Priorities for 1.03

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Priorities for 1.03

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 >> Priorities for 1.03

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 3:22:39 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Now that 1.02 is about wrapped up, and the ,ajority of the bugs seem to be fixed, what are the priorities for 1.03?

As a PBEM player, I'd like to see an option for simmultaneous diplomacy, reinforcment and economic phases. Waht about everyone else?

Post #: 1

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 10:36:13 AM

bresh

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

Depends if shared pp gain loss is introduced in 1.02 or has to wait for 1.03.

Im thinking of if it should be possible to send money to allies during each diplomacy phase.(and recieve) atm you can send but money dont arrive till eco-phases.
The idea is kind of to balance out that allies cant pay supply for you corps unless corps is lend.
Thougths ?

But i do think AI needs work to. Although im almost only playing the game as pbm atm. Im guessing most players play solo games to.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 2

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 5:23:19 PM

La Provence

Posts: 153
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Toulouse (FRANCE)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

As a PBEM player, I'd like to see an option for simmultaneous diplomacy, reinforcment and economic phases. Waht about everyone else?

Yes, I think that it's NECESSARY to made more playable the PBEM games.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 3

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 5:53:29 PM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: La Provence

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

As a PBEM player, I'd like to see an option for simultaneous diplomacy, reinforcement and economic phases. What about everyone else?

Yes, I think that it's NECESSARY to made more playable the PBEM games.

I think I'd second this although I'd like to see the game security tightened up a bit first.

PBEM games can drag and getting through the 'boring' bits ASAP would be good so everyone can get on with the action.

I would have thought that the diplomacy section at least would not be too hard to reprogram because as far as I can see the game simply stores everything up and executes it at the end of the Spanish phase anyway.

Currently if you go for a 24 hour turn around and every player more or less takes that long, a PBEM game will run pretty close to real time !

Also reviewing the way battle files are exchanged would be good. Even without making major modifications something could be done, eg the game will send a battle file where the player simply does nothing but click 'done' and send it back (when there are no casualties to take)

Something has to be done to speed things up.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to La Provence)

Post #: 4

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 6:50:19 PM

Minedog

Posts: 52
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline

1. Combined Movement - not loaned corps, actual real combined movement as per the rules.
2. Movement and Battle display - be able to watch the units move around the board area by area, and most importantly, be able to get an overview of where all the battles are before resolving each one.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 5

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 9:41:35 PM

bresh

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Minedog

1. Combined Movement - not loaned corps, actual real combined movement as per the rules.
2. Movement and Battle display - be able to watch the units move around the board area by area, and most importantly, be able to get an overview of where all the battles are before resolving each one.

Mindog you might wanna read other older threads to.
Atleast it been previous announced in some thread.
1. Combined movement is not really gonna happen due to programming issues.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Minedog)

Post #: 6

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 11:00:06 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

I would object to simultaneous reinforcement. I even think moving GB to the beginning of the order was a serious mistake. In the original rules, GB went last in the naval reinforcement phase (and France last in the land reinforcement phase). There are some very good reasons for these.

For instance, the removal or addition of a decent leader can really change the situation in an area where warring powers are present. Or, the removal or addition of extra corps/fleets.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 7

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 11:08:38 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

Things that I would really like to see related to Naval:

- Allow nations to perform anti-piracy on behalf of another power. The way it is now, there is no reason France should do anything other than put all of his light fleets against the two central powers, who cannot reliably defend against it. Why not just remove part of their income, and save the math?

- Have the removal of fleets from piracy or anti-piracy occur in the reinforcement phase, rather than during naval movement. They still should not be allowed to move that turn, but other powers would know they are on their way back to military action, and thus could react. As it is, only the powers going later in the round can react to re-enlistment of other nations' fleets.

- Clarify in the rulebook whether the transport fleet can block traversal of a sea crossing point or not. The rules specify "any fleet", but it doesn't seem like a non-combat-capable fleet could do it.

- Clarify in the rulebook whether transport fleets left at sea cost $5, like other fleets do.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 8

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/16/2008 11:12:52 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

Stuff dealing with land and leaders:

- It would be very good, and in the spirit of the old rules, if leaders could transfer from one corps to another. They would have to be in the same area, of course. And, perhaps this should happen only in reinforcement. Not sure about that last one.

- Allow besieged corps and factors to transfer between units.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 9

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/17/2008 3:11:42 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

- Kingdoms: Bring back the rest of the old Kingdoms (Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, The Two Sicilies). I know Naples already currently resembles the Two Sicilies, but split the corps to Naples and the fleet to Sicily as in the original.

