1.06.03 Observations (Full Version)

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



Message

easterner -> 1.06.03 Observations (8/13/2009 11:15:23 PM)

Thanks to crash never got around to testing this.

France-hard-solitaire. About 15 mon played.

Russ declared war on Swedes, crossed Finn border, 1 cps, uncrossed border. War lapsed. LAME!

Aus declares on Dal, crosses bordrr and sleeps, Dals put one factor in Ragusa, Aus kill it. Taking capital though not on to do list. LAME, but at least didn't lapse.

Aus declared war on Modena & Papacy: Lapsed. LAME.

Took Romagna and Wurtembg, somehoe got Bav as controlled minor.

declared on Naples and conquored, almost an EiA 1st, they usually lapse vs Naples.

Brit keeps crossing at Lille, Fr 4-Eng 0. Stupid w/o numbers.

brit got control of many Germ minors, Pr lapsed vs. Hessem, Brits stumbled into Holland and oblivion. Good tactic, bad execution.

REINFORCE GARR bug. SEMI-FIXED: Still can't add GARR factors in besieged ports with GARR button but CORPS button allows it. A not uncommon EiA foible since 1.02 or so.



Jimmer -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/14/2009 7:44:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner
Aus declared war on Modena & Papacy: Lapsed. LAME.

Sounds like excellent strategy to me. While I would not typically DoW both at once, I will NEVER allow them both to survive without attacking for more than a month or two unless there has been some kind of negotiation between myself and France and Spain. It's suicide to let France gobble them up (which he will do if Austria lets him).



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/16/2009 4:44:47 AM)

Lapsing is lame, not strategy of denying to Fr. The Au AI has in the past constantly overextended it self for no reason and has frequently dropped into instability from too many Decs and too few CONQ. That by the by hands Venetia to Fr for no good reason.

In my test game they were light on Decs but inadequete still on CONQ the targets.

Two AI fixes needed since 1.00 are Build minor factors for their free states, convert to free Swede, Hesse, Baden & Wurt always with a moderate chance for Fleet minors and Swiss, Lomb, Venet & Pieds and a small chance of the other minors. Further CotR for everyone and Otto for TURKs should also always occur.

KoI and KoBav still needed.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 2:14:05 AM)

Played some more. Late '06 Pr DEC on Fr. TU & SP DEC on PR. AU & RUS DEC on FR. interesting battles.

Massena & 20 man Cps wiped out by Pr. Au figured out how to take Dalmat. Tu & Rus & Au failed to DEC each other. Sp finally figured out how to take Alg and somehow got Tunis as FREE STATE. Sp sent Cps deep into Fr though it fell asleep on arrival of 1st winter. Rus fought 1st battle of war in Holland Amphib and last two at Hustrin with a CAV Cps that beat 4 Fr/allied Cps then wiped out in 2nd fight, both after Pr/Au COND surrendered. Rus & Fr still at war but only 1 Swede vs 1 CAV at St Pete's likely combatants.

Noble allies TURK & SP have both refused Fr access requests.

BUG RETURN: Unable to add INF at newly liberated Lisbon (blocaded & empty) will need build Cps and drop off an INF to fill it up at this point.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 2:06:32 PM)

Easterner:

Thanks again for report!
Can you tell me more about the Lisbon issue? Do you have that game?





Jimmer -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 6:52:56 PM)

Agreed. It's the lapsing that's the problem.

By the way, Marshall, I think part of the problem with the AI Austria's strategy in Italy is that it doesn't take into account winter movement, if in effect. The AI needs to determine two things when thinking about DoWing a minor, beyond just the strategic importance:

1)  Can he physically reach it with a corps in time to prevent a lapse?, and
2)  Can he economically afford to go there?

If winter movement rules are in effect, Florence and Dalmatia's capital are out of range to Austria.

But, even if winter movement is not slowed, she still needs to consider whether she can afford the attack.  This "calculation" needs to take into account all of the other invasions she has planned. I would recommend that the Austrians use no more than 40% of their banked income for January invasions. Then, another max 35% in February, and what's left can be used in March.

Other nations could have different ranges of the percent of banked money they might allow themselves to spend. ALL nations should plan on spending almost all of their starting money, though, with the exception of Turkey.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 7:09:21 PM)

The AI is already weighing weather and money in the DOW step. The problem is that sometimes it sucks units away from their current assignments! It's a management problem :-)






Jimmer -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 7:12:54 PM)

Yeah, and those are the hardest to code for. Oh, well.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/17/2009 7:14:02 PM)

It will get somewhat better as I play more and more deep games.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 12:43:28 AM)

Yes I have game, saved in Rein phase.

