Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

June Update (A little early)

 
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 >> June Update (A little early) Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
June Update (A little early) - 5/29/2003 9:00:42 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Just wanted to get a jump on June and fill you in with a little more info...

Well, we listened and we learned. Here is a list of the latest. Again, input is welcome but many of these additions came from you guys and again ... thank you.

COSSACKS have been added and comply with standard EIA rules.

FREIKORPS (Austrian and Prussian) have been added and comply with the standard EIA rules. I added these guys because well after implementing COSSACKS, FREIKORPS were as simple as adding another graphic.

The KINGDOMS of The Ottoman Empire and Poland have been added as well. We will proably add all of the available kingdoms in the standard EIA game but just haven't had the chance to do so yet. Again, once you add one, the rest are easier to implement.

NAVAL INTERCEPTIONS have been implemented in a little different fashion. In order to allow PBEM play to flow, we simply added a PATROL command for fleets. This command will set the fleet in a "SEARCH" mode and will auto check interception
for elidgible enemy fleets. If successful then the battle will commence.

SPANISH GUERILLAS have been implemented and comply with standard EIA rules with the exception of ... If after losing a battle in an unceded home province, Spain already has guerillas in that same province then the factor is added to that guerilla unit. If there are not guerillas in that same province then a guerilla unit is created.

AUSTRIAN INSURRECTION CORPS have been added to the game and we had a bit of a challenge with it but here is how we implemented them: The challenge with the insurrection corps units is that if an enemy invaded Austria (In certain provinces) then the Austrian player could effectively interrupt the invading player's move. This essentially requires two active players which could be a problem in PBEM and in HOTSEAT type games. We simply are allowing an insurrection roll to see if the insurrection corps units are placed blocking the invading player's units. If the roll is successful then the units are placed. If not then the units will be available the next Austrian Reinforcement phase.

TURKISH FEUDALS have been added to the game and act as normal with the exception that the units (In place of the levy step) can be stood down in December then brought back (To full strength of course) in the January Reinforcement phase. Keep in mind that the feudals can still be stood down at any other reinforcement phase and brought back (At the same strength levels) in any later reinforcement phase.

These additions have put me back into a frenzied bug-zapping mode to verify all of the above flows smoothly. Sorry for the long post but wanted to keep you all in the loop as to where we were AND where we are. Anyway, Now MINIMIZING my browser and MAXIMIZING my compiler ... back to work!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post #: 1
- 5/29/2003 11:14:59 AM   
sol_invictus


Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		I must say that I find it astounding and immensely gratifying to see such flexibility and willingness to listen to your gaming public in such a manner. I must admit that while I have the boardgame and have a passing knowledge of the rules; I have never actually played the game; but it seems to me that you are making all the correct decisions and my anticipation for this game is as intense as for any game in the last 5 years. Keep up the great work and I wish you fortune in your endeavor.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 2
- 5/29/2003 2:47:03 PM   
Wynter

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Marshal,

Thanks for the update.
I'm really astonished by the way you listen to us gaming-freaks and incorporate everything we say into the game. Thank you very-very much.

A question on the Austrian Insurrection Corps. Would it be possible to place them in another area than the area the enemy corps is in? In EiA it is a 'common' practice to place the Insurrection Corps behind the enemy advancing through the Insurrection Provinces to disrupt his supply line. Would this be possible in the game?

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
Re: June Update (A little early) - 5/29/2003 6:33:45 PM   
timothy_stone

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline 		NAVAL INTERCEPTIONS have been implemented in a little different fashion. In order to allow PBEM play to flow, we simply added a PATROL command for fleets. This command will set the fleet in a "SEARCH" mode and will auto check interception
for elidgible enemy fleets. If successful then the battle will commence.

[/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=blue]You may want to consider giving the player a bit of flexibility here - sometimes a player will want to intercept only specific fleets - for examples, "tick this box to only intercept fleets with corps" or "tick here to only intercept at 1-1 odds or better" - otherwise you will make the game very difficult for the british player - perhaps a similar (but less crucial) thing could be done w. the Au ins corps[/COLOR]

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
- 5/29/2003 8:56:07 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Very impressed with your thoughtfulness and your appreciation for the views of gamers posting here Marshall! I like how you handled the Interception and Insurrection Corps issues (and you may want to consider Mr. Stone's added options which make some good sense if they are easy enough to code in).

