Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval movement

 
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 >> Naval movement Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval movement - 8/17/2009 7:49:04 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Naval movement is a big problem in this game. Not specifically the movement, but the fact that it should be interrupted each time one passes an enemy fleet to find out if one got intercepted.

To be secure, the game should notify the other player every time a die is rolled during the phasing player's movement. However, in the early game, that amounts to a huge number of emails.

The "solution" implemented currently is to have the game "roll" the interceptions as the player moves his fleets. But, this is wide open to the "reload the game" security breach, as all of the calculations occur on the phasing player's computer, with no interaction at all with the other game.

Unfortunately, doing it securely means hundreds of extra emails, all for very little actual activity.

Is there a solution to this set of problems?

I was toying with the idea in my head that the phasing player would take all of his/her naval moves in advance. The game would record each space a fleet travels through (using Marshall's AAR-mode arrows, if possible). But, no actual movement would occur at this time. Just the recording of the steps.

Then, a table would be created. Down the left and across the top would be the fleet counters/stacks of counters. Each line would be a conditional movement statement. Each column would match the corresponding line. If the conditions are all met, the fleet would move. If not, it wouldn't.

The lines in the table would be in the order top-to-bottom that the phasing player wants to move the fleet counters. All of the fleet counters or stack lines would have the checkboxes greyed out for fleets/stacks moving later in the movement phase. The remaining boxes, therefore, would be a list of all fleets/stacks that are moving in advance of the current fleet counter.

The fleet/stack would only move if none of the checked fleets/stacks were successfully intercepted.

That's pretty complicated, so I'll use an example. Let's use a typical start of game scenario:

France has 5 groups of fleets in 5 ports. GB is blockading all of them. For simplicity, I'll make the movement order be the same as the fleet number, but that's not required. Let's also, for simplicity only, say that all of the fleet numbers for France match the port number. In other words, the 1st heavy fleet is stacked with the 1st light fleet, and both of them are in port #1. (etc.) I'll refer to each fleet pair as "the N's stack" ("the 1's stack" in the example in the previous sentence).

So, France wants to try to break out of port #1 with his 1st stack. Then, he wants to break out of port #2 with his 2nd stack. Etc. through stack #5 breaking out of port. In that order, too (for simplicity only).

BUT, he wants to make each breakout contingent on all the other ones succeeding. In other words, if any breakout fails, all of the fleets moving after that one abort their movement.

So, line 1 would have all greyed-out boxes. Line 2 would have one box available, the box corresponding to the 1st stack. Line 3 would have two boxes, for the 1st and 2nd stacks. Etc.

Now, recall that movement for all five fleets has already been entered, contingent upon that fleet making it out of port in the first place. In this example, we'll say that all 5 stacks are to go to the Channel, where Nelson awaits. The French player doesn't know whether Nelson has set himself up to intercept only in the Channel or also intercepts one space away.

Now, all of the moves are catalogued and sent out in a "preliminary movement" emailing. This mailing is binding, and serves to let the other players know that some movement is to be performed. Finally, the movement plays itself out:

Let's say fleets 1 breaks out successfully and is not intercepted by Nelson. Fleet 2 breaks out and goes to the channel, but Nelson intercepts. Let's say Nelson wins. At this point, the other three French stacks will abort their movement, having been conditioned upon the first two making it to their destination.

Would this work to solve the security issue I mentioned? Is it too much work?

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 8/17/2009 7:53:25 PM >


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
Post #: 1
RE: Naval movement - 8/17/2009 7:55:26 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

I'll probably be dead by the time I could successfully change to that method :-0




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval movement - 8/17/2009 8:01:20 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I was worried that might be the case. Unfortunately, the only secure alternative is to send an email for every interception attempt and fight a battle for each successful interception attempt. In order. Yuck.

The compromise is the way it is now, but this is inherently insecure: All of the choices and dice are rolled as the movement occurs. It would be almost trivial to keep reloading (on a second system) until you got "acceptable" results, or to abort based upon unsuccessful forays, regardless of any pre-rolling done by the game.

_____________________________

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 #: 3
RE: Naval movement - 8/19/2009 4:09:53 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
I might recall wrong, but is evasion also introduced in 1.06 ?

Personally i think naval battles requires fileexchange, this would also give the looser the option to evac to a port of his choosing rather than random.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval movement - 8/19/2009 7:38:16 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Naval pursuit and evasion rules are implemented in v1.06.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval movement - 8/21/2009 2:57:21 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Threshold-based plot/execute/abort is a possible design.

(1) recording MOVE, SPLIT, JOIN, LOAD operations, all to be plotted in advance; detail:  should SPLIT/JOIN orders be spec'd in percentage, or # ships?

JOIN operations would be linked to specific stacks and would be treated as "no orders" until all covered stacks had either become co-located, or had aborted orders; at that time, stack join commences and possibly MOVES (will not, if next order is a MOVE and it doesn't meet a specified strength threshold).

(2) allowing minimum-strength thresholds on MOVE, SPLIT orders
(threshold checks are inherently conditional -- obvious possibility is allowing parallel plots, one where order is executed if greater-than-or-equal-to threshold, other if less-than)

(3) LOAD is tricky; if one wishes to support execution even if fleet is incapable of carrying all designated troops, addn'l threshold req'd (since at some point, one shouldn't bother)

All fleet moves are plotted in advance.  Fleets follow orders to best of ability, possibly fighting battles, possibly splitting up or merging, until defeated or thresholds fail.  I'm not entirely sure that anything much more complicated in terms of coordination would be justified -- e.g. communication re: at-sea battles between at-sea fleets a non-trivial distance apart might be slow, tricky and rather limited.  This is particularly so in light of the inability of anybody else to respond to fleet movements aside from automatic interception checks.


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Naval movement Page: [1]
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

4.984