RE: Differences to board game

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: Differences to board game

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: Differences to board game

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Differences to board game - 6/9/2009 11:38:12 PM

Dancing Bear

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

I'm actually ok with the loaned corps. it is not the same as the original, but works in its own way (as long as the political points for wins and losses are shared appropriately)

If anything, I think loaned corps give allies an advantage. If they want, they can attack France once with a big stack during the first players turn, then use that same stack again to reinforce a second attack on the same French stack, getting to use the troops twice for each French turn. If France is out numbered, this is very bad for France.

Some improvements can be made. For instance, 1) I would propose that an army that was loaned and used by a player earlier in the sequence for an attack not be allowed to reinforce a second attack during another players turns (it can reinforce a defence). 2) Improvements to shared supply are needed (I liked Jimmer's ideas in the other thread).

France moving between allies is not a big advantage for France.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 61

RE: Differences to board game - 6/9/2009 11:49:06 PM

pzgndr

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

quote:

The idea would be to allow a players turn in the order of major powers to be flexible, month-to-month. Keep the same loaned corps ideas (possibly with depot supply changed as per the other thread), but move the whole phase to a different slot in the order.

One concern about this is the case where two players may both loan corps to each other. For example, Russia loans a corps to an Austrian stack in the south and Austria loans a corps to a Russian stack in the north. Regardless of why this might happen, the game could maybe move phase order as proposed but revert to default order if conflicts like I described occur. It may just be simpler and a point of strategy consideration to leave the move order alone (except for France and Britain) and let players decide how to manage loaned units?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 62

RE: Differences to board game - 6/10/2009 8:42:21 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
France moving between allies is not a big advantage for France.

I disagree. Let's say GB and Austria have a combined (but not loaned) army somewhere. GB moves before Austria in the current game.

Now, if France is going last, GB can move and then Austria, and they both can be in the right place when Nappy comes calling.

But, if France goes between them, GB is paralyzed. She can't move her tiny army out to where the big stack is supposed to be, because Nappy will crush it.

If the corps are truly loaned, this doesn't apply as much (although, it does to a degree, but more so in setting up a future loaning of corps).

_____________________________

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 Dancing Bear)

Post #: 63

RE: Differences to board game - 6/10/2009 8:43:26 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

The idea would be to allow a players turn in the order of major powers to be flexible, month-to-month. Keep the same loaned corps ideas (possibly with depot supply changed as per the other thread), but move the whole phase to a different slot in the order.

One concern about this is the case where two players may both loan corps to each other. For example, Russia loans a corps to an Austrian stack in the south and Austria loans a corps to a Russian stack in the north. Regardless of why this might happen, the game could maybe move phase order as proposed but revert to default order if conflicts like I described occur. It may just be simpler and a point of strategy consideration to leave the move order alone (except for France and Britain) and let players decide how to manage loaned units?

I suspect it's either flexible or fixed. It will probably be really hard to code in changes that happen mid-turn. Marshall?

_____________________________

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 pzgndr)

Post #: 64

RE: Differences to board game - 6/11/2009 11:33:08 AM

Marshall Ellis

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

I don't think the move order really helps (alone) in the combined movement realm and I say this because combined movement is really not for movement but for COMBAT! Let's face it combined combat is what you really need (i.e. the ability for an Au/Pr combined force to attack Fr). That's where we came with the loaned unit method which does allow for this type of combat.

What if allies delcare combined movement and a player which will move them?

EXAMPLE: Pr, GBr and Au are allies and declare that they all are combining movement and GBr has control of all units? Would Pr and Au be cool with this?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 65

RE: Differences to board game - 6/11/2009 12:14:36 PM

pzgndr

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

quote:

What if allies delcare combined movement and a player which will move them?

Isn't this what the loaned unit feature already does? I don't see a difference. This gets back to what I was mentioning in the other thread about movement/combat on one hand via loaned units to an ally, and on the other hand who provides supply and pays for it. The loaning and control feature has to work smoothly; if you're proposing a smoother way to do that then great.

For supply, does it really matter if supply for your loaned units is determined during your ally's turn or your turn, if players could have that option? B may want to loan to A but retain supply control, so A controls units during its turn and fights a combat, checking its units for supply prior to combat, and then afterwards during B's turn, without being able to control its loaned units yet, B's units are checked for supply after combat. Granted there may not be as many factors to check depending on the combat results, but is this critical? In some cases your own loaned unit supply would be checked before the ally's turn and sometimes after, depending on turn order, if you selected an option to provide your own supply, so this should average out over the long run. Just a thought.

Edit. I reposted the supply discussion to the other thread regarding allied depot supply. Don't need to sidetrack this thread. I think Marshall's point here was to question how units are loaned or otherwise controlled by an ally to achieve essentially the same effect as combined movement, and anything to make this smooth and and glitch-free would be great.

< Message edited by pzgndr -- 6/11/2009 12:45:13 PM >

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 66

RE: Differences to board game - 6/11/2009 5:34:10 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I don't think the move order really helps (alone)�in the combined movement realm and I say this because combined movement is really not for movement but for COMBAT!

Actually, I disagree with this. While combat is important, movement order is far more critical. For one thing, movement order in the board game was generally combined (once alliances were determined) even during peacetime. Now, in the current game, peacetime move order changes only really matter the month or two before war starts. But, it's still pretty important.

The biggest example of this is when Russia joins with France against other powers. Russia and France together, with combined movement, can pull off a "last-then-first" maneuver, frequently with devastating effect. But, other powers need it, too.

Combat is directly influenced by combined movement maybe 1 turn in 3 or so. Strategic setups are affected every turn, and sometimes several times in a single month.

I understand that true combined movement is out of the picture, but it shouldn't be because combat movement is more important.

_____________________________

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 Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 67

RE: Differences to board game - 6/12/2009 12:26:54 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

BTW:

StCyr:

Took your post out because it looked to be blank???

Jimmer:

I guess you really cannot have one without the other.

Combined combat and movement would be the goal.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 68

RE: Differences to board game - 6/12/2009 5:20:50 PM

bresh

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

BTW:

StCyr:

Took your post out because it looked to be blank???

Jimmer:

I guess you really cannot have one without the other.

Combined combat and movement would be the goal.

I do think, the repartiation algorith needs a lookthrough for both naval(lost battles) and land forces(end of war),
for naval it should always choose a garnissioned port as prime if avaible,
and for land it should choose aprox closest "conq/freestate/homeland" province city or depot, atleast if any are within its movement allowance, kinda messy when game jumps corps half the map, when they stand next to a owned minor/depot in friendly.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 6/14/2009 11:20:11 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 69