Suggestions for Beta Testers (Full Version)

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



Message

timothy_stone -> Suggestions for Beta Testers (6/1/2003 9:31:56 PM)

[COLOR=blue]Would it be OK if those of us that don't have access to the beta chime in with requests for things to test? That way the game could benefit from a wider pool of experience, etc.

Some items to test that I can think of off the cuff are things like:

* when one corps moves & drop factors into a city, can another corps then pick them up and move on with them ('chaining' factors rapidly across the board in one turn)

* can the computer handle attacks on stacks where nations are at war with some but not all corps present correctly?

* does the computer handle force repatriation after peace correctly? (e.g. if limited access is turned on, does it do anything if you overstay your welcome?)

* does forced access work correctly?

* do troops actually disembark from naval transport in their land phase (as per rules), or in the naval phase?

* can leaderless stacks outlank?

I'm sure some of the suggestions/questions will require command decisions on the part of the programmers because of the grey nature of some spots in the EiA rules

cheers

tim

[/COLOR]



Reknoy -> (6/1/2003 11:36:38 PM)

I think you hit the nail on the head -- some (if not most) of these touch those fabulous grey areas of the rules.

But I never thought a leaderless corps could outflank.

Here's another one:

When a corps is in an area with a port and the port city has no "factor" present as garrison and an enemy fleet "runs the guns", does the corps count as garrison and fire the guns? If so, and if that area is invaded in the same month, is it then automatic that the corps is in the city?

Reknoy



timothy_stone -> (6/2/2003 12:38:19 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]I think you hit the nail on the head -- some (if not most) of these touch those fabulous grey areas of the rules.

But I never thought a leaderless corps could outflank.

Here's another one:

When a corps is in an area with a port and the port city has no "factor" present as garrison and an enemy fleet "runs the guns", does the corps count as garrison and fire the guns? If so, and if that area is invaded in the same month, is it then automatic that the corps is in the city?

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]Normally, no - but there is that optional rule about corps commanders 'leading' a leaderless stack - for the purpose of reducing the tactical level. The optional rule explicitly states that the corps must still reinforce and withdraw separately, but does not state that they can or cannot reinforce - some folks say 'now there is a leader' which i think is reading too much in to it. Smiled with i saw your port garrison question, I'ev seen that one go so far as to argue whether a corps that is too big to fit in the city can or can not fire the guns, while a corps small enough... you get the idea.

yeah, I've taken to keeping a file of rules arguments over the last couple of years so that we can vote on interpretations before new games start to avoid having to hash the same thing out again and again.

[/COLOR]



Reknoy -> Re: Suggestions for Beta Testers (6/2/2003 1:02:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]
* when one corps moves & drop factors into a city, can another corps then pick them up and move on with them ('chaining' factors rapidly across the board in one turn)
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

My groups have played that you can chain them. For someone to get a truly material benefit out of it I think they would have to go to great lengths and potentially lose the benefit thereby.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]
* can the computer handle attacks on stacks where nations are at war with some but not all corps present correctly?
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

Great question -- I, too, would like to know. You mean, does the PC bump the non-enemy corps out at the outset?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]
* does the computer handle force repatriation after peace correctly? (e.g. if limited access is turned on, does it do anything if you overstay your welcome?)
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

I would think that the PC could just auto-repatriate any factors not in corps (coming back as reinforcements the next month) and then the corps from the former enemy(ies) would have the set amount of time to leave or automatically create a "Forced Access" situation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]
* does forced access work correctly?
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not even sure it will exist in this game -- is that even part of the official rules? Was it published in a General?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]
* do troops actually disembark from naval transport in their land phase (as per rules), or in the naval phase?
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

Chuckled when I read this. We run into this all the time -- so if a land power like France can jump the gun and run underneath the landing force, then that changes things a little. :)

I think that if the game employs si-move (or something similar), it will change that result anyway.



Ross Moorhouse -> (6/2/2003 2:40:24 PM)

I would suggest that you address these to Marshall the games developer more than the testers.



Reknoy -> (6/2/2003 6:51:24 PM)

No intent to disturb the communication process to be sure.

However, I think that, in addition to sending Marshall a message it's cool to share these rules issues with any beta testers that read these forums.

I mean to say, when testing this, there are plenty of these rules issues that can readily be tested -- but only if you know what to look for.

2c...



soapyfrog -> (6/3/2003 11:35:46 PM)

Forcible Access was covered in official Errata in the General (I do not recall which issue... I have only photocopies in front of me). Rule number is 10.3.4.

