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: Improving PBEM, again

 
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: Improving PBEM, again Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/25/2008 8:46:45 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		I'll go one step further than Gwheelock: ALL battles that have corps on both sides should always be fought with chits.

To refresh your memory, there was a HUGE thread that discussed this a while back. That was the one where people got all bent out of shape over the issue of trivial combats when a 5-to-1 ratio of strengths exists. I mention that only to remind you of the discussion; it's not directly related to this question (but, I can't find the thread now).

The end result of that discussion was that ALL battles that were not trivial combats MUST be fought by the players, unless the defender specified a chit pull in the stack's standing orders.

Trivial combats are excepted because you can't reinforce into a trivial combat. (On the flip side, though, a force that took part in a trivial combat should still be available to reinforce other combats.)

_____________________________

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 gwheelock)
Post #: 31
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 3:35:30 AM   
bOrIuM

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 2/13/2006
Status: offline 		Or what if its a guard corp, you may want to commit the guards ?

And I particulary agree with the reinforcement for that corp.

And I add, even if Trivial combats downt need the action of a player, its currently impossible for a player whos besiged to know what is the force of his opponent.


< Message edited by bOrIuM -- 9/26/2008 5:10:58 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 32
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 12:14:44 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bOrIuM)
Post #: 33
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 1:13:19 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline 		Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution.

And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available....

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 34
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 1:51:04 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!





I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 35
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 9:23:02 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!





I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure:

I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power.

So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now.

But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull.

See also the response I'm about to write to Eske.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 36
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 9:25:01 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: eske

Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution.

And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available....

/eske

This is possible now, IF one remembers to do it. But, the problem I have is that options change depending on the situation. Before Nappy got defeated in some battle, I might be more interested in a risky choice. But, after I've lost the 5 PP for losing with Nappy, I'm going to be much more interested in "safe" options. This can and does change in the middle of phases (even in the middle of a single player's phase).

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 9/26/2008 9:26:00 PM >

_____________________________

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 eske)
Post #: 37
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 9:26:51 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		By the way, making it optional (especially if you make it optional player-specific) would be a good compromise. The default could be left as is, and then players can bark at each other for not using the default. :)

_____________________________

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 #: 38
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/26/2008 10:13:06 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!





I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure:

I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power.

So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now.

But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull.

See also the response I'm about to write to Eske.


yes, this is exactly what I meant. :)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 39
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/28/2008 12:35:33 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
yes, this is exactly what I meant. :)

Thanks. I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 40
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/28/2008 1:49:27 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		whatever happened to the idea of doing some phases.... eco, reinf.. dip.... at the same time to reduce the number of total iles and thus delays?


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 41
RE: Improving PBEM, again - 9/28/2008 2:14:47 AM   
NeverMan

 

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

ORIGINAL: borner

whatever happened to the idea of doing some phases.... eco, reinf.. dip.... at the same time to reduce the number of total iles and thus delays?




I think this is still on the table (probably not reinf though) but Matrix is doing AI before PBEM improvement.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Improving PBEM, again 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

0.719