RE: Please include in patch!!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Please include in patch!!!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Please include in patch!!!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 3:40:33 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?

It seems the matter reduces to either the active player gets all the PP or the PP are distributed according to the numbers of corps involved. Is it so difficult to distribute PP? This looks like a straightforward code change. FWIW, I would support this change. It makes sense that players risking a loaned corps should share in the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat in battle.

(in reply to dodod)

Post #: 31

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 4:00:44 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Murat, a small push effect on battles is fine (and is built into the game in case you didn't notice). You cannot look at battles by themselves and try to make them 0-sum. That's not the point. The point is to inject political risk and gain into military conflict.

Why not just have battles have no political efect at all? I think you would agree that would hurt the game... but it is also "0-sum".

It's a question of game-design and balance.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 32

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 4:22:01 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

What I was saying was that I like the EIANW rule more than the old Eia rule (witht he example I listed) and the EiH rule (kindly listed by Ares) because in the EiA and EiH rules there is not a "zero sum" for the battle. EiA has a + push on the PPs, EiH has a - one. I like the commanding nation getting all or losing all. I disagree about there being no incentive to loan corps.�You can form multiple stacks and mix the strengths of each nation together, Prussians getting to up their numbers by stacking with an ally and the ally being able to take more cav (Prussian) into battle across their corps.

What you say is true, there are still some tactical advantages to combine armies and so utilizing the different powers strenghts. But there is no real incentive to help fight Napoleon in a combined army controlled by another power when there is only risks (loss of PP, loss of army steps etc). I guess it would be acceptable to me that the commander got all PP in a victory if he also took all losses in PP and at least the majority of the army factors where possible.

In the example above the winning commander got all PP gains but a PP loss was split. This is to me just wrong and gives France a big advantage that is not good for game balance, at least not in the 1805 game.

I still much prefer the original rule with split rewards and penalty, I do beleive the incentive for cooperation is important. I dont think a null-sum system is a necessity, the nature of the VP/PP table makes a successfull coalition lose more PP to make up for it even though I agree that rewarding all participants with 3 pp might be excessive.

A more reasonable dividend in my oppinion would be ("points rewarded"/x)y, where x is number of corps in the battle on the winning side and y the number of corps from one power, rounded up. For example: 3 Austrian 2 Prussian and 1 Russian corp winning a battle against 5 French corps would give Austria (0.5x3 rounded to 2) two PP while Prussia (0.5x2) and Russia (0.5 rounded to 1) would recieve one PP each.

Whats your thoughts?

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/10/2008 4:33:46 AM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 33

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 4:35:02 AM

dodod

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline

marshall

I think enough people feel strongly about this. Anyway you can add this on with zaquex's formula or whatever you think is fair...but many PBEM games will be affected by this...at least 2 of mine!! and I feel that the comraderie is strengthened in this type of environment as there would be much much less incentive to loan a corp.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 34

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 5:12:18 AM

Monadman

Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

How could I know that; QUOTE "It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it..."

Exactly - you couldn�t know what we did or didn�t recommend or what programming restrictions were at the time � it was pure speculation on your part to assume what had transpired. Apparently you still don�t get it (�IMHO, the Choir did not sing loud enough on the point I have been trying to make is all�). Next time, stick to the heartfelt recommendations and skip the ignorant speculations.

As for the issue: it�s on the list.

Thanks

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 35

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 5:40:08 AM

Frank McNally

Posts: 42
Joined: 8/29/2003
Status: offline

Is it underconsideration to make a variant with a more close to the board game combined move and get around this loaned corp thing altogther? Could powers who combine move sequentially in the position of the later moving power and battles for the first moving power be delayed until the second power moves (or perhaps the first power can fight or skip battles, ones he fights go normally immediatey, ones he skips happen after the second player moves but have the chit and battle handled by the second power even if not combined...the expectation is the first power would handle all the battles he does not intend to combine).

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 36

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 5:53:19 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

OK we are basically looking at 3 ways of handling this so far. Let's take an example of France ATTACKING with 5 corps -v- Austria DEFENDING leading a stack with 3 Austrian Corps, 1 Prussian Corp, 1 British Corp and 1 Russian Corp.

Option 1 (current EIANW way):

Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -3pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).
Defender wins: Austria +3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).

Option 2 (EiH way):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria, as leader, +3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).

Option 3 (we will call it zaq's way since I think this may be what he was going for):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria +2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia +1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1);
France -3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3)

Option 4 (EiA original way):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria, Britain, Prussia, Russia +3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3)

Option 1 in this example is a zero sum result (risk/reward balanced) and is what I think is the best option because it is already done.
Option 2 is a -2pp/even result depending on who wins and is the 2d best in my mind because of the exploitation involved with option 4 and this is higher risk -v- reward.
Option 3 is a +2pp/-2pp result depending on who wins and is acceptable especially over 4 since the risk and reward is balanced
Option 4 is a +9pp! result which is a lot on a 40 point row. This is substantial reward compared to risk. I recall an errata eliminating this but I cannot find it. EiH had a good solution, EIANW's is better.