I am sure the text has been posted SOMEWHERE on the web.



Reknoy -> (6/4/2003 12:53:43 AM)

It's pretty simply in application (from memory):

MPs may move freely through neutral minors but my not build supply;

MPs (without forcible access) may not move into another MPs territory (home nation and minors) without access (either voluntary or through peace conditions).

MPs may force access into another MPs territory.

Effects of forcing access:

As with minors, may not build supply in the forced MPs territory.

Suffer a -1 PP penalty (I believe for every month you are forcing access); and

The aggrieved MP may (only immediately upon forcing access) declare war on the forcing MP. This part may be foggy.

I think it would be really cool to have it in the PC game -- it always seemed odd that you couldn't move into another's territory.

Reknoy



soapyfrog -> (6/4/2003 1:33:11 AM)

Pretty close;

The power forcing access loses 1 PP for each territory (minor country, minor country province, or MP province) violated by forcible access, each turn that he forces access.

The power whose territory is forced may declare war if the restrictions of [B]4.2.2[/B] permit.

Otherwise Forcible Access is treated the same as Access Through Minors [B]10.3.1.1[/B].

Problems: Some people have taken the terminology "move through" to mean that corps cannot stop in the forced access territory (and this goes for minor access as well).

However "through" does not exclude the possibility of stopping in my view, so I do not hold to this restriction.

Also the rule mixes up rule [B]4.2.2[/B] and [B]4.2.1[/B] which sometimes can create an awkward situation with rules lawyers who claim this permits DoW even during enforced peace, for example, but again the intent is very clear, and the mistaken rule reference seems to be a typo.



Reknoy -> (6/4/2003 7:04:43 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]Also the rule mixes up rule [B]4.2.2[/B] and [B]4.2.1[/B] which sometimes can create an awkward situation with rules lawyers who claim this permits DoW even during enforced peace, for example, but again the intent is very clear, and the mistaken rule reference seems to be a typo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I recall hearing both sides of that argument a few times. I must confess a certain degree of uncertainty, as one can see the validity in permitting a MP to DOW if someone is forcing access, regardless of whether or not there is enforced peace. However, we always played it the way you describe.



soapyfrog -> (6/4/2003 9:58:57 PM)

Well the forcible access rule refers to adhereing to the "limitations in [B]4.2.1.1[/B]" a rule which in fact contains no limitations (it concerns the cost of DoW).

Since the actual limitations to DoW are covered in [B]4.2.2.1[/B] it seems reasonable that they made a typo ;)

That's how I'd argue it anyway ;)



Ragnar -> (6/5/2003 5:14:30 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]Well the forcible access rule refers to adhereing to the "limitations in [B]4.2.1.1[/B]" a rule which in fact contains no limitations (it concerns the cost of DoW).

Since the actual limitations to DoW are covered in [B]4.2.2.1[/B] it seems reasonable that they made a typo ;)

That's how I'd argue it anyway ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
4.2.2.1: A major power may not declare war on another major power or neutral minor country if the declaring major power has corps, freikorps, cossacks, garrisons or guerrillas within the second major power's territory or within that neutral minor country.

So your conclusion would be that forced access allows dow during enforced peace? I do think so and IMO this is not really a weird precedent to be worried about, as 6.3.1.2.2 allows you to do exactly the same: ignore the EP but not any other restrictions.

Ragnar



mbatch729 -> Rules Request (6/5/2003 8:28:01 PM)

OK, I've never played EiA. Does anyone have a softcopy of the rules they could send me w/o causing a pirating/copyright violation? If I had a chance to read them it would make following some of the discussion a little easier. Thanks.



soapyfrog -> (6/5/2003 9:30:57 PM)

Ragnar: Yes that would be a valid interpretation...

Though I'd imagine they nontheless wanted to include all of [B]4.2.2[/B]. It's hard to say on that point.



Reknoy -> (6/6/2003 12:37:32 AM)

What, me worry? :)



Chiteng -> (6/8/2003 7:23:30 AM)

The wonderfull thing abouit a computer game is that it removes (in theory) ambiguity. The game is coded in a specific way,
and that is that. You dont need to be a rules lawyer any longer.
You can simply actually PLAY THE GAME.

Try playing FTF and using the forage rules AS WRITTEN.
make sure that there are at least three people always observing
the moving player. BECAUSE:

It is real easy to overlook, and make mistakes. REAL EASY.
To say nothing of actual cheating. The moving player NEEDS
help, in simply remembering the rules.

A computer in theory will remove that horror, and the game will be fun again, or so we hope.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625