Fr acquired Port from Au as Victory Condition and declared it FREE. Received 4 INF on 1st REIN turn and could not place in Lisbon though could in any other city. Rus were blockading Lisbon after Fleet popped in FREE turn.

Error message said needed a unit to place INF in Lisbon.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 5:37:18 PM)

France moves east. Tired of perfidious allies France invades Turkey. Fr cps lands in Acre, next phase Palestine becomes Fr CONQ despite not occupied 2 full turns and capital not occupied at all.




Jimmer -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 5:57:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

France moves east. Tired of perfidious allies France invades Turkey. Fr cps lands in Acre, next phase Palestine becomes Fr CONQ despite not occupied 2 full turns and capital not occupied at all.



Did Turkey go into instability?



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 8:26:21 PM)

Yes it did.



Jimmer -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 8:33:08 PM)

Then that's what is supposed to happen. When a major goes into instability, it loses all of its conquered minors to neutrality. However, if an enemy corps is present in the territory, the major controlling that corps instead gets immediate control (as a conquered minor).

The reversion to neutrality (or, enemy control) does not occur if the controlling nation has a corps present in the minor at the time neutrality would have been triggered.

NOTE: Free states are triggered by fiasco zone entry, not instability. And, fiasco causes all minors to go neutral or to enemy control, regardless of occupation attempts.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/18/2009 11:22:34 PM)

Jimmer is correct!
Thansk for the help Jimmer!



ndrose -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/19/2009 6:18:44 AM)

quote:

NOTE: Free states are triggered by fiasco zone entry, not instability. And, fiasco causes all minors to go neutral or to enemy control, regardless of occupation attempts.


This is correct according to the rules; however, the game does not always do this. I have seen free states lost in fiasco, but often they are retained. I think the pattern is that they are retained if there is a corps present, which, as you say, should not matter.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/19/2009 12:24:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

quote:

NOTE: Free states are triggered by fiasco zone entry, not instability. And, fiasco causes all minors to go neutral or to enemy control, regardless of occupation attempts.


This is correct according to the rules; however, the game does not always do this. I have seen free states lost in fiasco, but often they are retained. I think the pattern is that they are retained if there is a corps present, which, as you say, should not matter.


I've seen this beofre as well BUT you should not be seeing it anymore!
If you do then send me a game!



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/19/2009 2:46:36 PM)

Game 2

GB-EASY-SOLI

Have 3x ceded Oldenberg to Prus to create neutral zone between FR & GB territories. Pr has failed to get country 3x. No sign in rules that receiving is optional.



ndrose -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/19/2009 8:12:02 PM)

quote:

I've seen this beofre as well BUT you should not be seeing it anymore!
If you do then send me a game!


I'm still seeing it in 1.06.03, unless I'm misunderstanding the rule. I just finished a game as Russia, in which I had kept the Turks in the fiasco zone for most of the game (heh heh), but they held onto Algeria all that time, presumably by virtue of the Algerian corps that was there.

I'll post it to Mantis.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/19/2009 9:25:03 PM)

Brit game completed.

Fr sent 95% of army to spn border, sat there for years, then some more after Sp allied with Fr. Never intervened against tiny Brit army that eventually took Madrid.

When Large (relatively) army took Holland the army moved north. Six corps went to Breda so Br declared on Pr Influenced Belgium (Fr lost all minors but Lux & Liege after going INSTAB early. Pr snagged most of them Au & Br got a few) creating a neutral zone from Fr. the cops were destroyed. The two minors taken then Fr army finally struck nearly destroying the Br/swede force. Br retreated to Holland till last turn of game. Fr AI never declared war though Call to Allies got them at war with Au. Neither ever seriously engaged the other. Pr was at war with Sp from CtA and grabbed some lapsed war minors from them as did Au. Rus lapsed war vs Sweden and went home for remainder of game till over ran all of Euro-Turkey from Belgrade, Sophi, Varna and occupied these and all cities north of them. Turks took Egypt and then called it quits too, holed up in Constans with mega-army ignoring 1 near and 3 semi near Rus corps.