- Dominant Power Status

- Naval hulks

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 10

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/17/2008 5:46:23 PM

jnier

Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

- Kingdoms: Bring back the rest of the old Kingdoms (Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, The Two Sicilies). I know Naples already currently resembles the Two Sicilies, but split the corps to Naples and the fleet to Sicily as in the original.

- Dominant Power Status

- Naval hulks

While I don't think any of these should be immediate priorites, these are enhancements that I would really like to see. Especially dominant power status & hulks.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 11

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/17/2008 6:14:56 PM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

is the UI on the list of things to fix?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 12

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/17/2008 9:48:43 PM

adrianthomson

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline

I believe we were promised months back that the next big task was the AI.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 13

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 2:18:24 AM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I would object to simultaneous reinforcement. I even think moving GB to the beginning of the order was�a serious mistake. In the original rules, GB went last in the naval reinforcement phase (and France last in the land reinforcement phase). There are some very good reasons for these.

For instance, the removal or addition of a decent leader can really change the situation in an area where warring powers are present. Or, the removal or addition of extra corps/fleets.

You certainly have a point here, but is the fairly rare occasion when this might happen worth the delay of playing reinforcement sequentially *every* move ?

Personally I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 14

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 2:20:58 AM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

- It would be very good, and in the spirit of the old rules, if leaders could transfer from one corps to another. They would have to be in the same area, of course. And, perhaps this should happen only in reinforcement. Not sure about that last one.

This can happen now can't it ? I'm playing France in a game and I've just detached Napoleon from I Corps and attached him to the Guard in the same area. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying ?

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 15

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 5:01:25 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

- It would be very good, and in the spirit of the old rules, if leaders could transfer from one corps to another. They would have to be in the same area, of course. And, perhaps this should happen only in reinforcement. Not sure about that last one.

This can happen now can't it ? I'm playing France in a game and I've just detached Napoleon from I Corps and attached him to the Guard in the same area. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying ?

I don't think you are misunderstanding anything, and yes, I can do this now too. You simply detach the leader and attach it back to another corps, pretty simple procedure.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 16

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 10:21:20 AM

timewalker03

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline

one thing I would like to see for 1.3 is hopefully a simple thing. When you have reinforcements for free states to place because you won the roll for control, add to the info box that shows the factors needing to be placed, the locations of those factors. An example is if I win control of Baden, the info box will show

FS 1inf 1 cav.

Make change to Baden(FS) 1 inf 1 cav. That way I don't have to figure out by scrolling down the always growing game log or search the map for my countries Free state counters.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 17

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 1:15:25 PM

fvianello

Posts: 534
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline

Naval combined movement or fleet loans is at the top of my list

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 18

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 3:13:52 PM

bresh

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Naval combined movement or fleet loans is at the top of my list

Fleet loans is already in 1.02j and later.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to fvianello)

Post #: 19

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/18/2008 5:13:30 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

1.03 will mainly be AI enhancements with some fixes. Now, I'm not saying that AI will be coded P1 over a game killer if one pops up. I'm just saying that I am going to try and pump some "I" into the "AI". I have already rewritten the AI diplomacy and will be submitting this to some testing this next week.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 20

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 2:49:17 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Hi Marshall,
The AI enhancements are needed and will be good for the solo players, but I imagne these might be part of a long and difficult task. Would it be difficult or time consuming to allow an option for simultaneous diplomacy, reinforcement and economic turns to keep those of us who are on the PBEM stream from going crazy as an interim measure?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 21

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 5:35:16 AM

Cunctator

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

IMHO if simultaneous diplo, reinf and econ phases would become an implemented option, it would be chosen by the vast majority of pbem games.
There's no serious reason to follow the exact order of play during those phases.
The effect of removing a certain leader in a certain area can be important once in a hundred of turns.
We have to study and to adopt every measure to speed up pbem games.

_____________________________

- Scutum Romae -
"Gladius et Scutum Romae" appellabantur. Hannibal se recepit, Marcellus expugnavit Syracusas, Cunctator Capuam. Postremo Quintus Fabius Maximus expugnavit Tarentum.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 22

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 9:25:42 AM

Minedog

Posts: 52
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Mindog you might wanna read other older threads to.
Atleast it been previous announced in some thread.
1. Combined movement is not really gonna happen due to programming issues.

Regards
Bresh

That doesn't make it right though..

Napoleon fought a series of Coalitions and allies, and there are few Napoleonic battles between just 2 nations. Austerlitz, Eylau, Dresden, Leipzig, Waterloo, and the various Anglo-Spanish battles. At sea, Trafalgar..

Loaned corps/fleets is not really the same. The point is nations against France, not nation plus some loaners. There are huge economic and political aspects here.

