commander sandbagging? (Full Version)

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



Message

polarole -> commander sandbagging? (2/21/2009 11:07:55 AM)

hi,

is commander sandbagging possbile in the game and how do i do it?

bye
ole



bresh -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/21/2009 11:48:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: polarole

hi,

is commander sandbagging possbile in the game and how do i do it?

bye
ole


No idea what sandbagging is.


Regards
Bresh



polarole -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/21/2009 11:57:12 AM)

hi,

sandbagging is reducing your commanders tactical rating on purpose:

e.g. you have a 4 leader and fight a 2 leader for +1/0
in the boardgame you can sandbag yourself to a 3 leader for 0/-1 if you happen to have cav sup. e.g.

i hope its clear what is meant now?

bye
ole



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/21/2009 7:37:41 PM)

No, that is not available. It really should be, as leaders with a 4 tactical use this tactic all the time in the board game.



NeverMan -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/21/2009 8:05:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

No, that is not available. It really should be, as leaders with a 4 tactical use this tactic all the time in the board game.


Maybe this isn't allowed in EiH?



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/23/2009 12:00:02 AM)

I suspect a programming constraint more than EiH. But, I never played EiH, so I don't really know.



DCWhitworth -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/23/2009 12:53:48 PM)

This was logged as issue 254 in Mantis. The call is listed as fixed in v1.05 but from the descrioption I'm not 100% sure Marshall has understood the issue. 



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/23/2009 7:56:45 PM)

I'll check it out. This one is pretty important in certain situations. For instance, if Massena catches a British corps with no leader stuck somewhere, he would typically have a +1/0 under the current rules. But, since he most likely brought cavalry, he can make it +1/-1 by dropping his rating to a 3 (0/-1 and then +1 for cav superiority).

Since almost every power sits their main army under a 4 leader most of the time, this is a pretty big change from the original.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/24/2009 3:35:20 PM)

I clearly misunderstood issue #254. I will reopen and look at this for 1.07




DCWhitworth -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/24/2009 3:41:03 PM)

I would have thought this could be done automatically with a simple logical test. There are very few occasions when there is truly a 'choice', usually the best option is obvious.



Ted1066 -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/24/2009 10:47:47 PM)

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted



Marshall Ellis -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/25/2009 2:27:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted


I have the same question???




DCWhitworth -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/25/2009 2:49:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted


I have the same question???



7.5.2.9.1.2: If desired, a player may declare at the start of a combat round that his commander's tactical rating is less than it actually is for purposes of determining the die roll modifiers on the COMMANDER CHART.



Ted1066 -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/25/2009 6:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted


I have the same question???



7.5.2.9.1.2: If desired, a player may declare at the start of a combat round that his commander's tactical rating is less than it actually is for purposes of determining the die roll modifiers on the COMMANDER CHART.


Well, kick @$$! Given that this is a subsection of a subsection of a subsection, etc., I'm not surprised I missed this. This is a rather important rule though! It's been added back to Mantis then (or at least updated)?

Ted



DCWhitworth -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/25/2009 7:21:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Well, kick @$$! Given that this is a subsection of a subsection of a subsection, etc., I'm not surprised I missed this. This is a rather important rule though! It's been added back to Mantis then (or at least updated)?

Ted


Not the deepest subsection by a long way. There is 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 and it's companion 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 [:)]



Dancing Bear -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 3:04:42 AM)

The easiest way to do this is to make it automatic. Have the game calculate cav superiority, then adjust the leadership ratios until the optimum ratio is found.

I'm not sure how important this is however, because lets say the attacker sandbags to take advantage of cav superiority, can't the defender also sandbag to nulify the advantage. How often can any sand bagging move by the attacker not be matched by a counter sand bagging move by the defender? Is it really that often?



Marshall Ellis -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 12:38:17 PM)

Another good question???



NeverMan -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 2:51:56 PM)

During the course of the game it happens and I, personally, think the output/input ratio is high on this one. If I ever had a vote (which I doubt) then my vote goes to putting it in. Can't be that hard to code in, honestly.

If Cav Superiority
If roll mod == +1
MinusTactRating()
ReadjustRollMod()

Let me know if I missed something.



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 4:21:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I would have thought this could be done automatically with a simple logical test. There are very few occasions when there is truly a 'choice', usually the best option is obvious.

I would still like to have the option, but maybe have the "obvious" one pre-selected? Alternately, show me what the results are (if you choose 4, it will be +1/0, but if you choose 3, it will be 0/-1, etc.)