So AI heavily somnolent though performed well in combat.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/20/2009 1:23:09 AM)

I have an NDRose here. TURKS hit 0 on FIASCO yet are still proud owners of Algeria.



ndrose -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/20/2009 2:15:10 AM)

Actually, a little experimentation seems to indicate that occupation attempts always prevent neutrality, even in the fiasco zone, even for conqs. Here's what I did, for duplication:

Started game as France, in Jan. DoW'ed everybody, attacked superior naval force and lost more PPs, failed withdrawal from battle and lost more PPs. Lost all unoccupied conqs. (Correct.) In Feb., surrendered to everybody. Deep, deep in fiasco zone. Retained all occupied holdings (Holland, some Rhine conqs, and some Italian states). (Not correct.)

In March, moved corps out of some states but not others.

In April, still in fiasco zone, lost all holdings no longer containing corps, but still retained those which did.



Tater -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/20/2009 9:48:39 PM)

I gave the new version a try...

Set-ups (particularly naval) were much better. However, within a month or two it falls apart.

The French still don't defend their navy adequatly. The Spanish wast no time in congregating their entire navy in Cadiz guarded by a 1 factor garrison, with their army at least two turns away.

The turk sits on the boarder of Egypt for months, then finally DOWs...then lost the battle vs 1 Egyptian corp being forced back to Palestine allowing LoW.

There is something seriously wrong with Frances programing. France always finds some out of the way meaningless location and stacks their entire army up in that one spot while Nappy runs around the board with a single corp. In each patch the location changes but the meaningless mega stack still happens. And the stack sits there tacking endless foraging loses.

France did not DoW on anyone for over a year...and DoW'd on Russia only after Turkey called allies. Of course after DoW'ing on Russia France immediatly did...NOTHING! OTOH, Russia after DoW'ing on Turkey did...NOTHING! And, not to be out down, Turkey doubled-down by doing twice as much of...NOTHING!

...!sigh!...what a waste of time.[:(]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/20/2009 10:41:51 PM)

Tater:

We are working on the AI getting a bit better in 1.07. It is already measurably better than previous versions but still needs work. We are already seeing some better behavior in 1.07 BUT this will be a constant improving process.




ndrose -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/23/2009 3:28:43 AM)

One thing that would immeasurably improve AI play, and that shouldn't be too big a fix would be to get them to start building better.

I still never see them build *anything* with minor free states: they're just ignored.

The AI also never frees a conquered state, even if it can get a fleet out of it. Even if it can bring an *already built* fleet into play just by freeing the minor. What, Spain couldn't use those Portuguese ships?

Speaking of which, GB *must* build ships. The AI in general never builds them; for GB it's a death sentence. Even as Prussia I can eventually invade England, because I can always outbuild them with minor fleets and wear them down. (This is kind of fun, but it's silly.)

I don't think AI Russia replaces cossacks when they're killed. Similarly, I don't believe I've ever seen AI Austria or Prussia place a freikorps.

Accounting--keeping track of everything and using all its resources--should be the AI's strong suit.



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/23/2009 3:42:59 PM)

I have seen all those ndrose things but Brit builds (not to say they are building but have never worn them down)

I have screamed about Minors unbuilt since 1.01, Marshall has never addressed it once.

Test 4
RUSS Soli EASY

4 Rs corps in Romagna; have twice ordered fleet to load XVth Cps have twice ended up with loaded CAV cps.



NeverMan -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/23/2009 11:53:48 PM)

I thought 1.06.03 was suppose to discontinue the ability to stop movement with a depot garrison. This is what I was told, is that true?

If it is true I just installed 1.06.03 and that didn't happen. The only thing I can think of is that the other person is still on 1.05.xx



easterner -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/24/2009 1:41:24 AM)

I haven't noticed as comp has no urge to place garr on a depot though it could be easily tested.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/24/2009 2:17:55 PM)

Hey guys:

We should have the minors building now!
I believe we also have the depot garrisons NOT stopping movement as well???
If you have a game then I would love to see it!




NeverMan -> RE: 1.06.03 Observations (8/24/2009 3:12:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

We should have the minors building now!
I believe we also have the depot garrisons NOT stopping movement as well???
If you have a game then I would love to see it!




I do have a game... my question is this: If the other player (the player who's depot is stopping my movement) is running 1.05.xx then will the problem still exist??

In the Nappy Options game I installed 1.06.03 and France's garrisoned depots were still stopping my movement.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9848633