority of those here). There are some ingenious uses of minors that it seems nobody supporting this concept has any clue about (or refuses to allow because of some ill-conceived concept of "gamey-ness"). Britain and France (especially, but others too) spent a great deal of resources scheming behind the scenes and out in the open, all in an effort to have these "minor" countries join their side.

USE those minors! That's why the game included them. At an absolute minimum, work to gain at least one victory point by keeping them intact to the end of an economic month (if possible). But, there's so very much more that they can do. Even just the ability to defend them by declaring war is a huge potential game element. How in the world is France going to defend Bavaria if the game takes control of it? It's ludicrous.

-------------------

The one thing, though, that needs to happen is to prevent powers from "rolling for control" if it is an ally that declares war. This would bring it back to more of the original intent. Influence should not be enough to overcome this, although, ally status would be (since the game forces the declaring power to break the alliance).



NeverMan -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/17/2008 12:58:20 AM)

I agree with Jimmer.

Making the AI control minors really goes against one of the major spirits of the game and should never be implemented.



bresh -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/17/2008 9:01:08 AM)

I agree with Jimmer and Neverman on this subject.
Oh and Also StCyr :)

Regards
Bresh



DCWhitworth -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/17/2008 11:49:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cunctator

I agree completely with DCWithworth.
AI should run the minors.




ie: France decalres war on Bavaria, Austria takes control of Bavaria, and Austria furthermore declares war on France, so that the Austrian and Bavarian troops fight together and combined vs the attacker.
This scenario makes sense but you want the ai to run a minor ?
Check out history and you will find "some" more examples of minors being attacked by majors and seeking protection from another major. EiA may sometimes really reflects history, and I wonder how some can call this an "artificial construct".



If someone declares war in support of a minor then that minor should automatically come under their control.

I'm not saying there are no flaws in this idea, but there are a lot less flaws than major powers controlling minors directly. I do not dispute that you can come up with historical examples that contradict this, unfortunately history hasn't read the rule book so there will always be exceptions

Jimmer - my objection to the 'ingenious uses' of minors is not so much because they are 'gamey' its because they are 'unhistorical' e.g. Spain declares war on Portugal, GB gets control and promptly uses the Portuguese fleet to attack the French fleet in port with British ships, taking all the losses from the minor fleet. Some people will howl in outrage, others will shrug and say 'so what ?'. I am with the former, I want to play a game that simulates history not that can be exploited in 'ingenious' ways.

As for the 'artifical contruct' comment - how else was minor control to be done in the board game ? Minor control was given to major powers not because it was a brilliant idea that enhanced the game, but because it was the only thing that could be done with any degree of playability.

This is a branch of the age old realism/playability argument. Neither side is wholly right nor should they ever be allowed to win since it is necessary to strike a balance. On the one side you'd have a hideously complex game that is no fun to play, on the other hand you'd have chess.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: A new bug is born. (11/17/2008 1:34:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cunctator

This is the situation:
France, after having surrendered to Russia and Austria, has a temporary access of 3 months to their lands.
France dows two minors; Russia takes control of one them and Austria of the other one.
Nappy successfully breaches the wall of the two capitals, put garrisons in them and wait for the conquest.
In the meantime french temporary access to Russia and Austria expires and....surprise!!!... the french forces in the two minors are expelled!!!

The bug:
By mistake, the game considers the dowed minors as part of the russian and austrian empires and when the right of passage ends...bye bye Nappy.

Please Marshall solve this situation becuase it is not solvable in any way.

Thanx in advance

C.




Should see this fix in 1.05 (Mantix issue #337)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.5