PPs are part of the game, to state all battles should be worth 0 is moronic (and the rest of your statement is wrong too Soapy, this game is based on EiH so option 2 would be the 'should have been' rule). To say that the net should be 0 is reasonable, far more reasonable than adding 9 PPs to the chart just because some allies decided to abuse a rule.

< Message edited by Murat -- 1/10/2008 10:51:09 PM >

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 37

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 6:20:57 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

Thanks for clarifying things and giving the examples, Murat.

I do agree with option 1 being better than option 2, I would however prefere to keep the incentive for cooperation and therefore think the at least moderate option 3 I suggested is a good compromise. I do however not suggest it is the ultimate solution, only that it would work without violating either the PP table or the incentive for cooperation.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 38

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 7:38:17 AM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Murat,

Very Interesting comparison.

FYI, your defending stack has 6 Corps listed but we could easily assume that at least ONE French Corp is the Guard or one of the 20I/3C French Corps.....Also, the French tend to attack with 6 Corps! (Arty, Guard, I - IV Corp) <wink>

Note that this is an extreme example; as this type of Coalition is near impossible to set up and get together (as zaquex also pointed out so well....)

Also, rememeber that any Corps of 20 or more factors is 1 PP and not .5 (in the orginal EiA and EiH - I am not sure for EIANW)
Boy, the French have a lot of 20+ Corps lying around the board....

Now include the other elements of Land battles because these things don't happen in a vacuum - Leaders, Supply, Terrain, Casualties, Economics and VP

Napoleon (if present) would affect the PP totals by +1/-1 each time.....ONLY France can influence PPs that way (GB with Nelson but that is Naval), as well as choosing when to attack (through moving last/first) and getting to hit on the same stack twice before they could react. (Same with Gb) This is a big advantage for gaining PP.

We would also have to consider the normal political status position at the time of the majors involved to see what kind of VP effect would be involved.
(ie. is it an Economic month? 1 or 2 months away?)
Where are the countries on the PSA -- the PSA tends to move EVERYONE to the middle (ie 7 VP) except the French and British use can use Economic Manipulation MORE then most other countries)

Did the Allies set-up in Mountains or Forest to reduce CAS? If they are beaten once and forced out, do they get to retreat into forest/montains again? Do they attack the French back in Forest or Mountains! Unlikely....

Supplying that Coalition Army is going to COST the Allies (read GB

) each month, the French, well you can forage or pay depending on your feelings and circumstances .....

Next, we would need to consider the CAS effect that the 6 French Corp (lets say largest) would cause over 3 rounds of combat versus 6 Coalition Corps (lets say largest or do we use best moral option?) over 3 rounds (assuming proportional loses to the Allied force)

Do we assume one battle and the loser(s) surrenders? two? three? Up to six battles could happen in one quarter between these two forces....

The Austrians are taking the lions share of the CAS and we can assume a loss means Surrender soon....

Do we assume that the Allies all remain? For all battles? for the next? Often in a losing Coalition battle, certain countries run for the hills having 'satisfied' their Allied duty and paid their Political (PP)and Blood (CAS - $/MP) price (ie. Russians, British)

Finally, I think your PP calculations for option 4 are in error because NO party can gain more then +3 or lose more then -3 PP (except if Nappy is present) and the Victory or Loss will have a different effect on each country present both PSA and possible VP-wise. It is very unlikely that Austria, Prussia, Russia and England are all at the same place at the same time....

Doing a NET Comparison is not an accurate representation of the REAL PP effect in the game, so this is why I think +9 PP is not accurate.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 39

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 8:56:15 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

I kinda reread the post again and want to add something about the conclutions.

quote:

Option 1 in this example is a zero sum result (risk/reward balanced) and is what I think is the best option because it is already done.

The risk reward is imo not completly balanced there is more to it regarding risk than political points - the none commanding participants in a coalition battle is risking its army factors for no gain while in your example Austria risks a balanced political point gain/loss but to less cost in army factors than without a coalition.

quote:

Option 2 is a -2pp/even result depending on who wins and is the 2d best in my mind because of the exploitation involved with option 4 and this is higher risk -v- reward.

Here its even worse, the supporting coalition stands to gain nothing but risks both its armies and PP.

quote:

Option 3 is a +2pp/-2pp result depending on who wins and is acceptable especially over 4 since the risk and reward is balanced

In this example there is at least a nominal chance for a PP gain in exchange for the risks.

The economical and political risks of taking part in the coalition hasnt been taken in to account in your analysis and one important maybe more important issue here than PP is the distribution of casulties.