The other time this comes into play is when reinforcements arrive, and the new corps cause one leader to go over his maximum, thus lowering his tactical rating.



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 4:28:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The easiest way to do this is to make it automatic. Have the game calculate cav superiority, then adjust the leadership ratios until the optimum ratio is found.

I'm not sure how important this is however, because lets say the attacker sandbags to take advantage of cav superiority, can't the defender also sandbag to nulify the advantage. How often can any sand bagging move by the attacker not be matched by a counter sand bagging move by the defender? Is it really that often?

Not really. The big time it matters is when the attacker has a choice of +1/0 vs 0/-1. Then, if the side sandbagging has cav superiority, he can turn 0/-1 into +1/-1, whereas +1/0 stays +1/0.

However, when ones opponent has cav superiority, choosing a lower tactical rating might cause what would have been a +1/+1 battle to be fought on the 0/0 table instead. This would imply fewer casualties and lower morale loss (or, if done in reverse, the opposite). An army with superior troop counts is very interested in keeping the battle going as long as possible. Using a lower table means the possibility of extra days of combat (or even extra rounds). Or, in the reverse case, a low troop count army might want to get it over with as soon as possible.

Also, the choice is made AFTER you see the forces arrayed against you, which could change your choices.



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 4:31:04 PM)

Also, having the other side lower their rating in response to you lowering yours wouldn't work, because they only hurt themselves in such situations. Lowering a rating never raises the end result. Only cav superiority does, and that would have been taken into account by the commander with the higher rating.



Ted1066 -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 10:03:27 PM)

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted



NeverMan -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/26/2009 10:30:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted


This is not true. Re-read the section above where it states that a commander can do this at the beginning of every round (note, it doesn't say every "day").

ALSO IMPORTANT, notice that the rule is under the STEP NINE section while revealing forces is under the STEP SIX section, implicitly implying (was that redundant?) that this is done AFTER forces are revealed and done each round.



Dancing Bear -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/27/2009 3:05:16 AM)

I can see how this might be useful in some rare cases, but why not let the game figure out the best ratio? Anything else seems like excessive nitpicking, espeially when there are bigger fish to fry. Unless this is very easy to do, I suggest this go near the bottam of the Marhall's to do list.



Ted1066 -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/27/2009 8:44:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted


This is not true. Re-read the section above where it states that a commander can do this at the beginning of every round (note, it doesn't say every "day").

ALSO IMPORTANT, notice that the rule is under the STEP NINE section while revealing forces is under the STEP SIX section, implicitly implying (was that redundant?) that this is done AFTER forces are revealed and done each round.


Good eye, Neverman, I had missed that subtlety. I definitely think this rule ought to be added in then, as it has a big impact on those nations with quality leaders (e.g. a Soult vs. Schwarzenburg minor league battle, as opposed to a Napoleon vs Charles A league duke-it-out :)

The next question becomes where/when to incorporate it. Do you make it an option during combat, or do you make it a checkbox for a leader counter? Not sure where the best placement for this option would be, but I would lean towards the combat screen.

Ted



Marshall Ellis -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/27/2009 1:06:10 PM)

The better option would be to auto do this maybe??? When would you NOT want the max bonus effect?
I need to look at this BUT I think it would be easier to simply calc this at the begining?????????



NeverMan -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/27/2009 2:04:35 PM)

I don't think anyone is arguing for this being anything BUT automated.... no one wants yet another file going back and forth.. blablabla....

Exactly, when would you not want to max it, so this can EASILY be implemented each round by the program.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/27/2009 2:49:56 PM)

I will take a gander at this...
BTW: What's funny is that I was ignorant to this all along and have never played it! LOL!




Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/28/2009 7:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

The better option would be to auto do this maybe??? When would you NOT want the max bonus effect?
I need to look at this BUT I think it would be easier to simply calc this at the begining?????????


The "max bonus" isn't necessarily the "max tactical"; that's the point (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

It needs to be modifiable every round in which there is a change of leadership (including, of course, the first round).



Jimmer -> RE: commander sandbagging? (2/28/2009 7:20:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I will take a gander at this...
BTW: What's funny is that I was ignorant to this all along and have never played it! LOL!



:)

This option gets used close to every turn (during wartime) in the games I've played in. The three big powers get a 2 tactical rating on their loose corps. So, every time a loose corps gets attacked by a 4 leader, this option jumps into play: 4 leaders are ususally leading a small army, so they usually have cavalry superiority. Thus, the option makes what would have been a +1/0 battle become +1/-1. It's a huge difference.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.21875