Shaping up nicely, indeed. :)

How 'bout some new screenshots of the artwork? :cool: :D

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 5
Interesting Ideas - 5/29/2003 9:11:27 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Thank you for the feedback.

The insurrections and naval interceptions are the two main tweaks from the standard board game and NOT the units but how they are placed / used.

We may tweak the patrol mission a bit to fine tune what they are patrolling for. We may let playtesting give us the verdict for that.

Insurrection placement? We may tweak this as well to more fine tune it to allow for supply cut off. Again, we'll probably let playtesting give us the answer (or at least more clues).

Sorry for the "tweaks" but in this client-server engine we're developing, it would be quite difficult to interrupt someone in the middle of their move and insurrections and naval interceptions do just that. This requires that all players be able to chime in at the same time and in PBEM (That ain't happening). We're open to suggestions so any ideas then keep them coming.

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
Re: Interesting Ideas - 5/29/2003 9:29:33 PM   
timothy_stone

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey Guys:

We may tweak the patrol mission a bit to fine tune what they are patrolling for. We may let playtesting give us the verdict for that.

Sorry for the "tweaks" but in this client-server engine we're developing, it would be quite difficult to interrupt someone in the middle of their move and insurrections and naval interceptions do just that. This requires that all players be able to chime in at the same time and in PBEM (That ain't happening). We're open to suggestions so any ideas then keep them coming.

Thank you [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]Having played by email for the last 10 years or so, i understand the fact that the interception and insurrection rules slow life down immensely (had a lot of several-day sessions saying 'do you intercept now? how about now?' I do not envy your task - because I guarantee you that as a FR player I could get an army into great britain in the first 3 months if i won control of denmark, sweden, or portugal (barring ridiculously bad rolls). And if the settings only allowed GB to say 'intercept' or 'no intercept' i could force GB to lose 4 pps worth of blockade battles before i landed my army in london. This is going to be a **very** difficult thing for you to program. Sadly, i am not a beta-tester, but if you want me to explain the difficulties of this to some of your beta-testers i will be glad to. Thinking about it in detail, you might have to let one player post his entire naval phase, then have the defender choose points of interception - sort of like AH's old Squad leader 'tracking'[/COLOR]

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
- 5/29/2003 9:31:57 PM   
Wynter

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Marshall,

You are right that in a PBEM environment the players have to trust the server to make 'the right decision' on interception or placement of Insurrection corps.
Adding additional options for interception ('intercept', 'don't intercept', 'intercept only when opponent is of equal or less strength', 'intercept only if transporting corps' - default option is 'intercept') should do the trick.
I'm unsure on how you could let the server handle the insurrection corps placement. Maybe the options 'attack invading corps', 'block supply line', 'add to existing friendly stack' with default option 'attack' would be sufficient?

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
Entirely too exciting - 5/29/2003 9:33:47 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		I have been reading these posts for a couple of months now, but just now registered on this site. I could not be any more excited about the unveiling of this EiA computer game and am very thankful that some company had the guts to take this project on. I am sure the programming is not easy and the audience is even worse, as they are mostly avid gamers. Thank you Matrix Games. I was also very pleased to read this post becuase I was afraid that from reading some of the earlier posts these options would be left out. Have you decided to program in bidding? I think this is an important aspect of the game (unless the user is playing against only comps, but even then still) and doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to program in. Without bidding, how will the players/countries be decided? Random? That kinda takes the point of strategy out of the game. Anyways, thanks a lot for producing this game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 9
Thanks Marshal! - 5/29/2003 9:49:22 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		The updates are what keep hope alive. :) The longer they are, the better because there is more information for us.

One question though. Screenshots Are there any newer screenshots showing the units for us to drool over? Thanks again.
Rick

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
- 5/29/2003 9:50:20 PM   
Wynter

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Marshall,

I have another question on the guerilla placement.
The guerilla step is at the end of the land movement phase. When will the player decide where to place them? Or will this also be decided by the server?
In case the server decides where to place the guerillas, this should be handled by the server in the same way as the Insurrection corps placement.