If the commander, in this example I will assume its Charles (or in practical terms the Austrian player), is free to distribute the combat losses as he pleases this problem becomes even more accentuated (hmm I dont like Prussia, really... when the war with France is resolved im going to attack him (as an example), lets make Prussia take all the losses... ) and another reason to avoid coalitions and in the end making the game much easier for France. In the original EiA game I think there was some rules about relative distribution of losses, but to my knowledge no such rules are in the game at this point ( I can be wrong, havent yet had the opportunity to test battles involving more than two major powers).

There is also some other minor issues and this might be one reason for the EiH implementation, regarding exploits with say contributing 3 corps with one milita each as there is very little possibility to check the contribution of the other coalition members unless your the phasing power... but its a bit outside the scope of this discussion.

A third issue regarding this hopefully soon obsolete implementation of combined movement is how loaned corps are treated in the case of a peace agreement. If im say Spain and loan my corps to Austria for combined movement and he at the same time makes peace with France will my corps then be repatriated as Austrian forces to Austria while im still at war with France and now totally open for a French counter attack or now 5 turns of movement away from the last turn so thretened Paris or from my homeland??? I know its a very constructed example and that there is rules about separate peace, but I hope it helps illustrate our fear about possible complication with repatriation while corps are on loan. Would be very happy if someone could tell me how the corp loaning process work in practical terms and if peace can have this type of side effects.

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 40

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 9:11:30 AM

gwheelock

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

If the commander, in this example I will assume its Charles (or in practical terms the Austrian player), is free to�distribute the combat losses as he pleases this problem becomes even more accentuated (hmm I dont like Prussia, really... when the war�with France is resolved im going to attack him (as an example), lets make Prussia take all the losses...� ) and another reason�to avoid coalitions and in the end making the game much easier for France.�In the original EiA game I think there was some rules about relative distribution of losses,�but to my knowledge no such rules are in the game at this point ( I can be wrong, havent yet had the opportunity to test battles involving more than two major powers).

I have had cases where I had a minor (Bavaria) mixed with French forces & assigned ALL of the losses to the minor. What you are thinking of are 12.2.5 ("Proportional Naval Losses") and 12.3.6 ("Proportional Land Losses"). Both of these are OPTIONAL rules in
the original EIA (& don't seem to be among the options implimented in EIANW [at least
as of 1.0]).

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 41

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 1:56:43 PM

baboune

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline

Will this proportional losses optional available (or on the todo list) for EiaNW?
They are very interesting optionals.

(in reply to gwheelock)

Post #: 42

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 6:29:04 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
Option 1 in this example is a zero sum result (risk/reward balanced) and is what I think is the best option because it is already done.

I reject out of hand for reasons that have already been stated. Also "becuase it's done" is not valid, since it's been done wrong. Period.

quote:

Option 2 is a -2pp/even result depending on who wins and is the 2d best in my mind because of the exploitation involved with option 4 and this is higher risk -v- reward.

Is that how it works in EiH? Weird. This is even worse than Option 1. It's just silly. However based on AresMars quote from the actual EiH rulebook, I am pretty sure this ISN'T how it works, even in EiH. Edit: Oh I see I am wrong... that is really how it works in EiH. That's simply ...

quote:

Option 3 is a +2pp/-2pp result depending on who wins and is acceptable especially over 4 since the risk and reward is balanced

This would be "OK", but still isn't how the game actually works. IMHO this would be the least damaging compromise, if compromise is even required tbh.

quote:

Option 4 is a +9pp! result which is a lot on a 40 point row. This is substantial reward compared to risk. I recall an errata eliminating this but I cannot find it. EiH had a good solution, EIANW's is better.

Option 4 is how the rules work. That's how the game was deisgned. That's how we've always played it becuase the game is balanced for this type of interaction.

There are plenty of PP "sinks" in the game that counterbalance PP gains. The games political balance is already compromised by more expensive DoWs, and a myriad of other small changes which individually seem fine but honestly add up dramatically.

quote:

PPs are part of the game, to state all battles should be worth 0 is moronic

As is your statement that they should be 0-sum. Your desire that battles should be 0-sum is completely arbitrary, and has no relation to the actual political balance of the game. I guess you are of the opinion that napoleon's bonuses/penalties should also be removed, since they make battles no longer 0-sum, right?

As for your statement about abusing the rule to "generate PP" that's absurd. Completely absurd. In all my years I have never seen such a thing. Hey here's an idea, how about Russia and Turkey DoW, and then not actually fight, taking turns capturing and recapturing the border fortresses to "generate PP" Aiyyeee the game is broken! It sounds to me that this is the mentality with which you approach the game.