And really, what is the programming issue? If they can change the ownership of corps from one nation to another, why can't they be multi-nation owned.

or why can't the sequence of play be adjusted as it is done in the game. If France and Britain can be moved, why not the others.

So Technically the Land Sequence would be;
Russia
Turkey
Russia-Turkey
Austria
Russia-Austria
Turkey-Austria
Russia-Turkey-Austria
Prussia
Russia-Prussia
Russia-Turkey-Prussia
Russia-Austria-Prussia
Russia-Turkey-Prussia-Austria
etc.

so to select Combined movement, you chose the desired group in the Land Sequence..

as I said, I just don't believe it is "too hard" to programme.. more like too much bother..

< Message edited by Minedog -- 5/19/2008 9:35:55 AM >

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 23

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 2:51:10 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Minedog:

Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Minedog)

Post #: 24

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 3:01:55 PM

pzgndr

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

Only Marshall can address the programming difficulty. As complicated as it may be, the player control issue during pbem file exchanges may be more challenging. Plus the computer game version has to integrate AI programming into the mix. It's not just pbem software; players already have that available to them. The pragmatic solution with this game version may be to select a lead nation for an upcoming battle/campaign and allied nations loan corps/leaders accordingly. The alternative is a can of worms, both to program and to execute with or without AI players involved. It would be interesting to see if Marshall could eventually develop an option to expand on the multi-nation ownership and adjustable sequence of play idea, but this cannot be a priority until other basic promised features are completed - like editor and other scenarios, etc.

With loaned corps and leaders resolved for the time being and shared PP more or less agreed on, what about depot supply being made available for allied units? This should be doable, perhaps with an increased cost all paid for by the allied nation. I haven't yet gotten deep enough into a later game to figure out how to stretch one's limited number of depots without allied assistance. And couldn't minor nations with forces be permitted at least one home country depot for their own use? I find it odd that major countries have to sacrifice one of their depots for say Sweden or Egypt, else those forces face foraging problems in their own country. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing the supply depots reconsidered at some point.

(in reply to Minedog)

Post #: 25

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 3:36:18 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Minedog:

Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack�together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?

I just don't see why you can't do combined movement such that the battles at the end of the land phase only happen IF

1) Only that MPs corps are involved in that battle.
2) The MP's land movement was last out of all the MPs involved in the "combined" attack.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 26

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 4:04:54 PM

JanSorensen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I just don't see why you can't do combined movement such that the battles at the end of the land phase only happen IF

1) Only that MPs corps are involved in that battle.
2) The MP's land movement was last out of all the MPs involved in the "combined" attack.

Just how would the game know if only that MPs corps are involved or not after seeing only the movement of the first MP?
Heck, how would even the player know?

Example:
Prussia and Austria agrees to jointly attack a French stack.
Prussia moves first moving the entire Prussian army into the area with the French.
The Prussian Land Movement Phase ends.
Hmm, how does the program know if there should be a combat or not? Even the Prussia player does not know for certain - maybe the Austria player decides not to more there despite having promised to.

Thus all combats need to wait till after all MPs in the combined block have moved.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 27

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 4:05:28 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Neverman:

That would be close to how it would have to be done.
The problem here would be who controls what in combat?
Who controls the battles (Chits, casualties, etc) that ALL or some of the combined MPs are involved with?
Would it be that last ally?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 28

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 4:36:25 PM

JanSorensen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
The problem here would be who controls what in combat?
Who controls the battles (Chits, casualties, etc)�that ALL or some of the combined MPs are involved with?
Would it be that last ally?

Lets say that Pru, Aus and Rus have moved together in that order.
Once the movement phase of all 3 is done the game moves to the land combat phase.

First it gives control to Russia - who conducts all combats where only Russia units are present as well as all combats where a Russian leader is the commander of the stack.
Then it gives control to Austria - who does similarly.
Finally it gives control to Prussia - who does similarly plus conducts any remaining battles (anywhere that no leader is
present yet several nations are stacked).

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 29

RE: Priorities for 1.03 - 5/19/2008 5:19:55 PM

NeverMan

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

Jan:

Good point, well then, you could just wait until they are all (only the combined MPs, the un-combined MPs could go as they go now) done (like you said) and then go one by one.

Marshall:

Going off of the point above, the "controller" of the combat is then the MP who has 1) Leader present 2) Most Corps there, or if there are two leaders from two different MPs, then the leader with the most corps present. I think this is a better option than just giving the "last" guy control of all the combined battles, and I think it makes more sense. The Land Combat sequence could then follow the "combined" MPs land movement phase.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 5/19/2008 5:21:08 PM >

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 30