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
- 5/29/2003 10:14:07 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Since I joined this forum, I'm very excited every end of month, because I know the new Update from Marshall is comming, to reasure me that EiA on PC is a reality now. :)

Regarding Insurection Corps, you have to know that if the Turk is invading, you as Austrian will probably wait until he starts to move his last Corps in a stack, and then place both your insurections on top of him forcing a combat which will probably guarantee you an easy PP. I understand your troubles with implementing this in the PBEM game, but it is a very exciting part of the game, and I hope there will be Head to Head type of game where this would be easier to implement. Same goes for naval interception.

Thank you for listening, and keep up the good work.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 12
Re: Re: Interesting Ideas - 5/29/2003 10:45:25 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
[B][COLOR=blue]Having played by email for the last 10 years or so, i understand the fact that the interception and insurrection rules slow life down immensely (had a lot of several-day sessions saying 'do you intercept now? how about now?' I do not envy your task - because I guarantee you that as a FR player I could get an army into great britain in the first 3 months if i won control of denmark, sweden, or portugal (barring ridiculously bad rolls). And if the settings only allowed GB to say 'intercept' or 'no intercept' i could force GB to lose 4 pps worth of blockade battles before i landed my army in london. This is going to be a **very** difficult thing for you to program. Sadly, i am not a beta-tester, but if you want me to explain the difficulties of this to some of your beta-testers i will be glad to. Thinking about it in detail, you might have to let one player post his entire naval phase, then have the defender choose points of interception - sort of like AH's old Squad leader 'tracking'[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Since Naval Interception is GBs "bread and butter", there needs to be a way to assign criteria/guidance to a patrolling fleet with regards to interception. Even if it as simple as Passive (only if outnumbering the enemy), moderate (even odds or better), or aggressive (if it floats, sink it).

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
Outstanding!!! - 5/30/2003 12:32:18 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		I'm a long-time lurker on this forum. Very excited about this game. Don't know much about the era, but am reading up on it. Very much enjoyed another company's Nappy era tactical games, but haven't seen one worth buying on the strategic side. Also have never played EiA. But, after a few battles w/the AI, I'll throw my hat in the ring. Best wishes on finishing soon Marshall.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 14
- 5/30/2003 12:47:07 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		I echo everyone's comments about how flexible this process has been.

Re: Insurrection Corps -- given the incredible range of possibilities when an enemy enters a certain area, it seems impractical to have insurrection corps act exactly as in classic EiA.

One result is what Matrix has done -- you land somewhere and the corps might pop up (depending on the die roll) -- though I would suggest that the Austrian player should be allowed to toggle "Insurrection On" or "Insurrection Off" so that the corps pop up automatically.

You can set it up so that the corps pops up (and you should also be able to toggle "Both Corps" or "One Corps") once the enemy hits any prescribed area.

The effect of toggling insurrection corps back "On" when an existing condition is in effect (enemy corps in area) could be that insurrection corps are available in the immediately following reinforcement phase (this would address the issue of being able to toggle off and on at will).

As an alternative to automatic pop up, you can have the corps available to Austria in the ensuing reinforcement phase.

As a bone to the Austrian player who screams that Austria stinks as it is and should not lose more...

You can remove the land-based restriction and code it so that the corps stay on the field as long as Austria remains at war (meaning, once the condition for raising the corps is met, the corps can move freely, perhaps just within Austria, and will not stand down involuntarily until Austria is at peace with all powers).

I know -- wholesale rebellion! Changes changes! :)

It seems to make sense to me, though, so I thought I would burden all of you with my idea.

Cheers!

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 15
Huh? - 5/30/2003 2:14:37 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		A couple of questions here.

Wasn't Austria the only nation to raise these troops? (ie. Hungarian and Croatian Insurrectio?)

Weren't they mostly spread out here and there to "guard" the frontiers instead of operating as a cohesive unit like a Corps?? Having them form a Corps is a joke. I'd be willing to have them add to existing Corps, but form their own??????

Lastly, weren't they a lower quality of troops than Landwehr? Didn't they run away when charged at Aspern-Essling and elsewhere?

They were reluctantly raised, poorly equipped, poorly led, and prone to mutiny.

Is there even one isntance of them doing anything noteworthy during the Napoleonic Era? Aren't they more trouble than they're worth? Their military value is less than minimal at best.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 16
- 5/30/2003 2:23:58 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		The problem, however, is that they are a part of the game.

