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: 1.02j feedback

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: 1.02j feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/12/2008 8:10:07 PM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline 		is the pp issue corrected with loaning corps? or is that a future patch.

(in reply to La Provence)
Post #: 31
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 3:39:52 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		dodod:

I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 32
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 5:18:22 PM   
ecn1

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline 		I would say the general consensus is to add/substract pp from each player involved in the battle based on the proportion of corps involved in the battle within each side, with the total number of PP awarded to the winning SIDE or taken from the losing SIDE (note, not player, but side) never to exceed the maximum of 3PP set for battles...(not including PP bonuses like Napoleon commanding, etc)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 33
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 5:40:35 PM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

dodod:

I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???






Well i think there are 2-3 schools(of how people played this). Im bit tired but i try give my view.

I prefer the school where the loss in pp is shared, while the gain is for per MPS. (with CAP at +3/-3 pr battle not including special leaders).
So one MP joining an army with just 1 corps, can gain top 3 pps for a battle, but only looses 1 (if lost).

Since this make a the best reason for combining forces with your allies.
I think someone once said on the average Napoleon should win 66% of his battles.

Why would any alliance form if they where loosing around 3pps in 66% of all those battles ?
As i said, why should a MP help if his net outcome of every 3 battles is "-1".

The share in pp loss is to even these odds out. And is to me rather logical.

In the mentioned thread, some wrote that the net gain/loss should always be equal, but noone is ever loosing extra when loosing to specific leaders(Nelson/Napoleon), nor do they gain extra when winning against those.

Always round fractions up, within the Caps.

Like many wrote Fleets should perhaps only be 1/2 pp, or Heavy fleets 2/3 and Light Fleets 1/3.

Im sure most people would say, how they played it was the right one.
And it will be imposible to satisfy all, unless you put this into options, and "all players per gamegroup can actually agree on witch they use".


Regards
Bresh







< Message edited by bresh -- 5/13/2008 7:29:13 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 34
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 6:02:08 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 35
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 6:40:01 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 36
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 6:47:41 PM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline 		I agree with ecn...ahem...
shared win, shared loss...in proportion to what you loan.

only other addition is that ties or fractions go the person leading the battle...

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 37
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 7:50:49 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +3PP, Pr +3PP, Au +3PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 5/14/2008 12:04:47 AM >

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 38
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 11:07:42 PM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +1PP, Pr +1PP, Au +2PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.


What if in the example FR only has 1-2 corps ??

Fr loosing 1 PP.
I would say GB +1, PR +1PP, AU +1PP.
Sounds most logical. as fractions are rounded up always.

So what if France has 3-4 Corps ?


Regards
Bresh



< Message edited by bresh -- 5/13/2008 11:08:58 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 39
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/13/2008 11:10:28 PM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline 		As was pointed out every time that question was asked in the other thread, another reason to stack is so that you don't get obliterated.  *Even if no PP were involved* and the game became a pure land-grab game, it is rather helpful for Austria and Prussia to stack so they don't get individually annihilated by the superior French forces.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 40
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 12:03:36 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.


Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.


You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +1PP, Pr +1PP, Au +2PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.


What if in the example FR only has 1-2 corps ??

Fr loosing 1 PP.
I would say GB +1, PR +1PP, AU +1PP.
Sounds most logical. as fractions are rounded up always.

So what if France has 3-4 Corps ?


Regards
Bresh




Bresh, I have gone back and corrected my post. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I didn't mean to be confusing, I must be off today. Notice the BOLD in my correction. Yes, you are correct.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 41
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 12:09:16 AM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Grognot

As was pointed out every time that question was asked in the other thread, another reason to stack is so that you don't get obliterated.  *Even if no PP were involved* and the game became a pure land-grab game, it is rather helpful for Austria and Prussia to stack so they don't get individually annihilated by the superior French forces.


Well as im sure we can agree, we have different opinions on how this should be ruled :)

Thats why i suggested it be variable option, since there are different schools of how people played it.
I seem to remember reading an article that describes how i think it was done. But im sure its not unthinkable that others played in your way.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 42
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 12:20:39 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline 		Sure.  I'm just noting that there's more basic reasons for stacking than PP, like not getting slaughtered on the battlefield.  At least for people that don't want to repeat historical mistakes.  *shrug*  So it's going to happen if players like to win, unless the PP distribution system is sufficiently perverse to actually punish stackers harder than France smacks non-stackers (unlikely).

More concerned to make sure that the mechanics actually work, like all corps actually show up, and how the game resolves the presence of corps that aren't at war with all the attackers (forced retreat in the AH version, IIRC.  I don't recall this being documented in the EiANW manual, so it -might- implement the same rule, but I haven't tested it.)




(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 43
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 12:46:43 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Hey guys:

I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.

I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).

Anybody second this?



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 44
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 1:37:47 AM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline 		I second this!
as long as there is some system in place...

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 45
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 2:35:20 AM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline 		I second too!

Full PP to all MP winners. Only loss of PP for own corps participating.

Ken Clark's post in the other thread shows the balance in France vs. coalition wars
in the original EiA rules is pretty good.

Don't make extra options on this for my sake...

/Eske

< Message edited by eske -- 5/14/2008 2:44:56 AM >

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 46
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 6:39:36 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline 		I second it, or third it, or fourth it, whichever post this is. :)

(in reply to eske)
Post #: 47
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/14/2008 10:03:38 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		Dont think i need to point up my support for it when it follows how i think they rules where.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 48
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/16/2008 3:59:46 PM   
j-s

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 3/18/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I have some problems with diplomacy. I have tried to loan corps from AI and it won't work. When you select any of my allies corps and try to get diplomacy window open, it won't open. Then I have to deselect corps and try again. Then it works, but tells that "no corps selected" or something like that.

And then another guestion: How you can create a depot to besieged corps via naval supply? I play GB and I have my corps besieged in constantinople. I have a depot & fleet in London and some fleets in Constantinople. Is it possible to build a "besieged supply" inside the city as in original rules?

(in reply to La Provence)
Post #: 49
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/20/2008 12:44:19 AM   
obsidiandrag


Posts: 181
Joined: 3/22/2008
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline 		Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?

(in reply to La Provence)
Post #: 50
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/20/2008 12:48:53 AM   
obsidiandrag


Posts: 181
Joined: 3/22/2008
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline 		Here is the screen shot





Attachment (1)

(in reply to obsidiandrag)
Post #: 51
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/20/2008 1:10:38 AM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?



Yeah weird.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 5/20/2008 1:12:57 AM >

(in reply to obsidiandrag)
Post #: 52
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/20/2008 2:23:09 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Just checked this out and S Pommerania is actually shown to be a province of Prussia!
This has been logged and will be fixed in 1.03



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 53
RE: 1.02j feedback - 5/20/2008 3:58:19 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Hey guys:

I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.

I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).

Anybody second this?


I second it too. And do not forget to correct the Naval Combat pp loss/gain to 1/2 per fleet instead of 1.
Plus, of course, awarding pp also to loaned fleets.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: 1.02j feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672