< Message edited by Soapy Frog -- 1/10/2008 6:52:05 PM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 43

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:05:37 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Option 4 is the way EiA worked. We already know there are differences.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 44

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:25:21 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

All countries involved in a battle should share in the politcal outcome thats obvious

I think the whole system of loaned corps is proplematic

Question:
If I as Russia lend a corp to Prussia to fight against France, since it is basically a Pru corps now does Russia need to bother to DoW onFr for it to fight French forces?

cause if thats is the case, thats a problem

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 45

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:39:00 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

Don't you think that sending combat troops into battle against somebody else constitutes an act of war?

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 46

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:42:22 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

One would imagine; but that is the question, how is it handled in the game?

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 47

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:47:48 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

Lending corps does -not- change diplomatic status, whether or not they'll fight, or access rights.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 48

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:51:01 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

From reading other threads on the subject I got the impression that loaned corps would not take part in battles against powers that the original owner is not at war with even if the current controller are

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 49

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 10:56:45 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

And if the current controller is not at war, but the owner is? I conjure up a bizarre image of Austria, having taken a seperate peace with France, controlling Prussian corps on French soil...

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 50

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:08:33 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

It's the owner's status that matters, so it's possible -- but I don't really see it an issue, other than for PP. If the controller isn't itself at war, of course, there's not that much assistance to the owner he can provide other than access (*), transport (which permits DoW an attack), or money.

(*) 'Disallow access to ---' would have made sense to me as a reasonable peace condition.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 51

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:14:58 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Well this will be useful to me as Prussia then; if I see the French double move coming to crush me, I will just lend all my corps to an ally who is not currently at war with France, thus completely protecting my army from attack. Oops! The law of unintended consequences.

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 52

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:20:24 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

They're still your corps, so the French can still attack them. Not a problem from France's POV.

One thing that IS omitted in the manual -- a description of how a leader is chosen for an allied stack on defense. There isn't a phasing player on the defensive side in that case. EiA had certain rules regarding this (specifically, highest-ranking leader from the defender with the most corps present), but EiANW manual only notes the opposite (that in a multinational attack, it's the phasing player who provides the leader).

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 53

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:21:58 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Oh, now that is a very good point. Good catch Grognot!

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 54

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:22:03 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Duplication of effort, grog said what I was going to.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 55

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:31:20 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

well you could get away with it by getting access to a power hes (france in this case) not at war with and march ur armies over the border, its not quite without consequenses though - Unrest and unconditional peace can have harsh consequenses.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 56

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:33:16 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Whoops ok sorry you said "owner" and my brain read "controller".

Ok if it is owner's status that is important then the problem is reduced to using another power as a PP sponge for you... e.g. there is no way for Austria to REFUSE the loaning of said corps I beleive? So Austria takes the PP hit of getting smashed by the Nap Big Stack Attack...

Oh yeah Austria, you don't like it? Go ahead, break the alliance for another 2 PP. Ouch.

Naturally this problem would disappear if Prussia always took the political risk/reward for his own corps, regardless of controller.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 57

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/10/2008 11:47:36 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

That would be interesting... of course, in that situation a peeved Austria might instead be inclined to force-march the corps into low-forage areas. Or to starve them on ships, in the unlikely event he gets any fleet large enough to hold 'em... (Always, always be sure you trust the person to whom you're lending your army, and bribe or threaten your ferryman more than your enemies do.)

PP for the owner would indeed cut back on that bit of silliness.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 58

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 1:37:42 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

I think, it should be vps as in EIA, after all the VP-conditions are those from EIA no ?

Else France is favored more than the rest since he rarely combines with another nation, and wont loose any of the expected vp-gains.

The vp-conditions for EIA is based upon those gained including�combined nations combats.

I bet France would love to see the other nations not combining to desperatly try to get vps, which is only to his advantage. Yet the game is balanced in the "old" way.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 1/11/2008 1:38:28 AM >

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 59

RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 2:15:37 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

Another thought regarding combined movement....

Say that we have Wellington who is an excelent commander with his brittish guard borrowing 3 Prussian corps�without a commander�and 2 Austrian corps under Mack or Charles. Britain is the phasing player so when we attack Wellington is in command, Then its France move and he now attacks our combined stack who is now commanded by an Prussian�not named commander due to having the most corps and suddenly we find ourself in a situation where strategic manouvers are impossible and we have a +1 -1 modification stacked against us due to the "inexperienced" and heavily overstacked commander...

I dont know but it seems unreasonable that Wellington or Mack/Charles would let this happen. It might be a silly thing and not very important as you can avoid this by�the disposition of the your corps and commanders, but�to me it would make more sense if�Wellington would retain command of the army or alternativly at least the highest ranked commander of the stack took command (wich sometimes wouldnt be to your advantage as most of the A commanders are the suck). Anyway its mostly a parenthesis�but it would be interesting to hear the communitys thoughts about this "dilemma".

�

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/11/2008 2:16:53 AM >

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 60