I am doubting they would be changed so much.

However, that does lend credence to the notion that reducing their efficacy a little would at least be inoffensive to the historical perspective (which perspective would mandate greater change still, per Le Tondu).

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 17
- 5/30/2003 2:42:56 AM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		If insurection corps just "pops-up" when enemy forces enter, I will never turn this ON, since it is just 30 inf 6 cav with average morale and I will just end up loosing the ensuing battle. I will just wait for the next reinforcement phase and place them then.

If you take the insurection specialty (timed placement during enemy turn) away from Austria, maybe it would be good to make the insurection able to move around the whole country, as a means to compensate the loss of tactical advantage.

2c

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
Re: Huh? - 5/30/2003 3:01:54 AM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]A couple of questions here.

Wasn't Austria the only nation to raise these troops? (ie. Hungarian and Croatian Insurrectio?)

Weren't they mostly spread out here and there to "guard" the frontiers instead of operating as a cohesive unit like a Corps?? Having them form a Corps is a joke. I'd be willing to have them add to existing Corps, but form their own??????

Lastly, weren't they a lower quality of troops than Landwehr? Didn't they run away when charged at Aspern-Essling and elsewhere?

They were reluctantly raised, poorly equipped, poorly led, and prone to mutiny.

Is there even one isntance of them doing anything noteworthy during the Napoleonic Era? Aren't they more trouble than they're worth? Their military value is less than minimal at best. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actual troops that EiA calls "Insurrection Corps" were ment to protect the Empire against the possible Ottoman invasion. They were first formed during 1553. Recruits were raised from refugees running away from Ottoman occupied territories (Serbia, Wallachia, etc.). They were given freedom and houses along the border, and they were given weapons and small amounts of money as a reward for the service. They formed independent Regiments, sometimes Divisions when called under the emperors flag during major battles (Aspern), but there wasn't actual Corps level unit.

In the game they are presented as a Corps just to give them the abbility to "pop-up" along the border, simulating their primary service, and that was to stop the Ottoman invasion.

We shouldn't change this idea, it will have impact on the game ballance.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 19
Release date? - 5/30/2003 4:26:43 AM   
Yorlum

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2003
Status: offline 		Do you have anything more specific than "Summer 2003" yet?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
Insurrections a must! - 5/30/2003 6:03:01 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

I'm not real familiar with the historical details of the insurrection guys but as far as EIA, I feel that they are necessary because that makes Turkey think twice about invading. Without the insurrection corps, Austria is quite vulnerable. I know they have other corps units BUT we all know they end up being setup in Venice or close to Bavaria to defend against the little Corsican.

I think their absence could tilt the game (Even further) against Austria.

BTW: Learned this from you guys and a little research!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 21
No, On more detailed release dates! - 5/30/2003 6:17:45 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

I wish I could say tommorrow ... but I can't ... my wife wishes I could say today ... but I can't :-)

The fact that we're playtesting is a good thing. It will helps us give a more detailed timeline for release BUT it could delay things further since it can also expose major design issues (Which are better found by the playtesters). These guys are what Matrix has picked to be hardcore EIA guys (A crowd that could surely scare a grizzly bear until they're happy:-)) I've got my work cut out for me and only hope to survive it! The benefit to this is that you will have a finely tuned and tested EIA game (maybe at the expense of a little time)!

Sorry for the rambling but to summarize:

No, We have no more detailed release info other than Summer 2003.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 22
What do you think of this??? - 5/30/2003 6:37:20 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions???

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 23
Re: What do you think of this??? - 5/30/2003 7:17:35 AM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions??? [/B][/QUOTE]

Marshall,

However you end up coding this, there should be some serious Fog of War involved to reflect the great imprecisions involved indentifying ship types. Ships of the Napoleonic era routintely misidentified ships, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

As an example, a French commerce raider that was operating in the Indian Ocean missed a golden oportunity to attack a convoy of English merchantman, because the French captian believed them to be warships, and the French warship actually fled from the English merchant ships! Later this same captain made the opposite blunder, attacking a large goup of english warships, believing them to be defenseless merchant ships. The badly outgunned French ship was promptly sunk.

So obviously FOW should loom large in interception attempts. Ships should sometimes mistakenly engage larger forces and mistakenly avoid less powerful ships.

Jason

BTW, will privateers be coded like in EIH?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 24
- 5/30/2003 7:22:32 AM   
sol_invictus


Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		As I haven't played the game I can't comment on any possible rules for interception. I will plead with you however, to take all the time you need to iron out any wrinkles. We have waited this long and are so close, that it would be a crime to be in any rush to get this masterpiece out the door early. Use as much time as you are given and thrill us all.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 25
Re: Insurrections a must! - 5/30/2003 8:53:45 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

I'm not real familiar with the historical details of the insurrection guys but as far as EIA, I feel that they are necessary because that makes Turkey think twice about invading. Without the insurrection corps, Austria is quite vulnerable. I know they have other corps units BUT we all know they end up being setup in Venice or close to Bavaria to defend against the little Corsican.

I think their absence could tilt the game (Even further) against Austria.

BTW: Learned this from you guys and a little research!

Thank you [/B][/QUOTE]

The whole point of the Ins Corp, is to force an unexpected battle
NOT on the terms of the moving player.
Typical play would have you simply watch the enemy move
and when a Corp you DIDNT want to see at the MAIN battle site
moved into the area you pop up the INS corp.
Now regardless of who wins...That corps wont show up this turn
wherever you wanted it.
If that Corp happened to be say....the French Arty Corp...that
really hurt the French. See?

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 26
- 5/30/2003 8:55:13 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		As to how the game plays....who knows?
We must download it...and play it.

Sounds great so far.

I hope Mogami is in playtest =)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 27
- 5/30/2003 10:49:19 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]The problem, however, is that they are a part of the game.

I am doubting they would be changed so much.

However, that does lend credence to the notion that reducing their efficacy a little would at least be inoffensive to the historical perspective (which perspective would mandate greater change still, per Le Tondu).

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

I never thought that they shouldn't be part of the game. They existed historically and they should not be left out, IMO.

I do believe however that they should be accurately and historically represented. If by themselves they end up being as strong as the French or any Corps containing regulars for that matter, it would be a mistake.

That is all that I am saying.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 28
- 5/30/2003 12:08:02 PM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		Marshall said:

TURKISH FEUDALS have been added to the game and act as normal with the exception that the units (In place of the levy step) can be stood down in December then brought back (To full strength of course) in the January Reinforcement phase. Keep in mind that the feudals can still be stood down at any other reinforcement phase and brought back (At the same strength levels) in any later reinforcement phase.


This concerns me a bit. It is a considerable change from the normal Turkish Feudal corps rules. With the exception of the Dec levy step FC are placed and removed during the land phase. Moving their placement and removal to the reinforcement phase casues some problems. Will a FC placed during a turn's reinfrocement phase be able to move during that turn's land phase? Under the normal rules FC placed during the land phase can't move that turn.

This also prevents France and Russia (who can move before Turkey in the land phase) from being able to move in and prevent the placement of FC. This change in the rules will force other changes in games play that purests like me don't want to see. I think a serious mistake has been made with regards to FC placement.

I don't wish to be so negative. In general I am excited about the game and want it to succed. That is why I am voicing my concerns over this is.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 29
Re: What do you think of this??? - 5/30/2003 2:13:48 PM   
timothy_stone

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions??? [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]The crux here is trying to make it so that GB has a chance to stay alive - especially in the first 6 months when any FR invasion is a disaster due to the lack of a GB army and no leaders.

there are times when GB would want to intercept fleets with corps even if outgunned - would it be possible to tick 'intercept weaker force *and* intercept if transports present so that GB could cover both bases?

For the *crucial* turns (an invasion attempt on GB), it might be best to be able to turn the auto-react AI off and let the players
go piece by piece in some way --- although i suppose players could agree to simply play the turn out via text instead if absolutely necessary.

But right now, from the looks of things, the naval situation will be *much* more dicey for GB, which seriously tilts the game towards france. As far as i can tell, right now it might be bad enough to break the game, because it looks like GB is going to get forced into a UC surrender 50% of the time in 1805.

although there are ways around this (e.g. russia can try to save GB), it will seriously change the flavor of the game.
[/COLOR]

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> June Update (A little early) Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

1.703